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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Fig. 2: Some of the reference characters are illegible and blurry.
Fig. 3: Some of the reference characters are illegible and blurry.
Fig. 4: Some of the reference characters are illegible and blurry.
Fig. 5: Some of the text is illegible and blurry.
Fig. 6: Some of the text is illegible and blurry.
Fig. 7: Some of the text is illegible and blurry.
Fig. 8: Some of the text is illegible and blurry.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 1: “a glass article according to claim 1” should read “the glass article according to claim 1”.
Claim 11, line 2: “said article” should read “said glass article”.
Claim 11, line 3: “said coating” should most likely read “said heatable coating”.
Claim 12, line 2: “said coating” should most likely read “said heatable coating”.
Claim 13, line 1: “The glazing according to claim 11” should read “The multiple glazing according to claim 11”.
Claim 14, line 2: “the glazing” should read “the multiple glazing”.
Claim 15, lines 1-2: “the glazing” should read “the multiple glazing”.
Claim 16, line 1: “The triple glazing according to claim 15” should read “The multiple glazing according to claim 15”.
Claim 16, line 2: “said coating” should most likely read “said heatable coating”.
Claim 16, line 2: “said glazing” should most likely read “said triple glazing”.
Claim 17, line 1: “The triple glazing according to claim 15” should read “the multiple glazing according to claim 15”.
Claim 17, line 2: “said coating” should most likely read “said heatable coating”.
Claim 17, line 2: “said glazing” should most likely read “said triple glazing”.
Claim 17, line 2: “said glazing” should most likely read “said triple glazing”.
Claim 18, line 1: “The triple glazing according to claim 15” should read “The multiple glazing according to claim 15”.
Claim 18, line 2: “said coating” should most likely read “said heatable coating”.
Claim 18, line 2: “said glazing” should most likely read “said triple glazing”.
Claim 18, line 2: “said glazing” should most likely read “said triple glazing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-4, 12, and 16-18 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.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites “the electrically conductive layer” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 2 depends from, does not recite “an electrically conductive layer”. However, claim 1 does recite “a layer based on transparent conducting oxide” in line 6. Based on this recitation, claim 2 has been interpreted as if it recites “the transparent conducting oxide layer” in place of “the electrically conductive layer”.
With respect to claim 3, the claim recites “the electrically conductive layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 3 depends from, does not recite “an electrically conductive layer”. However, claim 1 does recite “a layer based on transparent conducting oxide” in line 6. Based on this recitation, claim 3 has been interpreted as if it recites “the transparent conducting oxide layer” in place of “the electrically conductive layer”.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites “the electrically conductive layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 4 depends from, does not recite “an electrically conductive layer”. However, claim 1 does recite “a layer based on transparent conducting oxide” in line 6. Based on this recitation, claim 4 has been interpreted as if it recites “the transparent conducting oxide layer” in place of “the electrically conductive layer”.
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites “on face 2 or face 3 of said glazing” in line 2. However, neither claim 1 nor claim 11 recite “face 2” or “face 3”, and thus it is unclear where the heatable coating is intended to be deposited.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites “on face 2 or face 3 of said glazing” in line 2. However, none of claims 1, 11, or 15 recite “face 2” or “face 5”, and thus it is unclear where the heatable coating is intended to be deposited.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites “on face 2 of said glazing” in line 2. However, none of claims 1, 11, or 15 recite “face 2”, and thus it is unclear where the heatable coating is intended to be deposited.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites “on face 3 and/or face 5” in line 3. However, none of claims 1, 11, or 15 recite “face 3” or “face 5”, and thus it is unclear where the low-emissivity coating is intended to be arranged.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites “on face 5 of said glazing” in line 2. However, none of claims 1, 11, or 15 recite “face 5”, and thus it is unclear where the heatable coating is intended to be deposited.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites “on face 2 and/or face 4” in line 3. However, none of claims 1, 11, or 15 recite “face 2” or “face 4”, and thus it is unclear where the low-emissivity coating is intended to be arranged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandal et al. (US 2018/0312428 A1, “Vandal”).
With respect to claims 1-2, Vandal discloses a laminated vehicle window (i.e., glass article) having a clear glass substrate 1 having a low-emissivity coating 20 applied to a surface thereof, wherein the coating 20 comprises a layer of silicon nitride (Si3N4) 9b, a layer of indium tin oxide (ITO) 5, a layer of silicon nitride (Si3N4) 9a, and a layer of zirconium oxide (ZrO2) 7 (Fig. 2, [0012], [0016], [0031]). The layers 9a and 9b are dielectric layers ([0016]). The silicon nitride layers 9a and 9b have thicknesses of 10-120 nm, which overlaps the presently claimed range; the ITO layer 5 has a thickness of 40-200 nm, which overlaps the presently claimed range; the zirconium oxide layer 7 has a thickness of 1-25 nm, which overlaps the presently claimed range ([0033]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of the overlap between the claimed glass article and that taught by Vandal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a glass article that is both taught by Vandal and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 5-6, Vandal discloses the dielectric layers 9a and 9b, which correspond to the claimed first and second dielectric layers, are made from silicon nitride (Si3N4) ([0030]) and may be (i.e., not required to be) made from other dielectric materials and may be (i.e., is optionally) doped with aluminum. However, since these other materials and dopants are optional, the dielectric layer consists essentially of silicon nitride. Further, while it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specific materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. The burden is on Applicant to show that the additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of Applicant’s invention. See MPEP 2111.03.
With respect to claim 10, Vandal discloses the coating 20 on the glass substrate 1 is heat treated and thermally tempered (i.e., thermally prestressed) ([0027]) and thus the substrate is a thermally prestressed glass pane, where the thermal prestressing occurs after deposition of the coating.
With respect to claims 11-12, as seen in Fig. 2 below, there is a laminating material 3 and absorbing glass substrate 2 on the other side of the glass substrate 1 from the coating 20. The laminating material 3 is a PVB layer ([0016]), which is identical to the thermoplastic sheet used in the present invention (instant specification, page 4, [0011]). While the coating 20 is not in direct contact with the layer 3, the present claims do not require the coating be in direct contact with the thermoplastic sheet, and thus Vandal meets the presently claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
630
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 13, as seen in Fig. 4 below, the coating 20 has an additional transparent dielectric layer 11 made of silicon oxynitride (SiON), and an additional layer 13 of indium tin oxide (ITO) or titanium oxide (TiOx) ([0032]). Given the layers 11 and 13 are part of the coating 20 which is a low-emissivity (low-E) coating ([0029]), the layers 11 and 13 would inherently be low-emissivity layers and therefore correspond to the claimed low-emissivity stack.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-6, 10-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monmeyran et al. (FR 3 111 631 A1, “Monmeyran”). The disclosure of Monmeyran is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claims 1-6, Monmeyran discloses a thermally insulating glass article comprising at least one glass substrate provided with a stack of layers layered successively from the surface of the substrate ([0015]) including a layer M1 made of a dielectric material of thickness e1 or set of layers based on dielectric materials e1 ([0016]), a titanium nitride layer ([0017]), a layer M2 made of a layer of dielectric material and having thickness e2 or set of layers based on dielectric materials of total thickness e2 ([0018]), an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer of thickness 5-70 nm ([0019]), a layer M3 made of a layer of dielectric material of thickness e3 or set of layers based on dielectric materials of total thickness e3 ([0020]), where e1 is 1-70 nm, e2 is 5-100 nm, and e3 is greater than 10 nm, preferably 10-100 nm ([0021]). These thicknesses overlap the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The dielectric materials include silicon nitride ([0023]); M1, M2, and M3 are made from silicon nitride ([0023]). A layer M4 made of a dielectric material having thickness e4 or set of layers based on dielectric materials of total thickness e4, where e4 is greater than 10 nm is present ([0030]). The layer M4 is made of titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, or titanium zirconium oxide ([0031]). The layer M2 corresponds to the first layer of dielectric material comprising silicon nitride presently claimed. The ITO layer corresponds to the layer based on transparent conducting oxide presently claimed. The layer M3 corresponds to the second layer of dielectric material comprising silicon nitride presently claimed. The layer M4 corresponds to the layer comprising a titanium oxide, a zirconium oxide, or a titanium zirconium oxide presently claimed. Because the layers M2 and M3 are not required to be any other materials, they consist essentially of silicon nitride as presently claimed.
In light of the overlap between the claimed glass article and that taught by Monmeyran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a glass article that is both taught by Monmeyran and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 10, Monmeyran discloses the glass substrate is tempered (i.e., thermally prestressed) ([0032]).
With respect to claims 11-12, Monmeyran discloses a first glass substrate (corresponding to the claimed other glass substrate) bonded by an intermediate thermoplastic sheet ([0034]) and thus discloses a multiple glazing as presently claimed.
With respect to claim 13, the layer M1 and titanium nitride layers set forth above correspond to the claimed low-emissivity stack.
With respect to claim 14, Monmeyran discloses the article is used in a double glazing ([0035]).
With respect to claims 15-16, Monmeyran discloses the article is used in a triple glazing ([0035]).
With respect to claim 20, while Monmeyran discloses the layer M1, which is part of the low-emissivity stack, is made of a set of layers of dielectric material ([0016]), Monmeyran does not disclose wherein the low-emissivity stack comprises a layer of ITO. However, Monmeyran discloses the ITO layer is a functional layer ([0085]) and the functional layers absorb incident solar radiation ([0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an additional ITO layer in order to further absorb incident solar radiation. The duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results. Providing an additional ITO layer would have achieved expected results, such as to further absorb incident solar radiation. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 (VI) B. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monmeyran et al. (FR 3 111 631 A1, “Monmeyran”) in view of Guillaume et al. (US 2016/0374150 A1, “Guillaume”). The disclosure of Monmeyran is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claim 9, while Monmeyran discloses the glass article as set forth above, Monmeyran does not disclose wherein the heatable coating has a sheet resistance of 50-400 Ω/□.
Guillaume teaches an electrically conductive coating having a layer of ITO ([0050], [0052]). The electrically conductive coating has a sheet resistance of 0.35-200 Ω/□ in order to provide an electrically conductive coating having good infrared reflecting properties and low emissivity ([0054]).
Monmeyran and Guillaume are analogous inventions in the field of electrically conductive low-emissivity coatings including a layer of ITO.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heatable coating of Monmeyran to have a sheet resistance of 0.35-200 Ω/□, including values presently claimed, as taught by Guillaume in order to provide a coating having good infrared reflecting properties and low emissivity (Guillaume, [0054]).
Claims 1-2 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume et al. (US 2016/0374150 A1, “Guillaume”) in view of Vandal et al. (US 2018/0312428 A1, “Vandal”).
With respect to claims 1-2, 5-9, 13, and 19, Guillaume discloses a heatable glass pane with a transparent, electrically conductive coating and at least two busbars ([0001], [0010], [0043]). The transparent, electrically conductive coating is a low-emissivity (low-E) coating ([0115]) and comprises: at least one metal layer such as silver; dielectric layers including silicone nitride; and at least one metal oxide layer including ITO ([0050], [0052]) and has a sheet resistance of 0.35-200 Ω/□ ([0054]). The busbars are located at both the upper and lower edge of the pane ([0090]). The busbars form a heating current where two or more busbars are used for complex pane geometries ([0090]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two busbars above the heatable coating in order to produce a desired current path.
However, Guillaume does not disclose wherein the transparent, electrically conductive coating (corresponding to the claimed heatable coating) comprises a first layer of dielectric material comprising silicon nitride having a thickness of 1-20 nm, a layer based on transparent conducting oxide comprising indium tin oxide (ITO) having a thickness of 1-40 nm, a second layer of dielectric material comprising silicon nitride having a thickness of 1-20 nm, and a layer comprising a titanium oxide, a zirconium oxide, or a titanium zirconium oxide having a thickness of 1-15 nm.
Vandal teaches a laminated vehicle window (i.e., glass article) having a clear glass substrate 1 having a low-emissivity coating 20 applied to a surface thereof, wherein the coating 20 comprises a layer of silicon nitride (Si3N4) 9b, a layer of indium tin oxide (ITO) 5, a layer of silicon nitride (Si3N4) 9a, and a layer of zirconium oxide (ZrO2) 7 (Fig. 2, [0012], [0016], [0031]). The layers 9a and 9b are dielectric layers ([0016]). The silicon nitride layers 9a and 9b have thicknesses of 10-120 nm, which overlaps the presently claimed range; the ITO layer 5 has a thickness of 40-200 nm, which overlaps the presently claimed range; the zirconium oxide layer 7 has a thickness of 1-25 nm, which overlaps the presently claimed range ([0033]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The coating 20 is sufficiently durable to survive in exposed environments and improves the solar heat gain characteristics of a window ([0016]).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guillaume and Vandal are analogous inventions in the field of low-emissivity coatings that are electrically conductive and applied to glass panes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heatable coating of Guillaume to contain the coating 20 having the layers 9b, 5, 9a, and 7 with the thicknesses, including values presently claimed, as taught by Vandal in order to provide a coating that is sufficiently durable to survive in exposed environments and improves solar heat gain characteristics of a window (Vandal, [0016]).
With respect to claim 10, Guillaume discloses the first pane (i.e., glass substrate) is subjected to a temperature treatment after application of the electrically conductive coating ([0058-0059], [0063]) (i.e., the substrate is a thermally prestresses glass pane after deposition of the coating).
With respect to claims 11-12, the pane is used in a laminated pane having a first pane (i.e., other glass substrate), an intermediate layer, a second pane (i.e., first glass substrate), and the transparent, electrically conductive coating arranged between the intermediate layer and the second pane ([0021]). The intermediate layer is made from a thermoplastic (i.e., a thermoplastic sheet) ([0048]).
With respect to claims 14-18, Guillaume discloses the laminated pane has at least one of the transparent, electrically conductive layers on at least one of the inner faces of the panes, where the panes include composites of two panes (i.e., a double glazing), or more than two panes (i.e., a triple or higher glazing) ([0055]). The transparent, electrically conductive layers correspond to the claimed low-emissivity coatings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday/Wednesday 07:30-12:30 and 20:30-22:30; Tuesday/Thursday/Friday 07:30-16:30 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights