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 16 April 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8 have been amended.
Support for the amendments are found in the instant specification (paragraph numbers from PGPub. No. 2025/0122761 corresponding to the instant application) as outlined by Applicant on p. 4 of remarks filed 16 April 2026. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 17 October 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR-10-2023-0138643 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted that notice was sent to Applicant on 17 March 2025 advising that the attempt to electronically retrieve the foreign application has failed.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laird et al. (US 2005/0025917, previously cited) in view of Barres (US 2024/0101469, previously cited).
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 preferably has a high visible transmission (i.e. this is considered to teach a substrate being transparent) (paragraph 0036) and the coating may be provided on glass or plastic substrate (i.e. a transparent polymer substrate). The low-E coating includes first and second conductive metallic infrared (IR) reflecting layers (i.e. the coating includes an infrared cut-off layer, interpreted as being the stack of layers from the first metallic layer to the second metallic layer, and therefore having two or more metal films laminated on top of each other) (paragraph 0037), which may be made of or include silver, etc. (paragraph 0039) having preferred thickness range of 50-250 Å (i.e. about 5-25 nm) (Table 1, thicknesses of Layers 9 and 19). This range of thickness overlaps the instantly claimed thickness 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. Laird also teaches a lower contact layer 17 (shown in Fig. 1 as being interposed between the two silver layers) that is of or includes zinc oxide that is either fully stoichiometric or having a lower oxygen ratio so that the layer is more conductive (i.e. zinc oxide that is stoichiometric or at least near-stoichiometric is a dielectric) (paragraph 0042). 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 overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. However, Laird does not specifically teach the (transparent) plastic substrate specifically to be a polymer resin.
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) that can be used for manufacturing reinforced thermal insulation glazed units (paragraph 0002). 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 suitable transparent substrates can be made of glass or organic polymer-based materials, such as resins (paragraphs 0198-0199 and 0208).
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 modify the coated article of Laird such that the substrate is plastic (i.e. taught generally by Laird) and specifically is a polymer resin (i.e. a specific type of plastic) because Barres teaches this material as a suitable alternative to a glass substrate (i.e. an art-recognized substitution; see MPEP § 2143-I-B), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: The infrared cut-off layer outlined above corresponds to the stack of layers shown by Laird as being from a first metallic layer to a second metallic layer (i.e. layers 9 through 19 as depicted by Laird in Fig. 1). Preferred range of thicknesses for these layers are indicated in Table 1 of Laird and sum to about 80-1800 Å (i.e. about 8-180 nm), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
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 (e.g., the third dielectric layer) as being an ultraviolet cut-off layer.
Claim 4: In Table 1, Laird teaches preferred ranges for each of the sublayers of the coating depicted in Fig. 1. The preferred ranges sum to about 160-3600 Å (i.e. about 16-360 nm). Laird further teaches the solar characteristics for when the substrate is 2.0-3.2 mm thick (paragraph 0050), and Barres teaches the substrate thickness can be between 0.5 mm and 19 mm (paragraph 0212). The sum of the substrate thickness and the minimum thickness of the coating (i.e. the low-emissivity film) is therefore at least 516 µm (i.e. at least 20 mil), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5-6, filed 16 April 2026, with respect to the anticipation rejection by the prior art of Laird, have been fully considered and are persuasive inasmuch that Laird does not teach the amended limitation of the substrate layer being made of a transparent polymer resin. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Laird in view of Barres, as outlined above.
Applicant's arguments, filed 16 April 2026, regarding other features of the prior art, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues, see p. 6-7, that Laird does not teach two or more thin metal films with a dielectric layer of titanium oxide or zinc oxide interposed therebetween. However, these layers are taught by Laird, as outlined above. This same argument is repeated on p. 9 regarding the combination of Laird in view of Barres.
Applicant argues, see p. 6-7, that Laird teaches metal layers that are exclusively silver instead of comprising nickel, chrome, and silver. However, the claim recites comprising “any one or more metals selected from the group consisting of nickel, chrome, and silver”, and therefore is not required to contain all three metals. This same argument is repeated on p. 9 regarding the combination of Laird in view of Barres.
Applicant argues, see p. 8-9, that Laird in view of Barres would not render obvious a transparent polymer resin substrate because in each reference all examples and performance data only use glass substrates. However, the prior art are relevant for all they contain (i.e. is not limited only to examples), and Laird teaches generally the use of a plastic substrate while Barres teaches specifically polymer resin materials for a substrate (i.e. in each reference as an alternative to a glass substrate), and therefore such material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123.
Applicant argues, see p. 10, that the application of the prior art of Laird and Barres constitutes impermissible hindsight. In response to this argument, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP § 2145(X)(A).
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