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 .
Note
Applicant’s response filed on 07/27/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1, 5 and 11 are amended, claims 13, 15 and 22 are cancelled and claims 1-12, 14 and 16-21 are pending. Currently, claims 14 and 16-21 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected invention.
The previous formal rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and comments.
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 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radu et al. (US 2022/0154526 A1).
Claim 1: Radu teaches a glazing unit 1 comprising a glass panel 10, a coating system 20 and at least one frequency selective decoated portion 30 (Fig. 1 and [0074]), wherein the coating system 20 includes a metal film as a conductive film [0096]. The glazing unit 1 meets the coated article, the coating system 20 meets the claimed metallic layer and the frequency selective decoated portion 30 meets the claimed frequency selective surface. Radu further teaches the glass panel 10 can be a colorured glass tinted by applying an additional coating [0085]. Radu also teaches the coating system 20 can be a functional coating [0091] which is a metal based coating ([0093] and [0096]); and the “a functional coating” represents a single layer silver coating. A combination of the additional coating [0085] and the functional coating [0091] meets the claimed multilayer coating. Since Radu does not expressly teach cutting or laser cutting the additional coating in [0085] to form the frequency selective decoated portion 30, it is interpreted that the coating system 20/functional coating is the only coating that forms the frequency selective decoated portion 30.
Claim 2: Radu teaches the coating system 20 is a metallic IR reflective layer within an emissivity (Ɛ) value of not more than 0.4 [0093]. The emissivity (Ɛ) value of Radu is an emissivity (low-E) because Applicant discloses an emissivity value of a low emissivity (low-E) is about 0.04˂Ɛ˂about 0.4 (see [0038] of current specification).
Claim 3: Radu teaches the frequency selective decoated portion 30 of the coating system 30 comprises a series or pattern of intersecting ablated paths [0102].
Claim 8: Current specification discloses the frequency of fifth-generation (5G) ranges from 600 MHz to 100 GHz (see [0007] of current specification). Radu teaches the glazing unit is capable of increasing the transmission of waves with lower frequencies, i.e., below 6 GHz [0013], which is within the frequency range of the 5G (600 MHz to 100 GHz). Therefore, it is interpreted that the telecommunication frequency of Radu can also be for the fifth-generation (5G) communication.
Claim 9: Radu teaches an attenuation level of 10 decibels (dB) or less [0090] which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 10: Radu teaches Ag, Au, Cu, and Al as suitable examples of the metal forming the coating system 20 [0096].
Claim 11: Radu teaches the functional layer is generally a layer of silver Ag with a thickness of about 5 to 20 nm [0093] which overlaps with the claimed 5-25 nm range.
Claim 12: Radu teaches the coating system comprises coatings of thin layers comprising one or more functional layers based on an infrared (IR) radiation reflecting material and at least two dielectric coatings surrounding each functional layer [0093]. Radu further teaches in addition to the dielectric layers, each functional layer may be protected by barrier layers or improved by deposition on a wetting layer [0093]. The following drawing is Examiner’s interpretation of [0093] of Radu when the functional layer is one.
Dielectric layer
Protective/Barrier layer
IR functional layer
Protective/Barrier layer
Dielectric layer
Glass Panel
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu et al. (US 2022/0154526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Radu teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 5: Radu teaches the paths can be made by pulse laser to create spots having a diameter of 10-200 µm [0104] forming the width of the path. The diameter/width of the path meets the claimed aperture line width; and the value of 10-200 µm includes the claimed about 5 µm to about 60 µm. Radu teaches the frequencies selective decoated portion 30 of the coating system 20 comprises a first decoated element comprising a plurality of unit cells forming a regular grid (abstract, [0032] and [0101]), wherein the grid spacing of the grid ranges from 2-10 mm [0114]. The grid meets the claimed unit cell and the grid spacing meets the claimed unit cell dimension; and the value of 2-10 mm overlaps at the claimed about 2mm.
Claims 5 and 6: Radu teaches, in general, smaller isolated areas of coating system 20 facilitate improved radio frequency (RF) transmission at shorter wavelengths [0114]. Even though Radu teaches the area/grid spacing can be smaller, it does not teach the area/grid spacing can be less than about 2 mm as claimed. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of the area/grid spacing to a smaller dimension, and the motivation would be, as Radu suggested, to improved RF transmission at shorter wavelengths {instant claims 5 and 6} [0114]. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claims 5-7: Radu teaches the shape of the grid/unit cell can be a honeycomb {instant claim 7} [0109]. Radu teaches, in general, smaller isolated areas of coating system 20 facilitate improved radio frequency (RF) transmission at shorter wavelengths [0114]. Even though Radu teaches the area/grid spacing can be smaller, it does not teach the area/grid spacing can be less than about 2 mm as claimed. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the size of the area/grid spacing to a smaller dimension, and the motivation would be, as Radu suggested, to improved RF transmission at shorter wavelengths {instant claims 5-7} [0114]. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu et al. (US 2022/0154526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duerksen (US 2010/0276573 A1).
Radu teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 4: Radu teaches the unit cells/grids have regular grid with a rectangular-like shape or square-like shape ([0105] and [0107]). The regular grid with a rectangular-like shape or square-like shape meets the claimed periodic pattern. Radu further teaches unit cells/grids are not limited to rectangular or square shapes and may have any pattern that enhances transmission of desired RF signals of a particular polarization [0108], but Radu does not teach the pattern can be aperiodic. However, Duerksen teaches a spatial frequency response of each of a transmissive detector shown in Fig. 14D is related to the size and shape of transmissive photosensitive elements of that transmissive detector [0091]. The transmissive detector meets the claimed frequency sensitive surface, and the transmissive photosensitive elements meet the claimed unit cell pattern. Duerksen teaches a transmissive detector 1475 is formed from a penrose tiling of a plurality of diamond-shaped, transmissive photosensitive elements 1480 (Fig. 14D and [0090]). The penrose tiling meets the claimed aperiodic pattern. Duerksen teaches the penrose tiling of transmissive photosensitive elements 1480 of transmissive detector 1475 provides another type of discretized spatial frequency response that may be useful for avoiding aliasing [0091]. Radu and Duerksen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the frequency sensitive surface art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Duerksen, (i.e., arranging the unit cells in aperiodic pattern) with the invention of Radu, and the motivation for combining would be, as Duerksen suggested, to avoid aliasing [0091].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radu et al. (US 2022/0154526 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stachowiak (US 6,602,608).
Radu teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 12: With respect to the layers arrangement in the coating system 20, Stachowiak teaches a coating article comprising a glass substrate 1 and a coating on the glass substrate 1 (abstract), wherein the coating includes a first dielectric layer 3, a lower barrier layer 5, a lower barrier contact layer 7, a first conductive metallic infrared (IR) reflecting layer 9, upper barrier contact layer 11, upper barrier layer 13, and upper dielectric layer 15 (Fig. 1 and col. 2, line 64 thru col. 3, line 6). The first dielectric layer 3 meets the claimed dielectric layer near the substrate, the lower barrier layer 5 meets the claimed protective layer near the substrate, the first conductive metallic infrared (IR) reflecting layer 9 meets the claimed metallic IR reflective layer, the upper barrier layer 13 meets the claimed protective layer farthest from the substrate, and the upper dielectric layer 15 meets the claimed dielectric layer farthest from the substrate.
Radu and Stachowiak are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the coated glass article art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the coating of Stachowiak with the invention of Radu, and the motivation for combining would be, as Stachowiak suggested, to provide an improved barrier layers structure for protecting a metallic IR reflecting layer (col. 1, lines 60-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument is based on that layers different from the reflecting layer are removed together with the reflecting layer to form the patterned surface. This argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. Radu further teaches the glass panel 10 can be a colorured glass tinted by applying an additional coating [0085]. Radu also teaches the coating system 20 can be a functional coating [0091] which is a metal based coating ([0093] and [0096]); and the “a functional coating” represents a single layer silver coating. A combination of the additional coating [0085] and the functional coating [0091] meets the claimed multilayer coating. Since Radu does not expressly teach cutting or laser cutting the additional coating in [0085] to form the frequency selective decoated portion 30, it is interpreted that the coating system 20/functional coating is the only coating that forms the frequency selective decoated portion 30. In addition, Radu teaches decoating or cutting the coating system 20 to form the frequency selective decoated portion 30 ([0101], [0102] and [0112]), and the coating system 20 comprises “a functional coating” [0091]; therefore, there is nothing that teaches in Radu the dielectric layers in [0093] are decoated.
Applicant further argued that unless impermissible hindsight analysis is applied, the person skilled in the art would by no means have combined Radu and Duerksen in the hope of addressing attenuation of telecommunication frequency signal transmission. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. Duerksen teaches the penrose tiling (arranging in aperiodic pattern) of transmissive photosensitive elements 1480 of transmissive detector 1475 provides another type of discretized spatial frequency response that may be useful for avoiding aliasing [0091], which is different from applicant’s, (i.e., for addressing attenuation of telecommunication frequency signal transmission). The fact that Applicant uses arranging the unit cells in aperiodic pattern for a different purpose does not alter the conclusion that its use in a prior art device would be prima facie obvious from the purpose disclosed in the reference. In re Lintner, 173 USPQ 560.
Applicant also argued that Stachowiak is directed to a coated article without having any frequency selective surface and is thus clearly unrelated to the claimed coated article comprising a frequency selective surface. This argument is not persuasive for the following reason. The reference of Stachowiak was introduced to teach layers arrangement not to teach the claimed frequency selective surface. The claimed frequency selective surface is taught by the primary reference Radu. Invention of Radu is drawn to a coated glass article [0102], and the invention of Stachowiak is drawn to a coated glass article (col. 2, line 5); therefore, Radu and Stachowiak are analogous art in the field of coated glass article art.
For the above reasons claims 1-12 stand rejected.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
September 29, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
