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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0065029 A1 (“Andersen”, of record and cited during prosecution of parent application 17/602,481).
Considering claims 1-4, Andersen discloses a vacuum insulated glass having two glass panes and a vacuum gap located between the glass panes, wherein the vacuum gap is sealed from the exterior via a side seal bonded to the glass panes. (Andersen ¶¶ 0211-0224; and Figs. 1A and 1B). Andersen is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (VIGs). Andersen further discloses that a plurality of spacers is located within the vacuum gap, wherein the pillars directly contact the glass panes and are arranged in an orderly fashion, and wherein the pillars have heights of 0.15 to 0.3 mm and width of 0.3 to 0.7 mm, and wherein adjacent spacers are spaced at a pitch “S” of 30 to 60 mm. (Id. ¶¶ 0217-0217 and Figs 1A and 1B).
Andersen further discloses that the pressure between the glass panes is at 0.001 mbar or lower. (Id. ¶ 0194). With 2.67 Pa being 0.267 mbar, it is clear that the residual pressure between the panes satisfy the requirements set forth in claims 1 and 4. Andersen discloses that each glass pane of the VIG has a thickness of 2.5 – 4.5 mm. (Id. ¶¶ 0200-0201). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05).
Andersen thus renders obvious claims 1-4.
Considering claim 5, at width of 0.3 mm, a corresponding area is 0.071 mm2, which is within the claimed range.
Considering claim 6, the discussion above shows these limitations to be obvious.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0066469 A1 (“Vogel-Martin”, of record and cited during prosecution of parent application 17/602,481) as evidenced by or in view of Andersen.
Considering claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, Vogel-Martin discloses a vacuum insulated glass having two glass panes and a vacuum gap located between the glass panes, wherein the vacuum gap is sealed from the exterior via an edge seal bonded to the glass panes. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0181 and Figs. 12A and12B). Vogel-Martin is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (VIGs). Vogel-Martin further discloses that a plurality of pillars (used as spacers) is located within the vacuum gap, wherein the pillars directly contact the glass panes and are arranged in an orderly fashion, and wherein the pillars have heights of 0.01 to 2 mm and maximum width of 0.01 to 2 mm. (Id. ¶¶ 0057-0071 and Figs. 2A-6B). In certain embodiments, the pillars have diameter of 0.5 mm (cross-sectional area of 0.196 mm2) and height of 0.2 mm. (Id. Table 1). As such, it is readily apparent that the broader disclosures re: dimensions of the pillars overlap the claimed dimensions recited in claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, and that the dimensions of the specific example read on the claimed dimensions with sufficient specificity.
As pitch is equal to diameter + spacing, and as Vogel-Martin discloses 0.01 to 2 mm for the former and 20 mm for the latter in a particular case (that of Table 1) where pillar diameter is 0.5 mm, it is clear that pitch in excess of 20 mm is disclosed with sufficient specificity or alternatively obvious. As an alternative, to the foregoing, Vogel-Martin discloses that arrangements of parts of the VIG other than the pillars per se is according to conventional techniques. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0181). Thus, the claimed pitch is at least obvious.
As “vacuum” is literally in the name of the product (albeit with vacuum meaning pressure orders of magnitude less than atmospheric pressure), interior pressure of 50.7 Kpa (essentially half of atmospheric pressure at sea level) or less is also a well-known feature of VIGs. (See e.g. Andersen as discussed in ¶¶ 4 and 5 above).
Although respective thicknesses of the pane of glass of the VIG are not expressly disclosed, it is noted that the claimed thickness of 5 mm or less are common thicknesses for VIGs. For instance, Andersen teaches a double-paned VIG wherein each glass sheet has thickness of 2.5 – 4.5 mm. (See e.g. Andersen as discussed in ¶ 5 above). Furthermore, Vogel-Martin at least hints at usage of glass panes having respective thickness of 3 mm in the context of simulated thermal performance of a VIG that includes the claimed pillars. (Vogel-Martin Table 1). As such, the claimed thickness is so well-known as to be either sufficiently well-known or obvious.
Vogel-Martin per se or as further in view of Andersen renders obvious claims 1, 3, 5, and 6.
Considering claim 2, direct contact is shown in Fig.2 of Vogel-Martin.
Considering claim 4, this range is at least obvious in view of ¶ 0194 of Andersen.
Considering claim 7, Vogel-Martin further discloses that compressive strength of the pillars is 400 MPa to 12 GPa. (Vogel-Martin ¶ 0129). This range thus overlaps the recited range.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781