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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 14 and 16-21 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.
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 5-7 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 claim 5, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation about 5 µm to about 60 µm, and the claim also recites about 30 µm to about 60 µm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
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 coating system 20 may comprise a metal based low emissive coating system; these coatings typically are a system of thin layers comprising one or more functional layers, wherein the functional layers are generally layers of silver Ag with a thickness of about 5 to 20 nm [0093].
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 or the claimed about 30 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 meets 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).
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
March 5, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785