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 .
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 17 and 26-31 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. Regarding claims 17, 26, and 29, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The terms “rigid” and “flexible” in claim 26 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “rigid” or “flexible” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, e.g., how stiff the first and/or second spacer frame must be to be considered or how pliable the first and/or second spacer frame must be to be considered flexible.
The term “flexible” in claims 27 and 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention e.g., how pliable the first and/or second spacer frame must be to be considered flexible.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "third pane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "third pane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "third pane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 18, 22, 26-29, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Purdy et al (US 2017/0328121 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 18, 22, and 34, Purdy teaches a forced air electrochromic window (i.e., glazing) comprising a first pane (647) (e.g., second lite) comprising a first major face and a second major face; a second pane (649) (e.g., a first electrochromic lite) comprising a third major face and a fourth major face; and a first spacer frame (646) (e.g., spacer/seal) suitable for maintaining a first cavity between the second major face and the third major face, wherein the glazing further comprise an integrated secondary glazing pane (654) (e.g., third lite) comprising a fifth major face and a sixth major face; a second spacer frame (645a) (e.g., sealant or sealing member) suitable for maintaining a second cavity between the fourth major face and the fifth major face; and a functional element (652, 656) (e.g., air movement devices such as fan or pump or an electrical functional element) within the second cavity, and wherein the first cavity (657) (e.g., interior volume) is hermetically sealed (e.g., isolated from the ambient environment) and the second cavity is not hermetically sealed; wherein the second spacer frame is adapted to allow the flow of gas from inside the second cavity to outside the second cavity and/or vice versa (para 110-114; fig 6g).Therefore, based on this assembly, Purdy would have suggested all the method of manufacturing steps of claim 34.
Regarding claims 26-28, Purdy teaches its sealing members may be infill spacers that may comprise metal (i.e., rigid spacer frames) or foam (i.e., pre-fabricated flexible spacers) (i.e., wherein the first spacer frame and the second spacer frame are of the same material) (para 59, 117, 119).
Regarding claim 29, Purdy teaches the forced air electrochromic window comprises an IGU (insulated glass unit) subassembly (para 110), i.e., wherein the first pane comprises glass and/or the second pane comprises glass.
Regarding claim 31, Purdy teaches its panes or lites may be laminates (i.e., laminated glass) (para 110).
Regarding claim 32, Purdy teaches the infill spacers that separate the panes or lites have a width of about 0.25 to 1 inch (i.e., 6.35 mm to 2.54 mm), i.e., wherein the second cavity has a width between the fourth major face and the fifth major face of from 1 mm to 30 cm (para 73).
Regarding claim 33, Purdy teaches he IGU subassembly comprises an electrochromic device coating (648) on an interior surface (212) of the first electrochromic lite (649) (i.e., second pain); wherein the electrochromic device coatings periodically produce low-transmissivity (tinted) states that increase the absorption of solar radiation by the window and is rapidly converted into thermal energy (i.e., wherein the second pane is provided with a heating coating suitable for preventing the condensation of moisture within the second cavity) (para 110, 184; fig 6g).
Regarding claim 35, Purdy teaches its assembly comprises a pre-existing window in a building (para 114), i.e., installing the assembled glazing in an aperture of a building envelope.
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.
Claims 17, 19-21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy.
Regarding claim 17, Purdy suggests or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the structure and materials of construction of the glazing of the instant claims, so it is deemed to possess these properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 19, Purdy teaches its forced air electrochromic window may comprise one or more photovoltaic cells for example, as components of the vent modules used to power and control, for example, the one or more air movement devices (para 131); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to add a photovoltaic cell to the second cavity to power the air movement devices.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Purdy teaches wires or other electrical connectors may be positioned within and/or pass through the separation space between the new electrochromic window and the pre-existing window and connected to a controller outside the optically switchable window and its frame (i.e., wherein the glazing further comprises an electrical connector with a first end within the second cavity and a second end outside the second cavity) (para 141, 158); and further gives a known example of a ribbon cable (para 156); so it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a ribbon cable for the wiring and/or electrical connector, since Purdy teaches it was a known design choice at the time of invention.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Purdy teaches that it is known that argon is used to fill IGUs (insulated glass units) (para 84), so it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use argon to fill the first cavity, since Purdy teaches it was a known design choice at the time of invention.
Regarding claim 25, Purdy teaches its electrochromic window may comprise additional panes (para 59), so it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to a position a third pane between the first pane and the second pane, since Purdy teaches the use of additional panes was a known design choice at the time of invention. This addition would come with the additional motivation of adding additional strength and insulation to the electrochromic window.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purdy as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Messere (US 2020/0347668 A1).
Purdy teaches the glazing of claim 16.
Purdy fails to suggest wherein the first pane and/or the second pane and/or the third pane and/or the secondary glazing pane comprises soda- lime silica glass of thickness from 1 mm to 25 mm.
Messere teaches an insulating glazing includes a first pane, a second pane, and spacer; wherein the panes are made of soda lime glass (i.e., soda lime silica glass), and may have a thickness from 4 mm to 19 mm (abstract, para 17) which lies within the thickness of the instant claims.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the first panes of glass for the first pane (or second lite) of Purdy, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II), and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights