DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 27 July 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1, 11, and 14-15 have been amended and claims 12-15 are withdrawn.
Support for the amendment is found in paragraphs 0046 and 0090 of the instant specification. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 1 and 11 removing the term “thin” have overcome the indefiniteness previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 05 May 2026. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6-8, filed 27 July 2026, with respect to the prior art of Terneu, have been fully considered and are persuasive in that Terneu teaches a different method of applying the tungsten oxide layer, and Applicant argues that this difference results in a structural difference in the tungsten oxide layer. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gallego et al. (JP 2009-001482) in view of Fleury.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9-12, filed 27 July 2026, with respect to the prior art of Fleury and of Mikayama, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The statutory double patenting rejections have been overcome by the amendments. However, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections are maintained (after adjusting for amendments) and nonstatutory double patenting rejections are presented where only statutory double patenting was previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallego et al. (JP 2009-001482, machine translation attached) in view of Fleury (US 2007/0188871, previously cited).
Claim 1: Gallego teaches a solar control coated glass (para. 0001) having a glass substrate, preferably a transparent float glass, and a coating including a heat absorbing layer and a low emissivity layer (para. 0009) (i.e. a transparent substrate with a coating , understood to be provided on one of its main surfaces as indicated in Figs. 1-2) and may additionally include an iridescence suppression lower layer (para. 0010). The layers are depicted in Fig. 2 as being arranged with the heat absorbing layer between the low emissivity layer and the iridescence suppression layer. The iridescence suppression underlayer or layers thereof are introduced under the coating of the heat absorption layer and the low emissivity layer (para. 0020), and is for example a layer consisting of silicon, carbon, and oxygen (para. 0024) (i.e. a silicon oxycarbide, which is a dielectric material) or an undoped tin oxide first layer and a silica layer (para. 0029). The heat-absorbing layer preferentially absorbs wavelengths above 700 nm, and tungsten oxide is preferred because it exhibits around 900 nm at the characteristic absorption peak (para. 0012) (i.e. an absorbent tungsten oxide layer), wherein doped tungsten oxide containing dopants such as fluorine, alkali metals, etc. is suitable (para. 0013). These wavelengths (i.e. above 700 nm and at around 900 nm) overlap the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. The heat-absorbing layer may be deposited by known techniques such as sputtering, reactive sputtering, or by chemical vapor deposition (para. 0022), and magnetron sputtering is used for specific Example 1 (para. 0025). Being doped with alkali metals (para. 0013) or hydrogen (para. 0025) teaches at least one doping element selected from the chemical elements of group 1 according to IUPAC nomenclature. A low emissivity layer is usually on top of the heat absorbing layer (para. 0019) and is a layer of a metal compound, typically a metal oxide such as doped indium, tin, or zinc oxide (i.e. these are dielectric materials) (para. 0018). An additional layer may be introduced over the coating as an anti-reflective layer (para. 0021). However, Gallego does not teach a specific anti-reflective layer (i.e. the second dielectric module having several layers).
In a related field of endeavor, Fleury teaches a transparent substrate having an antireflection coating (para. 0001) that can provide an antireflection effect and neutral tint in transmission and an attractive appearance in reflection (para. 0014). Fleury teaches the antireflection multilayer includes a first and third layer having an index of refraction between 2.00 and 2.30 and second and fourth layers having an index of refraction between 1.35 and 1.65 (paras. 0034-0036) (i.e. materials having these indexes of refraction are dielectric materials; i.e. the second dielectric module has several layers).
As Gallego and Fleury both teach a multilayer coating on a transparent substrate, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the generally taught anti-reflective layer of Gallego to be an antireflection multilayer (i.e. several layers) as taught by Fleury because the antireflection multilayer of Fleury can provide an antireflection effect and neutral tint in transmission and an attractive appearance in reflection, which addresses the problem of colored glass disclosed by Gallego (para. 0002), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Fleury teaches an antireflection coating (i.e. the second dielectric module as outlined above) as having four layers where the first and third layer have a refractive index between 2.00 and 2.30 (i.e. corresponding to a high index layer) and the second and fourth layers have a refractive index between 1.35 and 1.65 (i.e. corresponding to a low index layer) (paras. 0034-0036) (i.e. at least one succession of two layers with a low-index layer and a high-index layer). The ranges of refractive index for the high index layers and the low index layers overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 3: Fleury teaches an antireflection coating (i.e. the second dielectric module as outlined above) as having four layers where the first and third layer have a refractive index between 2.00 and 2.30 (i.e. corresponding to a high index layer) and the second and fourth layers have a refractive index between 1.35 and 1.65 (i.e. corresponding to a low index layer) (paras. 0034-0036) (i.e. two succession of two layers with, for each succession, a low-index layer and a high-index layer).
Claim 4: Fleury teaches that appropriate materials for the second and fourth layer, those of low index, can be based on silicon oxide (para. 0042) and the first and/or third layer, those of high index, at least one is based on zirconium-doped silicon nitride (i.e. corresponding to the instantly claimed zirconium silicon nitride-zirconium SixNyZrz) (para. 0045), although TiO2 is also known for high-index layers used with low-index layers of SiO2 (para. 0006).
Claims 5-7: Gallego teaches a specific example of tungsten oxide doped with hydrogen to have an absorption peak at a wavelength of 910 nm (para. 0025) and a specific example of tungsten oxide doped with lithium to obtain an absorption peak at a wavelength of 910 nm (para. 0030) (i.e. doped with hydrogen or lithium). Alternatively, the tungsten oxide may be doped with alkali metals (i.e. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or Fr) etc. (para. 0013). Gallego does not specifically teach the molar ratio of dopant to tungsten; however, it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable ratio that would obtain the disclosed absorption peak at a wavelength of 910 nm (paras. 0025 and 0030), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8: Gallego teaches the heat absorption layer (i.e. the layer of absorbent tungsten oxide) is in the range of 50 nm to 500 nm, which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9: Fleury teaches that appropriate materials for the first and/or third layer, those of high index, at least one is based on zirconium-doped silicon nitride (i.e. corresponding to the instantly claimed zirconium silicon nitride-zirconium SixNyZrz) (para. 0045) (i.e. the second dielectric module includes one or more nitride-based layers).
Claim 10: Gallego teaches the solar control coated glass with one substrate (Fig. 2) or with a second plate of transparent float glass (i.e. a double glazing) (Fig. 3).
Claim 11: Gallego does not specifically teach a laminated glass. However, the use of solar-control glass in a laminated glass is known in the art, as evidenced by Fleury (para. 0049), wherein the laminated structure is two glass substrates joined together by one or more sheets of a thermoplastic (i.e. an adhesive lamination interlayer) and can be arranged with a solar-protection coating within the laminate (para. 0049) (i.e. a first transparent substrate and second transparent substrate are in adhesive contact with a lamination interlayer with the coating one the side of the glass in contact with the lamination interlayer).
Claims 16-17: Fleury teaches the antireflection layer as being first and third layers of high index and second and fourth layers of low index (paras. 0041-0042), but does not specify a reason for the high index layers being first. It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the layers such that the low index layers are first and third and the high index layers are second and fourth, as a simple matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). This rearrangement would result in succession each being with the low-index layer of the succession closer to the tungsten oxide layer than the high-index layer of the succession.
Claims 18-19: Gallego teaches a specific example of tungsten oxide doped with hydrogen to have an absorption peak at a wavelength of 910 nm (para. 0025) and a specific example of tungsten oxide doped with lithium to obtain an absorption peak at a wavelength of 910 nm (para. 0030) (i.e. doped with hydrogen or lithium). Alternatively, the tungsten oxide may be doped with alkali metals (i.e. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or Fr; i.e. Cs would be an obvious choice) etc. (para. 0013). Gallego does not specifically teach the molar ratio of dopant (i.e. element; e.g. Cs) to tungsten; however, it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable ratio that would obtain the disclosed absorption peak at a wavelength of 910 nm (paras. 0025 and 0030), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20: Gallego teaches the heat absorption layer (i.e. the layer of absorbent tungsten oxide) is in the range of 50 nm to 500 nm, which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-16, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 11-15, and 18 (and in view of claim 12) of copending Application No. 18/860,318 (reference application), with material properties evidenced by Gallego et al. (JP 2009-001482, machine translation attached). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain the following overlapping subject matter: The instantly claimed limitations are included in the claims of the ‘318 application (i.e. wherein the first dielectric module of instant claim 1 is interpreted to correspond to the ‘318 application reciting the first thin layer based on nitride which is followed by an absorbent layer based on tungsten oxide, and the instantly claimed second dielectric module is interpreted to correspond to the ‘318 application reciting the second thin layer based on nitride, the titanium nitride-based layer, and the second dielectric module). Instantly claimed ranges overlap ranges recited in the ‘318 application. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Instant claim 1 differs insofar as reciting the absorbent tungsten oxide layer is deposited by magnetron sputtering and absorbs infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm. However, the absorbent layer of tungsten oxide of the ‘318 application is deposited by magnetron sputtering in view of claim 12 of the ‘318 application, and a tungsten oxide layer doped with at least one element from group I according to IUPAC nomenclature (i.e. hydrogen and alkali metals) is known to have the property of absorbing infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm because Gallego teaches a heat-absorbing layer that preferentially absorbs wavelengths above 700 nm, where tungsten oxide is preferred because it exhibits around 900 nm at the characteristic absorption peak (para. 0012), wherein doped tungsten oxide containing dopants such as fluorine, alkali metals, etc. is suitable (para. 0013). These wavelengths (i.e. above 700 nm and at around 900 nm) overlap the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-15, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-17 (and in view of claim 10) of copending Application No. 18/729,809 (reference application), with material properties evidenced by Gallego et al. (JP 2009-001482, machine translation attached). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain the following overlapping subject matter: The instantly claimed limitations are included in the claims of the ‘809 application, and instantly claimed ranges overlap ranges recited in the ‘809 application. See MPEP § 2144.05. Instant claim 1 differs insofar as reciting the absorbent tungsten oxide layer is deposited by magnetron sputtering and absorbs infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm. However, the absorbent layer of tungsten oxide of the ‘809 application is deposited by magnetron sputtering in view of claim 10 of the ‘809 application, and a tungsten oxide layer doped with at least one element from group I according to IUPAC nomenclature (i.e. hydrogen and alkali metals) is known to have the property of absorbing infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm because Gallego teaches a heat-absorbing layer that preferentially absorbs wavelengths above 700 nm, where tungsten oxide is preferred because it exhibits around 900 nm at the characteristic absorption peak (para. 0012), wherein doped tungsten oxide containing dopants such as fluorine, alkali metals, etc. is suitable (para. 0013). These wavelengths (i.e. above 700 nm and at around 900 nm) overlap the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-15, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8-9, and 11-17 (and in view of claim 11) of copending Application No. 18/729,797 (reference application), with material properties evidenced by Gallego et al. (JP 2009-001482, machine translation attached). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain the following overlapping subject matter: The instantly claimed limitations are included in the claims of the ‘797 application, and instantly claimed ranges overlap ranges recited in the ‘797 application. See MPEP § 2144.05. Instant claim 1 differs insofar as reciting the absorbent tungsten oxide layer is deposited by magnetron sputtering and absorbs infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm. However, the absorbent layer of tungsten oxide of the ‘797 application is deposited by magnetron sputtering in view of claim 11 of the ‘797 application, and a tungsten oxide layer doped with at least one element from group I according to IUPAC nomenclature (i.e. hydrogen and alkali metals) is known to have the property of absorbing infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm because Gallego teaches a heat-absorbing layer that preferentially absorbs wavelengths above 700 nm, where tungsten oxide is preferred because it exhibits around 900 nm at the characteristic absorption peak (para. 0012), wherein doped tungsten oxide containing dopants such as fluorine, alkali metals, etc. is suitable (para. 0013). These wavelengths (i.e. above 700 nm and at around 900 nm) overlap the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 12-13, and 15-20 (and in view of claim 15) of copending Application No. 18/729,779 (reference application), with material properties evidenced by Gallego et al. (JP 2009-001482, machine translation attached). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain the following overlapping subject matter: The instantly claimed limitations are included in the claims of the ‘779 application, and instantly claimed ranges overlap ranges recited in the ‘779 application. See MPEP § 2144.05. Instant claim 1 differs insofar as reciting the absorbent tungsten oxide layer is deposited by magnetron sputtering and absorbs infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm. However, the absorbent layer of tungsten oxide of the ‘779 application is deposited by magnetron sputtering in view of claim 15 of the ‘779 application, and a tungsten oxide layer doped with at least one element from group I according to IUPAC nomenclature (i.e. hydrogen and alkali metals) is known to have the property of absorbing infrared radiation having a wavelength greater than 780 nm because Gallego teaches a heat-absorbing layer that preferentially absorbs wavelengths above 700 nm, where tungsten oxide is preferred because it exhibits around 900 nm at the characteristic absorption peak (para. 0012), wherein doped tungsten oxide containing dopants such as fluorine, alkali metals, etc. is suitable (para. 0013). These wavelengths (i.e. above 700 nm and at around 900 nm) overlap the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Copending Application Nos. 18/860,342 and 18/721,530 recite many substantially identical features as in the instant application, but include a metallic functional layer (which are excluded by the instantly claimed transparent substrate because the stack consists of the recited layers (i.e. excludes other layers within the stack). These application are continued to be monitored during prosecution of the instant application to continue checking for possible double patenting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights