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 19 February 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 3 and 8 have been amended and claim 20 is new.
Support for the amendments is found as follows:
Claim 3: paragraph 0028 of the instant specification
Claim 8: paragraph 0028 of the instant specification
Claim 20: paragraph 0028 (p. 7) of the instant specification
Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Claim Interpretation
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” and vice versa) 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites “said third layer of higher refractive index that is in direct contact with said third layer of higher refractive index” in lines 4-5. It is unclear how the third layer is in direct contact with itself. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitation will be considered where the third layer of higher refractive index is in direct contact with said second layer of lower refractive index, so that the layers follow the sequence previously set forth in the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleury et al. (US 2007/0188871).
Claim 1: Fleury teaches a transparent substrate of glass provided with an antireflection coating of the solar-protection and/or low-emissivity type (i.e. a material comprising a substrate coated with a solar control coating) (paragraphs 0001-0002). A functional layer is typically a silver layer (i.e. a metal functional layer that is silver-based) (paragraph 0116) and may be a single functional layer (paragraph 0127). Fleury teaches a first layer of dielectric material to block diffusion of oxygen into the interior of the multilayer and acts as a barrier to diffusion of species migrating from the glass (i.e. the first layer of dielectric material corresponds to a dielectric coating below the metal functional layer since it is blocking diffusion from the glass substrate) (paragraphs 0109-0110). The first layer of dielectric material (a) is a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (paragraph 0109), referred to as zirconium-doped Si3N4 layers (paragraph 0063) (i.e. the mixed silicon zirconium nitride is a silicon nitride-based layer doped with zirconium), and having a refractive index close to 2.2 (paragraph 0110) and a thickness of at least 10 nm (paragraph 0111). A second layer of dielectric material (e) has a function similar to the layer (a) and includes an oxygen diffusion barrier layer of mixed silicon zirconium nitrides (i.e. a silicon nitride based layer doped with zirconium) (paragraph 0123) and is deposited with a thickness of at least 10 nm (paragraph 0124). The first and second dielectric layers may each be supplemented with a layer of another dielectric material such as zinc oxide with a thickness of 5-15 nm for the first dielectric layer (paragraph 0112) and a thickness of 5-20 nm for the second dielectric layer (paragraph 0123). Additionally, a lower metal layer of a metal X acting as a barrier (i.e. a blocking layer; paragraph 0113) and/or an upper metal layer of a metal Y acting as an overbarrier (i.e. a blocking layer; paragraph 0117) may be included on one or both sides of the silver functional layer with the layers of zinc oxide (ZnO) located adjacent the lower and/or upper metal layer (when present) or adjacent the silver layer (i.e. these arrangements are indicated in the table of paragraph 0126). Fleury teaches that it is possible to devise multilayers that incorporate at least two or even three standard multilayer sequences as described in the disclosure (paragraph 0125), but does not specifically teach the dielectric coatings surrounding the functional layer as each having at least one series of three dielectric layers as claimed.
However, Fleury teaches an antireflection multilayer having at least one sequence of four alternating layers of high and low refractive indices to provide an attractive appearance in reflection (paragraph 0013-0014). The most appropriate materials for forming the first and/or the third layer of the antireflection multilayer are based on a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (paragraph 0041) (i.e. zirconium-doped silicon nitride as disclosed by Fleury in paragraph 0045) having an index between 2.00 and 2.30 (paragraph 0035) and with the first layer having a thickness between 5 and 50 nm and with the third layer having a thickness between 40 and 120 nm (paragraphs 0037 and 0039). Appropriate materials for forming the second and/or fourth layer of the antireflection multilayer are based on silicon oxide etc. (paragraph 0042) having an index of refraction between 1.35 and 1.65 (paragraph 0036) and with the second layer having a thickness between 5 and 50 nm and the fourth layer having a thickness between 45 and 110 nm (paragraphs 0038 and 0040). It is noted that the series of four alternating layers also necessarily includes a series of three dielectric layers as recited in instant claim 1. The thicknesses of each of these layers taught by Fleury overlaps the instantly claimed thickness of greater than 5 nm, 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. The difference of refractive index between two consecutive layers (i.e. based on being alternating high and low refractive index materials) is about 0.35-0.95 (calculated as a difference of the index range of 2.00-2.30 and the index range of 1.35-1.65), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. 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 to modify the coating of Fleury to include where the first and second layers of dielectric material on each side of the silver functional layer of the solar control coating includes an antireflection multilayer (i.e. substituting each single layer of mixed silicon zirconium nitride of the solar control coating for the antireflection multilayer containing layers of mixed silicon zirconium nitride alternated with low index layers) since both the dielectric materials of the solar control coating and the high index layers of the antireflection multilayer include a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (i.e. both coatings include layer(s) of substantially identical materials) and the combination would provide both solar control and antireflection properties, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, Fleury teaches that it is possible to devise multilayers that incorporate at least two or even three standard multilayer sequences as described in the disclosure (paragraph 0125). It is noted that Fleury also discloses where a single substrate may be coated on both sides such as with the antireflection multilayer A on one side and another coating with a different functionality such as a solar-protection function on the other side (paragraphs 0047-0048), but that alternatively the same face may have the antireflection multilayer and a multilayer having another functionality (paragraph 0051).
Claim 2: Fleury teaches a lower metal layer of a metal X acting as a barrier (i.e. a blocking layer; paragraph 0113) and/or an upper metal layer of a metal Y acting as an overbarrier (i.e. a blocking layer; paragraph 0117) may be included on one or both sides of the silver functional layer (i.e. the metal functional layer) (i.e. these arrangements are indicated in the table of paragraph 0126).
Claims 3-4: Fleury teaches a lower metal layer of a metal X acting as a barrier (i.e. a blocking layer; paragraph 0113) and/or an upper metal layer of a metal Y acting as an overbarrier (i.e. a blocking layer; paragraph 0117) may be included on one or both sides of the silver functional layer (i.e. the metal functional layer) with the layers of zinc oxide (ZnO) located adjacent the lower and/or upper metal layer (when present) or adjacent the silver layer (i.e. these arrangements are indicated in the table of paragraph 0126). It is noted that grouping the layers of zinc oxide with the dielectric layer instead of referencing it separately does not alter the disclosed structure or sequence of layers.
Claim 5: Fleury teaches the second layer of the antireflection multilayer (i.e. the low refractive index layer) has an index of refraction between 1.35 and 1.65 (paragraph 0036), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 6: Fleury teaches the second layer (i.e. of lower refractive index) of the antireflection multilayer is based on silicon oxide etc. (paragraph 0042).
Claim 7: Fleury teaches the second layer has a geometric thickness between 5 and 50 nm (paragraph 0038). The optical thickness of a transparent medium is the geometric thickness times the refractive index (based on basic physics principles), and therefore the second layer has an optical thickness of about 6.75-82.5 nm (calculated from the index of refraction outlined above regarding claim 5 and the geometric thickness). This range overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 8: Fleury teaches the second layer of lower refractive index as having a geometric thickness between 5 and 50 nm, whereas the first layer has a thickness between 5 and 50 nm and the third layer has a thickness between 40 and 120 nm (paragraphs 0037-0039). However, Fleury also teaches a fourth layer of low refractive index having a thickness between 45 and 110 nm (paragraph 0040), and since the fourth layer is substantially identical material as the second layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to swap the thickness of the second layer and fourth layer as a simple substitution or rearrangement of substantially equivalent elements (see MPEP § 2144.04-VI), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The proportion of a second layer having a thickness between 45 and 110 nm compared to the first layer and to the third layer overlaps the instantly claimed range of “at least 2 times greater”; for example, a second layer having a thickness of about 110 nm is more the 2 times the entire range of the thickness of the first layer and is more than 2 times the low end of the range of the range for the third layer (i.e. 110 nm/ 40 nm). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9: Fleury teaches the first and/or the third layer of the antireflection multilayer are based on a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (paragraph 0041) (i.e. zirconium-doped silicon nitride as disclosed by Fleury in paragraph 0045; i.e. silicon nitride-based doped with zirconium).
Claim 10: Fleury teaches that the second layer of dielectric material has a function similar to the first layer of dielectric material (paragraph 0123) and both layers may be a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (i.e. zirconium-doped silicon nitride as disclosed by Fleury in paragraph 0045), which renders as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these layers may be identical. Likewise, the substitution outlined above regarding instant claim 1 (i.e. replacing each single layer of mixed silicon zirconium nitride to be antireflection multilayers that include the mixed silicon zirconium nitride as layers of high refractive index alternating with layers of low refractive index) may also be substantially identical substitutions for each of the first and second layers of dielectric material since there is no specific reason to use different antireflection multilayers.
Claim 11: Fleury teaches an antireflection multilayer having at least one sequence of four alternating layers of high and low refractive indices to provide an attractive appearance in reflection (paragraph 0013-0014). The most appropriate materials for forming the first and/or the third layer of the antireflection multilayer are based on a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (paragraph 0041) (i.e. zirconium-doped silicon nitride as disclosed by Fleury in paragraph 0045; i.e. a silicon nitride-based layer that is doped with zirconium). Appropriate materials for forming the second and/or fourth layer of the antireflection multilayer are based on silicon oxide etc. (paragraph 0042). The resulting structure of three of the four layers is a silicon nitride-based layer (doped with zirconium), a silicon oxide-based layer, and a silicon nitride-based layer (doped with zirconium). It is noted that the series of four alternating layers also necessarily includes a series of three dielectric layers as recited in instant claim 1. It is noted that Fleury also teaches that it is known in the art for antireflection coatings to be multilayers of four layers with high/low/high/low layers alternating, where high index layers are generally made of TiO2 or Nb2O5 and low-index layers are usually made of SiO2 (i.e. alternating layers of titanium oxide and silicon oxide are also known).
Claims 12-13: As outlined above regarding claim 10, Fleury teaches that the second layer of dielectric material has a function similar to the first layer of dielectric material (paragraph 0123) and both layers may be a mixed silicon zirconium nitride (i.e. zirconium-doped silicon nitride as disclosed by Fleury in paragraph 0045), which renders as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these layers may be identical. Likewise, the substitution outlined above regarding instant claim 1 (i.e. replacing each single layer of mixed silicon zirconium nitride to be antireflection multilayers that include the mixed silicon zirconium nitride as layers of high refractive index alternating with layers of low refractive index) may also be substantially identical substitutions for each of the first and second layers of dielectric material since there is no specific reason to use different antireflection multilayers. Fleury teaches that each of the first and second layers of dielectric material can have a layer of another dielectric material such as zinc oxide (ZnO) (paragraphs 0112 and 0123), wherein the ZnO is closer to the silver functional layer and adjacent the dielectric material (i.e. adjacent the zirconium-doped silicon nitride) (i.e. the arrangement is shown in the table of paragraph 0126). Since the ZnO is adjacent the zirconium-doped silicon nitride, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to maintain this adjacency when replacing the dielectric material with antireflection multilayer as these materials are already known to be compatible based on the adjacency of the dielectric material. The resulting structure would include the following sequence (from the silver functional layer): a layer of ZnO, a layer of zirconium-doped silicon nitride (i.e. a silicon nitride-based layer), a layer of silicon oxide, a layer of zirconium-doped silicon nitride (i.e. a silicon nitride-based layer), etc.
Claim 14: Fleury teaches that the applications of the glazing include displays, windows for buildings, motor-vehicle sun roofs, etc., and such glazing may be bent/toughened after deposition of the layers (paragraph 0058). Although chemically tempered glass is not specifically named as a substrate, the use of chemically tempered glass for such applications and the chemical tempering process is well known in the art.
Claim 15: Fleury teaches that the product may be used as architectural curved glass (paragraph 0004) (i.e. the substrate is curved glass).
Claim 16: Fleury teaches that the coated substrate can have 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), which is considered to result in the instantly claimed arrangement of faces and outer wall.
Claim 17: Fleury teaches that an antireflection multilayer or another multilayer type may be deposited on one of the faces of one of the rigid substrates (i.e. one of the glass substrates) that faces the thermoplastic joining sheet (i.e. faces the interlayer; i.e. the coating is positioned on face 2 or 3) (paragraph 0049).
Claims 18-19: Fleury teaches that the laminated glazing may be provided with a heating layer etc. within the laminate (i.e. on face 2 or face 3) (paragraph 0049). Since there are two faces with in the laminate (i.e. facing the interlayer), it would be an obvious matter of design choice for the coating providing difference functions to be on the same or different faces (i.e. a simple rearrangement of parts), see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20: The sequence of layers outlined above do not require additional layers between the recited high/low/high/low alternation of refractive index and metal functional layer (with optional blocking layer).
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 3 and 8 have overcome each and every indefiniteness previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 09 December 2025. However, upon further consideration in view of new claim 20, new grounds of indefiniteness are outlined above.
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues, see p. 7 and again on p. 8, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the coating of Fleury as outlined because Fleury describes at least two distinct coating types directed to different objectives: (i) an antireflection multilayer, and (ii) a low-emissivity/solar protection multilayer. However, even though the two types of coatings are directed to different purposes, these objectives are not mutually exclusive. See, for example, the disclosure of Gerardin et al. (US 2012/0028009) teaching, as background information, that known multilayer coatings have a metallic functional layer having reflection properties in the infrared and/or in solar radiation that is placed between two antireflection films each comprising in general several layers so as to “antireflect” the metallic functional layer (Gerardin, paragraphs 0004-0005). That is, this arrangement is known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly be able to apply this general arrangement within the context of the antireflection multilayer and low-emissivity/solar protection multilayer of Fleury. Furthermore, Fleury teaches overlap of some of the material layers between the two embodiments, so including all the layers of the antireflection multilayer instead of only some of them in the layers surrounding the metallic functional layer of the low-emissivity/solar protection multilayer is not a far stretch. Fleury also teaches that the glazing may have the antireflection multilayer A on a face of the substrate, and the substrate may be another coating B having another functionality such as a solar protection function etc. (paragraphs 0047-0048) and the antireflection multilayer and the multilayer having another functionality may be on the same face of the substrate (paragraph 0051).
Applicant further argues, see p. 7 and again on p. 8, that Fleury teaches that selection of the criteria is tricky to obtain desired performance without compromising mechanical durability and heat-treatment resistance. However, Fleury also teaches both embodiments to have mechanical durability and heat-treatment resistance (antireflection multilayer in paragraph 0043, for the functional layer in paragraphs 0109-0110).
In response to applicant’s argument, see p. 9-10, that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense 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).
Applicant argues, see p. 10, against a reasonable expectation of success due to Fleury’s disclosure of optimization being “tricky”. However, Fleury also teaches that the glazing may have the antireflection multilayer A on a face of the substrate, and the substrate may be another coating B having another functionality such as a solar protection function etc. (paragraphs 0047-0048) and the antireflection multilayer and the multilayer having another functionality may be on the same face of the substrate (paragraph 0051). Furthermore, any optimization can be “tricky” in a sense, but that does not necessarily cause every optimization to be beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art as part of reasonable and routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2164.06.
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