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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 June 2026 has been entered in response to this request filed on 06 July 2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 23 June 2026 has been entered with the request for continued examination filed 06 July 2026.
Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1, 3, and 8 are amended and claim 20 is newly canceled.
Support for the amendment is found in paragraph 0028 on p. 7 of the instant specification. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art of Fleury as applied to claims 1-20 in the Office Action mailed 08 April 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Nonetheless, it is noted that Fleury does not teach the specific arrangement of first, second, and third layers as amended into claim 1. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 08 April 2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Caillet as outlined below. The prior art of Fleury is relied upon only for what is known about laminates and not for the specific coating(s) taught by Fleury.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, although the terms “higher refractive index” and “lower refractive index” are relative terms that are not defined in the instant specification, these terms will be considered to be higher or lower relative to each other (i.e. the “higher refractive index” is higher than the “lower refractive index”) to be consistent with common use of these terms in the art.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, both the first dielectric coating and the second dielectric coating include a second layer of lower refractive index. Claim 5 clearly refers to the second layer of lower refractive index of each dielectric coating, whereas claims 6 and 7 simply recite “the second layer of lower refractive index” and therefore is not clear about which second layer of lower refractive index is being referenced (i.e. the second layer of lower refractive index in the first dielectric coating, in the dielectric coating above the metal functional layer, or both). For purposes of searching for and applying prior art, the second layer will be considered to be the second layer of either one or both dielectric coatings.
Claim 8 recites “in a dielectric coating” in line 1. However, claim 1 introduces two dielectric coatings, one of which is specified as “first dielectric coating”. Due to the use of the indefinite article “a” and the presence of more than one dielectric coatings, it is not clear which dielectric coating is being referenced in claim 8. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitation will be considered to refer to either of the first dielectric coating or the dielectric coating above the metal functional layer, or both.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites wherein each dielectric coating comprises a same sequence of at least four layers defined from the silver-based metal functional layer. However, claim 1 recites where the first dielectric coating has a first layer in direct contact with a substrate, a second layer in direct contact with the first layer, and a third layer in direct contact with the second layer and in direct contact with any one of the metal functional layer, a blocking layer, or a layer based on zinc oxide. Although a zinc oxide layer may be grouped with the dielectric coating, claim 12 does not stipulate that a fourth layer is a layer based on zinc oxide and therefore is broader than the limitations of claim 1. It is noted that the limitation of “a zinc-oxide-based layer” does not clearly correspond to the layer based on zinc oxide due to the use of the indefinite article “a” and change in terminology. Additionally, the limitation of “at least four layers” allows that the dielectric coating may have more than the three layers (or four layers if including the layer based on zinc oxide) which would require one or more of the layers not to be in direct contact with consecutive layers as recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim and does not resolve all of the issues outlined above regarding claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillet et al. (US 2018/0244570).
Claim 1: Caillet teaches a transparent substrate coated with a stack of thin layers comprising a silver-based functional layer (para. 0001), particularly as thermal insulation glazings exhibiting high solar factor (para. 0002), wherein silver-based functional layers are of use in several ways such as giving a material low-emissivity or solar-control functions (para. 0005) (i.e. a material comprising a substrate coated with a solar control coating). The stack of thin layers (i.e. the solar control coating) can comprise just one functional layer (i.e. comprising a single metal functional layer) (para. 0086), wherein an example of a suitable stack comprises a lower dielectric coating (i.e. a first dielectric coating) located below the silver-based functional metal layer, a silver based functional metal layer, a blocking layer, an upper dielectric coating located above the silver-based functional metal layer, and optionally a protective layer (paras. 0093-0098) (i.e. the single metal functional layer is arranged between two dielectric coatings, the metal functional layer is silver-based). Caillet teaches that advantageously, the silver-based functional metal layer is located above and in contact with a wetting layer and/or the wetting layer is located above and in contact with a smoothing layer and/or the smoothing layer is located above and in contact with an antidiffusion layer and/or the antidiffusion layer is located above and in contact with a high-index layer and/or the high-index layer exhibiting a thickness of greater than 5 nm is located above and in contact with the substrate (paras. 0142-0147). The high-index layer is a layer of metal oxide exhibiting a refractive index of greater than 2.30 and a thickness of greater than 5 nm (paras. 0138-0139) (i.e. the high-index layer corresponds to the instantly claimed first layer). The antidiffusion layer has a thickness of less than or equal to 10.0 nm (para. 0136) and is based on silicon and/or aluminum such as silicon oxide (paras. 0130-0131), wherein silicon oxide is known to have a low refractive index (para. 0184) of about 1.55 (Table 1) (i.e. the antidiffusion layer corresponds to the instantly claimed second layer). The smoothing layer preferably is a layer of mixed oxide such as tin zinc oxide and has an index of less than 2.2 and a thickness of 0.1 to 30 nm, most preferably at least 8.0 nm to at most 15 nm (paras. 0119-0123), wherein the tin zinc oxide (i.e. SnZnOx) of examples has an index of 2.09 (Table 1) (i.e. the smoothing layer has a higher refractive index and therefore corresponds to the instantly claimed third layer). The wetting layer is based on zinc oxide and located above the smoothing layer (i.e. the third layer) and below and in contact with the silver-based metal layer (para. 0165) (i.e. the third layer of higher refractive index is in direct contact with a layer based on zinc oxide that is in direct contact with the metal functional layer). As outlined above, the high-index layer (i.e. the first layer) has a refractive index of greater than 2.30 and a thickness of greater than 5 nm, the antidiffusion layer (i.e. the second layer) has a refractive index of about 1.55 and a thickness of less than or equal to 10.0 nm, and the smoothing layer (i.e. the third layer) has a refractive index of about 2.09 and a thickness of 0.1-30 nm. The second layer has the lowest refractive index and is located between the first and third layers of higher refractive index, and the respective refractive indexes correspond to a variation in the refractive index between the first layer and second layer being greater than 0.85 (i.e. greater than 2.30 minus 1.55) and a variation in the refractive index between the second layer and the third layer being about 0.54 (i.e. 2.09 minus 1.55), each of which overlaps the instantly claimed variation being greater than 0.25. 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. The thicknesses of each of these layers also overlap the instantly claimed range of greater than 5 nm. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding the upper dielectric coating, Caillet teaches that the upper dielectric coating comprises at least the sequence of thin layers deposited in order above the functional layer of at least one layer having a high refractive index of greater than or equal to 2.20 with a thickness of 10 to 40 nm (i.e. a first layer) and at least one layer having a low refractive index of less than or equal to 1.70 with a thickness of 40 to 120 nm (i.e. a second layer) (paras. 0196-0198). The stack of thin layers can optionally comprise a protective layer as the final layer of the stack (i.e. over the second layer of the upper dielectric layer) having a thickness between 2 and 10 nm and can be chosen from zirconium and/or titanium oxide, etc. (paras. 0213-0214), wherein zirconium oxide (i.e. ZrO2) has a refractive index of 2.1 and titanium oxide (i.e. TiO2) has a refractive index of 2.32 (Table 1) (i.e. the protective layer has a high refractive index and therefore corresponds to the instantly claimed third layer of the upper dielectric coating). The variation in the refractive index between consecutive layers of the upper dielectric coating and protective layer is at least about 0.50 (i.e. ≥2.20 minus ≤1.70) for between the first layer and second layer and at least 0.4 (i.e. for zirconium oxide; calculated as 2.1 minus ≤1.70) or at least 0.65 (i.e. for titanium oxide; calculated as 2.32 minus ≤1.70) for between the second layer and third layer. These variations between consecutive layers overlap the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The thicknesses of these layers each overlap the instantly claimed range of greater than 5 nm. See MPEP § 2144.05.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as Caillet teaches a solar control coating having each of the instantly claimed features, with overlapping ranges which the courts have held to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Caillet teaches that the silver-based functional metal layer can be protected by a layer described as a blocking layer located advantageously above in contact with the functional metal layer (paras. 0087 and 0089).
Claim 3: Caillet teaches a wetting layer is based on zinc oxide and located above the smoothing layer (i.e. the third layer) and below and in contact with the silver-based metal layer (i.e. the metal functional layer) (para. 0165).
Claim 4: Caillet teaches an advantageous embodiment where the upper dielectric coating (i.e. the dielectric coating located above the metal functional layer) comprises a layer based on zinc oxide, a high-index layer, and a layer with a refractive index less than 2.2 preferably a low-index layer, and lastly a protective layer (paras. 0209-0213). The layer based on zinc oxide, being the lowermost layer of the upper dielectric coating, would be directly in contact with the blocking layer based on the disclosed sequence of a lower dielectric coating, a silver-based functional metal layer, a blocking layer, an upper dielectric coating, and optionally a protective layer (paras. 0093-0098).
Claims 5-6: As outlined above, Caillet teaches the antidiffusion layer (i.e. the second layer of the lower dielectric coating, as outlined above) is based on silicon and/or aluminum such as silicon oxide (paras. 0130-0131), wherein silicon oxide is known to have a low refractive index (para. 0184) of about 1.55 (Table 1), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The layer of low refractive index in the upper dielectric coating (i.e. the second layer of the upper dielectric coating, as outlined above) exhibits a refractive index of less than or equal to 1.7 (para. 0181) and is preferably a silicon oxide layer (para. 0184).
Claim 7: Caillet teaches the antidiffusion layer (i.e. the second layer of the lower dielectric coating) has a thickness of less than or equal to 10.0 nm (para. 0136) and is based on silicon and/or aluminum such as silicon oxide (paras. 0130-0131), wherein silicon oxide is known to have a low refractive index (para. 0184) of about 1.55 (Table 1). This corresponds to an optical thickness of about 15.5 nm or less (i.e. optical thickness is the product of the physical thickness times the refractive index as disclosed by Caillet in para. 0078; i.e. ≤10.0 nm times 1.55), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding the upper dielectric coating, Caillet teaches that the layer having a low refractive index has a refractive index of less than or equal to 1.7 (para. 0181), is preferably a silicon oxide layer (i.e. having a refractive index of about 1.55 as taught by Caillet in Table 1) (para. 0184), and has a physical thickness of greater than 5 nm and 120 nm or less (paras. 0182-0183). This corresponds to an optical thickness of about 7.75 to 186 (i.e. 5 nm times 1.55 to 120 nm times 1.55), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 8: Caillet teaches that, in the upper dielectric coating, the at least one layer having a low refractive index (i.e. the second layer) has a physical thickness of 40-120 nm (para. 0198) and the at least one layer having a high refractive index has a physical thickness of 10-40 nm (i.e. the layer having a low refractive index has a thickness that is approximately 3-4 times greater than the thickness of the lower having a high refractive index from just comparing the endpoints of the ranges, calculated as about 40/10 and about 120/40), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The protective layer (i.e. the third layer as outlined above) has a thickness of between 2 and 10 nm (i.e. the thickness of the second layer is about 12-20 times greater than the thickness of the third layer based on just the endpoints of the ranges, calculated as 40/2 to 120/10), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9: Caillet teaches that the high-index layer (of the lower dielectric coating; i.e. the first layer as outlined above) is chosen from titanium oxide, etc. (para. 0138) and the high-index layer (i.e. first layer as outlined above) of the upper dielectric coating is as previously defined (para. 0189) (i.e. can be chosen from titanium oxide etc. as with the high-index layer of the lower dielectric coating). The smoothing layer (i.e. the third layer of the lower dielectric coating, as outlined above) preferably is a layer of mixed oxide such as tin zinc oxide (para. 0119). The protective layer (i.e. the third layer of the upper dielectric coating) can be chosen from zirconium and/or titanium oxide, oxide of zinc (i.e. zinc oxide) and/or of tin (i.e. tin-zinc oxide), etc. (paras. 0213-0214).
Claim 14: Caillet teaches that the transparent substrate can be glass (para. 0228) and at least the substrate coated with the stack can be bent or tempered (para. 0231). Although not specifically stating the substrate as being chemically tempered, this feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as tempered glass is typically either chemically tempered or thermally tempered so choosing one or the other is a matter of design choice.
Claim 15: Caillet teaches that the transparent substrate may be made of glass, which may be flat or bent (i.e. curved) (paras. 0228-0229).
Claims 16-17: Caillet teaches that the material can be in the form of a monolithic glazing, of a laminated glazing, or of a multiple glazing (para. 0231). It is understood in the art that a laminated glazing (i.e. a laminated glazed unit) comprises two substrates (i.e. at least one being the coated substrate featured in the disclosure) that are bonded together via a first laminating interlayer and arranged as recited in instant claim 16. Furthermore, given the limited number of faces (i.e. a total of four faces for the first and second substrates), it would be obvious to choose one of them (i.e. positioned on face 2 or 3 is half of the choices of faces) for the solar control coating.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caillet et al. (US 2018/0244570) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Fleury (US 2007/0188871, previously cited).
Claims 18-19: Caillet teaches a transparent substrate coated with a stack of thin layers comprising a silver-based functional layer (para. 0001), particularly as thermal insulation glazings exhibiting high solar factor (para. 0002), wherein silver-based functional layers are of use in several ways such as giving a material low-emissivity or solar-control functions (para. 0005) (i.e. a material comprising a substrate coated with a solar control coating). Caillet teaches that the material can be in the form of a monolithic glazing, of a laminated glazing, or of a multiple glazing (para. 0231), but does not specifically teach comprising a heating coating.
In a related field of endeavor, Fleury teaches a laminated structure of two glass substrates joined together by one or more sheets of a thermoplastic (i.e. a first laminating interlayer) (paragraph 0049), and teaches a coating providing a solar-protection function such as one or more silver layers surrounded by dielectric layers (para. 0048). An antireflection multilayer or another multilayer type (e.g. the aforementioned solar-protection coating) may be deposited on one of the faces of the substrates that faces the thermoplastic joining sheet, and the laminated glazing may be provided with a heating layer etc. within the laminate (i.e. on face 2 or face 3) (para. 0049). The heating layer may be for example made of Cu or Ag (i.e. an electrically conductive layer) (para. 0048).
As Caillet and Fleury both teach a laminated structure that may have a solar-protection or solar-control multilayer coating of silver layer(s) surrounded by dielectric layers, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laminate of Caillet (i.e. having a substrate coated with the stack of thin layers taught by Caillet) to include a heating layer within the laminate as taught by Fleury because this is considered a conventionally known feature of a laminated glazing (i.e. a simple combination of prior art elements wherein each predictably retain their own functions), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, since there are limited faces within a laminate (i.e. face 2 or face 3), the arrangement of a solar-control multilayer coating on one face and a heating layer on the other face would be an obvious matter of design choice as a simple rearrangement of parts, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 12 and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which would need to be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Caillet teaches that the high-index layer (of the lower dielectric coating; i.e. the first layer as outlined above) is chosen from titanium oxide, etc. (para. 0138) and the high-index layer (i.e. first layer as outlined above) of the upper dielectric coating is as previously defined (para. 0189) (i.e. can be chosen from titanium oxide etc. as with the high-index layer of the lower dielectric coating). The antidiffusion layer (i.e. the second layer of the lower dielectric coating) is based on silicon and/or aluminum such as silicon oxide (paras. 0130-0131) and the low refractive index of the upper dielectric coating (i.e. the second layer of the upper dielectric coating) preferably is silicon oxide (para. 0184). The smoothing layer (i.e. the third layer of the lower dielectric coating, as outlined above) preferably is a layer of mixed oxide such as tin zinc oxide (para. 0119). The protective layer (i.e. the third layer of the upper dielectric coating) can be chosen from zirconium and/or titanium oxide, oxide of zinc (i.e. zinc oxide) and/or of tin (i.e. tin-zinc oxide), etc. (paras. 0213-0214). Based on the overlap of choices for the first layer, second layer, and third layer of the lower dielectric coating and the upper dielectric coating, it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to choose from these materials such that the lower dielectric coating and the upper dielectric coating comprise a same series of the three dielectric layers. However, the reverse order of layers for either the lower dielectric coating or the upper dielectric coating so that the two dielectric coatings have the same series of three dielectric layers, in sequence from the metal functional layer, would not have been obvious since each layer is taught by Caillet to have specific function and therefore the sequence of layers has significance.
Further regarding claim 12, Caillet teaches a wetting layer based on zinc oxide located above the smoothing layer (i.e. above and in contact with the third layer, as outlined above) and preferably in contact with the silver-based metal layer (para. 0165), as well as a layer based on zinc oxide above the silver-based functional metal layer (before the high-index layer) (paras. 0209-0212). However, although the zinc oxide is arranged in proximity to the silver-based metal layer, the reverse sequence of the other three layers of either dielectric coating would not have been obvious for the same reasons outlined above regarding claim 10.
Claims 11 and 13 depend on claims 10 and 12 respectively and Caillet also does not teach the specific sequences recited in these claims.
Conclusion
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
