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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18729809 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim teaches all of the claimed limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18860318 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim teaches all of the claimed limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18721530 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim teaches all of the claimed limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18729779 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim teaches all of the claimed limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18860342 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claim teaches all of the claimed limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reymond USPA_20220024816_A1 in view of Terneu EP_0994081_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 16, Reymond discloses a glass substrate (corresponds to claimed transparent substrate) having a stack of layers on it, starting with multiple layers of dielectric material (corresponds to claimed first dielectric module), a layer of titanium nitride (corresponds to claimed titanium-nitride based layer), multiple layers of a dielectric material (corresponds to claimed second dielectric module) (Abstract; paragraph 0019). Reymond further described said “multiple layers of dielectric material” that it comprises silicon nitride, an aluminum nitride, or a silicon oxynitride (corresponds to claimed first nitride-based thin layer and nitrides of instant Claim 6) (paragraph 0034). Reymond further discloses that these nitride-based layers can be single layers that are also directly adjacent and in contact with titanium nitride layers (corresponds to claimed second nitride-based thin layer) (paragraphs 0035-0039).
2. Reymond does not disclose having the claimed doped tungsten oxide absorbent layer in between its “multiple layers of dielectric material”.
3. Terneu discloses a solar control coated glass (Title) comprising a transparent glass sheet with a coating that includes a conductive or semiconductive layer of a doped metal oxide, where the metal oxide can be tungsten trioxide (corresponds to claimed tungsten oxide absorbent layer) (paragraph 0016) that leads to significant solar screening properties (paragraphs 0015-0015) (corresponds to claimed absorbent layer). Preferred dopants include hydrogen, lithium, sodium, potassium, etc. (i.e. these are chemical elements of group 1 according to the IUPAC nomenclature) (paragraph 0022). For a WO3-based layer (i.e. the tungsten oxide layer), the preferred quantity of hydrogen, lithium, sodium, or potassium dopant is in the range of 20 to 100 moles per 100 moles of the metal oxide (i.e. a molar ratio of about 0.2-1) (paragraph 0022); thereby meeting the limitations of instant Claims 2, 3, and 16. The coating may include a transparent layer as an undercoat between the glass sheet and the conductive or semi-conductive layer and the undercoat is preferably a dielectric material made of nitride (paragraphs 0025-0029). The coating may also include a transparent layer as an overcoat layer on the conductive or semi-conductive layer and the overcoat is preferably a dielectric material to help neutralize the tint of the coating in reflection and to minimize the reflection of the finished product that is made of nitride (paragraphs 0030-0036). The most preferred embodiment includes both an undercoat layer and an overcoat layer in a triple coating of undercoat layer, conductive or semi-conductive layer (i.e. the tungsten oxide layer as outlined above), and overcoat layer (paragraph 0037); thereby meeting the limitation of instant Claim 7. Terneu teaches the overcoat help neutralize the tint of the coating in reflection and to minimize the reflection of the finished product (paragraph 0036).
3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the dielectric material stack, of Reymond, by including the tungsten oxide layer that is sandwiched between two nitride dielectric layers, as disclosed by Terneu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain significant solar screening properties.
4. Regarding Claims 5, 18, Reymond in view of Terneu suggests a thickness ranging from 100 to 500 nm (Terneu: paragraph 0024).
5. Regarding Claims 9, 19, Reymond in view of Terneu suggests a thickness range from 5 nm to 35 nm (Reymond: paragraph 0019) and the thickness of said nitride-based films can be less than 25 nm but also above (Reymond: paragraphs 0021-0023).
6. Regarding Claim 10, Reymond in view of Terneu suggests a single glazing (Reymond: paragraph 0055).
7. Regarding Claim 11, Reymond in view of Terneu suggests a laminated glazing having two glass substrates with said glazing provides with a stack of layers described above (Reymond: paragraph 0056). The Examiner submits that since multiple layers can be in the afore-described “stack”, one of those layers can be construed to correspond to the claimed laminated interlayer.
8. Regarding Claim 12, Reymond in view of Terneu suggests that sputtering is an option that is known in the art (Terneu: paragraph 0009).
9. Regarding Claims 13, 20, Reymond in view of Terneu suggests using ambient temperature (Terneu: paragraph 0054).
10. Regarding Claims 4 and 17, although the applied art of record does not explicitly teach the use of cesium, the Examiner respectfully submits that given that it discloses using group 1 elements, it would be obvious to try other group 1 elements such as cesium out of a desire of optimization.
11. Regarding Claims 14 and 15, the Examiner respectfully submits that optimizing pressure and gas compositions are well known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights