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) in view of U.S. 6,420,002 B1 (“Aggas”).
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).
Re: the limitation that the second glass plate is larger than the first glass plate, it is noted that “larger” does not necessarily imply a greater surface area for a main surface of the plates, and a thicker glass plate is also a larger glass plate (in terms of thickness and volume). Andersen discloses that one of its two glass panes can have a reduced thickness, thereby reducing cost. (Andersen ¶ 0212). Thus, selecting one of the glass panes to be thicker is obvious in view of this express teaching from Andersen.
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 and further in view of U.S. 6,420,002 B1 (“Aggas”).
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.
Though the limitation of a second glass plate is larger than the first glass plate does not necessarily imply a greater surface area for a main surface of the second glass plate, solely for compact prosecution, this point is addressed. It is noted that in the art of VIGs having two glass panes, the two panes may have the same main surface areas or alternatively be different. (Aggas col. 4 line 23-32). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the configuration in which one glass plate has a main surface area larger than that of the other glass plate, as Aggas is considered to have demonstrated that such a configuration is known in the art of VIGs. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07. Alternatively, Aggas is considered to have demonstrated that a VIG in which glass plates have respective main surface of equal areas is a well-known alternative to a VIG in which one glass plate has a larger main surface, thereby making substitution of one configuration for the other obvious. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that different configurations are functional equivalents, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.06.
Vogel-Martin and Aggas 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.
In view of amendment to claim 1, the previously instated prior art rejections (one over Andersen and the other over at least Vogel-Martin) have been withdrawn, and new rejections have been instated above.
Response to Arguments
As noted in ¶ 6 above, Applicant’s interpretation of larger is unduly narrow, and Andersen per se still reads on claims 1-6 on account of a thicker plate.
Furthermore, Vogel-Martin as modified by Aggas read on even the unduly narrow interpretation of “larger”.
Concluding Remarks
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 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
Prosecution Insights