DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending as submitted on 08/19/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 & 16 are rejected because the preambles to the claims state “A vacuum glazing”, which appears to describe a finished, evacuated product (i.e. with melted, sealed frit, which may not be substantially distinct, structurally, from other vacuum glazings), whereas the body of the claim language describes glass including a particular design of an unmelted frit assembly – these claims should be directed to “plate glass assembly” as used in the specification. Further, claims 2-15 & 17-20 recite “The apparatus” of claim 1/16, which has no antecedent basis in the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 16-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bin et al., KR 10-1733835 (machine translation attached).
With regard to claims 1-3, 5, 7 & 16, Bin teaches an assembly of two plate glasses with an edge seal and interior space to be evacuated via a sealing hole, with an exhaust frit (151) & a wider cap frit (152) atop a top surface of said exhaust frit, which are configured to exhaust the insulated glass panels via a central recess in the exhaust frit which connects to plural openings (153) in its circumferential surface, such that the top surface of the exhaust frit shields the recess, allowing evacuation of the assembly in a lateral, radial direction until final deformation of the glass exhaust frit material (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]).
With regard to claims 6 (and 17-18 & 20), the cap & body “may be integrated” to define one piece (e.g. [Pgs. 3-4]), wherein there are circumferential surfaces between the top/bottom of the frit and the lateral exhaust guide part.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 16-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park, KR 10-2018-0005462 (citations to English equivalent, US 2019/0203523).
Park teaches a variety of assemblies for evacuating insulated glass panels through an evacuation hole therein & sealing said hole, which may comprise an exhaust frit (40) & a wider cap frit (30) integrated atop said exhaust frit, which are configured to exhaust the insulated glass panels via a central recess in the exhaust frit which connects to plural openings (42) in its circumferential surfaces, such that the body top surface of the exhaust frit shields the recess, allowing evacuation of the assembly in a lateral, radial direction until final deformation of the exhaust frit (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-24]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin et al., KR 10-1733835 (machine translation attached).
The teachings of Bin have been detailed above, and while it is not expressly clear whether the frit cap has a higher melting point than the frit body, this reference does discuss a variety of melting points (e.g. [Pgs. 4-5]), as well as a cap with properties “in a range similar to” the cap (i.e. not identical), and a general desire to preserve the strength & structure of the frit materials while evacuation is performed. If not already implicit, it would have been obvious to try frits with tm1>tm2, tm1=tm2, tm1<tm2, as these represent the only possibilities for one of ordinary skill in this art to achieve the stated goals.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin et al., KR 10-1733835 (machine translation attached) in view of Englehart, US 2,805,452.
With regard to claims 8 & 12-15, the teachings of Bin have been detailed above, and while this reference does not expressly disclose that the exhaust hole is stepped with slanted and/or horizontal support surfaces for the frit, these too were all known types of evacuation hole designs in this art at the time of Applicant’s invention, as shown for example by Englehart (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Englehart with those of Bin, in order to predictably seat the sealing material atop a known step and/or slant in order to seal the hole in a known fashion.
With regard to claim 9, it would also have been prima facie obvious to try seating the frit nearer the top, nearer the bottom, or equidistant between the two, as these represent the only possibilities.
With regard to claim 10, it would also have been prima facie obvious to try placing the exhaust holes within, out of, or both in and out of the hole, as these represent the only possibilities.
With regard to claim 11, when the cap is “integrated” with the frit body, a circumferential portion of this frit is disposed between the top and exhaust guide part.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, KR 10-2018-0005462 (citations to English equivalent, US 2019/0203523) in view of Englehart, US 2,805,452.
With regard to claims 8 & 11-15, the teachings of Park have been detailed above, and while this reference does not expressly disclose that the exhaust hole is stepped with slanted and/or horizontal support surfaces for the frit, these too were all known types of evacuation hole designs in this art at the time of Applicant’s invention, as shown for example by Englehart (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Englehart with those of Park, in order to predictably seat the sealing material atop a known step and/or slant in order to seal the hole in a known fashion.
With regard to claim 9, it would also have been prima facie obvious to try seating the frit nearer the top, nearer the bottom, or equidistant between the two, as these represent the only possibilities.
With regard to claim 10, it would also have been prima facie obvious to try placing the exhaust holes within, out of, or both in and out of the hole, as these represent the only possibilities.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, KR 10-2018-0005462 (citations to English equivalent, US 2019/0203523) in view of Bin et al., KR 10-1733835 (machine translation attached).
The teachings of Park have been detailed above, and while this reference does not disclose an added cap frit, such was known, as taught for example by Bin as shown above. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings & suggestions of Bin with those of Park, in order to provide an expanded surface configured for pressing as the frit materials are evacuated and sealed. While Bin is not expressly clear whether its frit cap has a higher melting point than the frit body, this reference does discuss a variety of melting points (e.g. [Pgs. 4-5]), as well as a cap with properties “in a range similar to” the cap (i.e. not identical), and a general desire to preserve the strength & structure of the frit materials while evacuation is performed. If not already implicit, it would have been obvious to try frits with tm1>tm2, tm1=tm2, tm1<tm2, as these represent the only possibilities for one of ordinary skill in this art to achieve the stated goals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that the parent application was deemed allowable for essentially combining the subject matter of above claim 6 (exhaust guide part spaced apart from both top and bottom of frit body) along with that of claims 3/19 (additional cap frit disc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745