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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laird et al. (US 2005/0025917).
Claim 1: Laird teaches a coated article that can be used in insulating glass units (paragraph 0004), with a low-E coating (i.e. a low-emissivity film) used for window units, vehicle windows, skylights, glass doors, etc. (i.e. for buildings and vehicles) (paragraph 0036). The coated article includes a substrate such as a clear glass substrate (i.e. a transparent substrate layer) and the coating provided on the substrate (paragraph 0037). The low-E coating includes first and second conductive metallic infrared (IR) reflecting layers (i.e. infrared cut-off layers) (paragraph 0037), which may be made of or include silver, etc. (paragraph 0039) having preferred thickness range of 50-250 Å (Table 1, thicknesses of Layers 9 and 19). The coating layers were sputtered onto the glass substrate (paragraph 0054). The IG unit (i.e. the low-emissivity film) exhibited a U-value (i.e. thermal transmittance) of 0.20-0.30 (Table 4) in BTU/hr/ft2/degrees F (paragraph 0071), which is equivalent to about 1.1-1.7 W/m2K. This range lies inside the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 3: Laird teaches that the coating system includes a first electric antireflection layer, a second dielectric layer, a third dielectric layer, etc. making up the low-E coating provided on the substrate (i.e. formed on the transparent substrate layer) (paragraph 0037), and that ultraviolet transmission can be reduced much further by adjusting dielectric thickness(es) (paragraph 0052), which is considered to teach the dielectric layers as being ultraviolet cut-off layers.
Claim 4: Laird teaches preferred ranges for each of the sublayers of the coating and the solar characteristics for when the substrate is 2.0-3.2 mm thick (paragraph 0050). The minimum thickness is about 2.16 mm (i.e. calculated from the sum of the minimum values of the preferred ranges in Table 1 plus the substrate being 2.0 mm since the low-emissivity film in claim 1 includes a transparent substrate layer), which is equivalent to about 85 mil. This thickness lies within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 5-6: Laird teaches that the IG unit (i.e. the low-emissivity film) exhibited a U-value (i.e. thermal transmittance) of 0.20-0.30 (Table 4) in BTU/hr/ft2/degrees F (paragraph 0071), which is equivalent to about 1.1-1.7 W/m2K. This range lies inside the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 7: Laird teaches that the IG unit more preferably has a SHGC of no greater than about 0.40 (paragraph 0036), which is equivalent to a total solar energy cut-off rate of about 0.60 (i.e. 60%) or more. This range lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 213103.
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, 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 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laird et al. (US 2005/0025917) in view of Barres (US 2024/0101469).
Claim 2: The teachings of Laird regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Laird teaches that the low-E coating includes first and second conductive metallic infrared (IR) reflecting layers (i.e. infrared cut-off layers) (paragraph 0037), which may be made of or include silver, etc. (paragraph 0039) having preferred thickness range of 50-250 Å (Table 1, thicknesses of Layers 9 and 19). This range does not specifically overlap the instantly claimed range.
In a related field of endeavor, Barres teaches a transparent substrate coated with a stack of thin layers including a silver-based functional layer (paragraph 0001). The silver-based functional layer is useful by reflecting infrared, thermal, or solar radiation and imparts the material with low-emissivity or solar control functions (paragraph 0005). Barres teaches that increasing the thickness of the silver layers makes it possible to lower the emissivity and therefore achieve a lower thermal transmittance, but this occurs at the expense of light transmission (paragraph 0029).
As Laird and Barres both teach silver-based functional layers as infrared reflecting layers, they are analogous. It would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the silver layers (i.e. the metal infrared cut-off layer) to be thicker in order to lower the emissivity (with the trade off being light transmission), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8: Laird teaches that the IG unit more preferably has a SHGC of no greater than about 0.40 (paragraph 0036), which is equivalent to a total solar energy cut-off rate of about 0.60 (i.e. 60%) or more. This range overlaps 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.
Claim 9: Laird teaches a U-value (i.e. thermal transmittance) of 0.20-0.30 (Table 4) in BTU/hr/ft2/degrees F (paragraph 0071), which is equivalent to about 1.1-1.7 W/m2K. This value is considerably lower than the range recited in instant claims 1, 5, and 6 (as outlined above). Since a low U-value (i.e. thermal transmittance) necessarily results in high heat cut-off rate (i.e. because low transmittance means less heat passing through), the instantly claimed property of heat cut-off rate is considered to be present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cunningham (US 2002/0037414) teaches IR reflecting layers may be Ag, Cr, or Ni.
Hartig (US 2007/0082206) teaches that the IR reflecting layer may have a thickness ≥200 Å (i.e. ≥20 nm).
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