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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 and 02/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 ends with a comma and does not end with a period (i.e. claim 1 ends with “Where ‘Q_ref’ corresponds to “Q” with S equal to 1,”). While this appears to be a typographical error, claim 1 is not a single complete sentence as required. 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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the roof" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear that a “roof” is required by the claim and which element should be considered as “the roof” or how such an element should be different from the façade. For the purposes of examination, “the roof” will be interpreted as “a roof.”
Claim 1 recites “at least one exterior laminated glazed unit and an interior glazed unit separated by a gas gap and intended respectively to be arranged towards the exterior and interior of the building.” However, it is unclear what structure is required for the units to be “intended respectively to be arranged.” It is unclear if some specific structure is required, or if any opposite units would read on the claimed intended purpose. For the purposes of examination, any glazed units separated by a gas gap will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “its exterior face” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which face should be considered “its exterior face” as either face could be oriented to be the exterior face. For the purposes of examination, any textured pattern on a face of the substrate will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites “a textured pattern which contrasts with a background.” However, it is unclear how such a textured pattern can “contrast” with a background as the background is variable and not defined by the claim. It is unclear what structure is required such that the textured pattern would contrast with a background, and as such, it is unclear what is required to satisfy the claimed “textured pattern.” For the purposes of examination, any textured pattern will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each subset of said textured pattern is separated from an adjacent subset by less than 10.16 cm” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the textured pattern has not been defined to have any subsets and as such it is unclear what is intended to be “each subset.” For the purposes of examination, any textured pattern with any feature that is separated from another feature by less than 10.16 cm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites that “said textured pattern has relative to the background a visibility SCORE greater than or equal to 0, and which satisfies the equation: SCORE = 0.85*ΔS + 0.15*ΔL.” However, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the textured pattern performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the textured pattern to achieve the claimed visibility SCORE. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Additionally, given that ΔS is defined to be a square root of an expression and ΔL appears to be a fraction of a difference (“Δf_achromatic”) which is a positive value with a constant “w_achromatic” which is a positive value, it follows that SCORE is always greater than or equal to 0. As such, it is unclear what is required by the claim such that the textured pattern has a visibility SCORE greater than or equal to 0.
Claim 1 recites that “ΔS is the chromatic contrast.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the chromatic contrast” and it is unclear what constitutes “the chromatic contrast” as such a feature is not defined. For the purposes of examination, ΔS will be interpreted as being defined as the function provided.
Claim 1 recites that “‘wi’ is the Weber fraction representing the sensitivity of a cone ‘i’ of the retina of a bird.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the Weber fraction”, “the sensitivity”, and “the retina.” It is unclear what constitutes the Weber fraction, the sensitivity, or the retina. Moreover, it is unclear which “bird” is being defined for “the retina of a bird,” as such a sensitivity depends upon both a species of bird and the individual bird itself. For example, an owl would have a different sensitivity from a pigeon, and a bird with full sight would have different sensitivity from a bird with a degree of blindness. Thus, it is unclear how to satisfy such a Weber fraction.
Additionally, given that “the retina of a bird” depends upon the individual bird and species, the various terms that are dependent upon the retina of a bird have a variable scope that is not clearly defined by the claim and, as such, the metes and bounds of such terms are indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “with w& = 0.2.” However, “w&” is not defined by the claim and it is unclear what is being referred to as “w&.” Additionally, the term w1 in the expression of ΔS is not defined but it is unclear if w&- is intended to refer to w1. For the purposes of examination, w& will be interpreted as w1.
Claim 1 recites “‘Δfi’ is the real perception difference between said pattern and the background.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the real perception difference” and it is unclear if any value satisfying the equation would read on the claimed “real perception difference” or if some additional feature is required. For the purposes of examination Δfi will be interpreted as being any value meeting the claimed equation.
Claim 1 recites “Qi is the sensory response of a cone ‘i’ of the retina of a bird.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the sensory response” and it is unclear how such a response should be defined. Additionally, it is unclear if “the retina of a bird” should be the retina previously recited or a different retina. Moreover, it is unclear which “bird” is being defined for “the retina of a bird,” as such a sensitivity depends upon both a species of bird and the individual bird itself.
Claim 1 recites that “‘λ’ is the wavelength.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the wavelength” and it is unclear what “wavelength” is being referred to. There is no wavelength defined by the claims nor light that could have such a wavelength, and as such, it is unclear what “the wavelength” is intended to be.
Claim 1 recites that “‘S’ is the considered spectrum.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the considered spectrum” and it is unclear what spectrum is intended to be “the considered spectrum.” Moreover, as a wavelength is a portion of the spectrum, it is unclear how “the considered spectrum” relates to the claimed “wavelength.”
Claim 1 recites that “‘I’ is the illuminant D65 according to standard EN410 which describes the average solar spectrum.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the illuminant D65.” It is unclear if the claim is intended to require a D65 illuminant in some manner or if the claim is merely referring to a function of the unit. Moreover, “standard EN410” appears to be a European standard for transmission of glass windows, which, by definition, changes over time. As such, the standard EN410 is variable and it is unclear which version of the EN410 standard is intended to be encompassed by the claim. Additionally, it is unclear whether the claim scope would change given an update to the claimed standard. Moreover, it is unclear how an “illuminant” can be defined to be a function of a wavelength in an integral. Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the average solar spectrum,” it is unclear what is intended to be “the average solar spectrum” as such an average is variable, and it is unclear if the standard EN410 is referring to the average solar spectrum or the illuminant.
Claim 1 further recites “‘Ri’ is the sensitivity spectrum of said cone ‘i’.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the sensitivity spectrum” and it is unclear what is intended to be such a spectrum. Specifically, such a value is not defined and it is unclear what should be a “sensitivity spectrum” as any “sensitivity” would be subjective to the specific eye anatomy of the observer.
As such, S, R, and I are unclear and the equation for Qi is also unclear.
Claim 1 recites that “‘ΔL’ is the achromatic contrast.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim and it is unclear what is intended to be “the achromatic contrast.” It is unclear if the term is merely referring to the equation or if the claim is defining some contrast of the unit.
Claim 1 recites that “‘w_achromatic’ is equal to 0.1 is the Weber fraction representing the achromatic sensitivity of the retina of a bird.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the Weber fraction representing the achromatic sensitivity of the retina of a bird.” It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the Weber fraction representing the sensitivity previously defined or an additional sensitivity. Additionally, it is unclear if “the retina of a bird” should be the retina previously recited or a different retina. Moreover, it is unclear which “bird” is being defined for “the retina of a bird,” as such a sensitivity depends upon both a species of bird and the individual bird itself. As such, the sensitivity is not clearly defined. Moreover, as w_achromatic is defined to be equal to 0.1, it is unclear how this is intended to refer to such a sensitivity. Additionally, with such a definition, it appears that ΔL is intended to simply be “ΔL = 10*Δf_achromatic” and it is unclear if the equation is intended to include some additional variables.
Claim 1 recites that “‘Δf_achromatic’ is the difference in real achromatic perception between said pattern and the background.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear how such a difference should be defined and it appears that the claimed “difference” depends upon the subjective perception of a user. Thus, the claimed term is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites that “Q is the achromatic sensory response of the retina of a bird.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term in the claim and it is unclear what is intended to be “the achromatic sensory response.” Additionally, it is unclear if “the retina of a bird” should be the retina previously recited or a different retina. Moreover, it is unclear which “bird” is being defined for “the retina of a bird,” as such a sensitivity depends upon both a species of bird and the individual bird itself.
Claim 1 recites that “‘R’ is the achromatic sensitivity spectrum.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term in the claim and it is unclear how such a sensitivity spectrum should be defined.
For the purposes of examination, any textured pattern with any feature that is separated from another feature by less than 10.16 cm will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation, as this is the only structural requirement of the textured pattern.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites “at least one reflective layer arranged between the interior transparent substrate and the external face of the exterior transparent substrate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the external face” in the claim and it is unclear which face should be considered “the external face.” For the purposes of examination, any reflective layer formed on a substrate will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 4-5 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 3 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites “said at least one reflective layer is arranged on the inner face of the transparent exterior substrate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the inner face.” Additionally, claim 4 depends upon claim 3 which recites “at least one reflective layer arranged between the interior transparent substrate and the external face of the exterior transparent substrate.” As such, it is unclear how the reflective layer can be arranged “on the inner face” and between the various substrates. For the purposes of examination, any reflective layer formed on a substrate will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 4 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 5 recites “The multi-glazed unit according to claim 3 4.” As such, it is unclear whether claim 5 is intended to be dependent upon claim 3 or claim 4. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 3.
Claim 5 further recites that “said at least one reflective layer is composed of silicon nitride and/or of oxide MOx (M= Si, Sn, Zn) and/or of metal M (M=Ni, Cr, Ti, Ag).” However, it is unclear how M can be both Si, Sn, Zn and Ni, Cr, Ti, Ag. Further, given the multiple instances of the term “and/or” it is unclear what is required by the claim and it is unclear if the metals should be elemental metals or oxides. Further, it is unclear what is intended by “x” as “x” is not defined by the claim. For the purposes of examination, any reflective layer comprising silicon nitride or an oxide of Si, Sn, or Zn or elemental or an oxide of Ni, Cr, Ti, or Ag will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites that “said texture pattern comprises wavy or rectilinear strips.” However, it is unclear what constitutes a “wavy” strip as it is unclear what variation would constitute a strip being “wavy.” Furthermore, it is unclear in which direction the strips should be “wavy.” For the purposes of examination, any pattern comprising strips will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites “A method comprising manufacturing a multi-glazed unit according to claim 1.” However, claim 8 fails to set forth any actual manufacturing steps for providing the multi-glazed unit, and as such, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what method is required by the claim to constitute manufacturing a multi-glazed unit. “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” See Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986), MPEP 2173.05(q).
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matthew et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0173071; hereinafter – “Matthew”).
Regarding claim 1, Matthew teaches a multi-glazed unit adapted to be mounted in a building, on a facade and/or on the roof, comprising at least one exterior laminated glazed unit (402) and an interior glazed unit (402) separated by a gas gap (space between S2 and S3) and intended respectively to be arranged towards the exterior and interior of the building (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094), said exterior laminated glazed unit (402) comprising at least one electrochromic stack (420) and a lamination interlayer (435), interposed between an interior transparent substrate (402) and an exterior transparent substrate (402) comprising on its exterior face a textured pattern (405) which contrasts with a background (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094) wherein:
each subset of said textured pattern (405) is separated from an adjacent subset by a distance less than 10.16 cm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094),
said textured pattern (405) has relative to the background a visibility SCORE greater than or equal to 0, and which satisfies the equation: SCORE = 0.85*ΔS + 0.15*ΔL with ΔS and ΔL as defined (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0070-0073, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094).
Specifically, regarding the visibility SCORE, Examiner respectfully notes that the SCORE value must always be greater than or equal to 0 given the definition of ΔS and ΔL, and thus Matthew necessarily teaches the claimed SCORE value by definition. Nevertheless, Matthew additionally teaches a multi-glazed unit having “contrasting components” differing “at a UV wavelength visible by birds (but not humans)” (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0070-0073), and teaches a textured pattern of an identical material and structure as the instantly claimed invention. “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). Thus, Matthew’s multi-glazed unit anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said interior transparent substrate is coated with said electrochromic stack (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094).
Regarding claim 3, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches at least one reflective layer arranged between the interior transparent substrate and the external face of the exterior transparent substrate (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Regarding claim 4, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 3, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is arranged on the inner face of the transparent exterior substrate (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Regarding claim 5, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 3, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is composed of silicon nitride and/or of oxide MOx (M= Si, Sn, Zn) and/or of metal M (M=Ni, Cr, Ti, Ag) (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Regarding claim 6, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said texture pattern comprises wavy or rectilinear strips (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0047-0050, and 0052-0068).
Regarding claim 7, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said texture pattern comprises dots (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0047-0050, and 0052-0068).
Regarding claim 8, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches a method comprising manufacturing a multi-glazed unit (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 6; Paragraphs 0016, 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0094, and 0101-0108).
Regarding claim 9, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches a method comprising mounting in a building, on a façade and/or on the roof, a multi-glazed unit according to claim 1 (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 6; Paragraphs 0016, 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0078-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0094, and 0101-0108).
Regarding claim 10, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that the lamination interlayer is made of a polymer material (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0093-0094).
Regarding claim 11, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 10, as above.
Matthew further teaches that the polymer material is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0093-0094).
Regarding claim 12, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that each subset of said textured pattern is separated from an adjacent subset by a distance less than 5.08 cm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0056-0065).
Regarding claim 13, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 2, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said electrochromic stack is in contact with said gas gap (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094, e.g. Paragraph 0079: “When the electrochromic device is provided on S1 and/or S2, the warm electrochromic device is on the outboard lite, and any argon (or other gas) provided interior of the IGU can act as a thermal barrier to minimize the amount of heat that enters the building as a result of the warm electrochromic device”).
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthew.
Regarding claim 1, Matthew teaches a multi-glazed unit adapted to be mounted in a building, on a facade and/or on the roof, comprising at least one exterior laminated glazed unit (402) and an interior glazed unit (402) separated by a gas gap (space between S2 and S3) and intended respectively to be arranged towards the exterior and interior of the building (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094), said exterior laminated glazed unit (402) comprising at least one electrochromic stack (420) and a lamination interlayer (435), interposed between an interior transparent substrate (402) and an exterior transparent substrate (402) comprising on its exterior face a textured pattern (405) which contrasts with a background (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094) wherein:
each subset of said textured pattern (405) is separated from an adjacent subset by a distance less than 10.16 cm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094),
said textured pattern (405) has relative to the background a visibility SCORE greater than or equal to 0, and which satisfies the equation: SCORE = 0.85*ΔS + 0.15*ΔL with ΔS and ΔL as defined (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0070-0073, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094).
Specifically, regarding the visibility SCORE, Examiner respectfully notes that the SCORE value must always be greater than or equal to 0 given the definition of ΔS and ΔL, and thus Matthew necessarily teaches the claimed SCORE value by definition. Nevertheless, Matthew additionally teaches a multi-glazed unit having “contrasting components” differing “at a UV wavelength visible by birds (but not humans)” (See e.g. Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0070-0073), and teaches a textured pattern of an identical material and structure as the instantly claimed invention. “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). Thus, Matthew’s multi-glazed unit anticipates the claimed invention.
While Matthew’s multi-glazed unit meets all of the structural requirements of the claim and therefore meets the claimed SCORE value, Matthew fails to explicitly disclose the claimed SCORE value of the textured pattern relative to the background.
However, Matthew teaches adjusting the textured pattern such that it “has certain characteristics to discourage birds from trying to fly through the window” (Paragraph 0056) and is “formed in a way that renders the window visible to birds but not to humans, thereby reducing bird mortality while ensuring an unobstructed view for human occupants” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, even if Matthew’s multi-glazed unit did not have the claimed SCORE value, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-glazed unit of Matthew to have the claimed SCORE value such that it “has certain characteristics to discourage birds from trying to fly through the window” and is “formed in a way that renders the window visible to birds but not to humans, thereby reducing bird mortality while ensuring an unobstructed view for human occupants,” as taught by Matthew (Paragraphs 0005 and 0056), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said interior transparent substrate is coated with said electrochromic stack (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094).
Regarding claim 3, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches at least one reflective layer arranged between the interior transparent substrate and the external face of the exterior transparent substrate (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Regarding claim 4, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 3, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is arranged on the inner face of the transparent exterior substrate (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Regarding claim 5, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 3, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is composed of silicon nitride and/or of oxide MOx (M= Si, Sn, Zn) and/or of metal M (M=Ni, Cr, Ti, Ag) (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Regarding claim 6, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said texture pattern comprises wavy or rectilinear strips (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0047-0050, and 0052-0068).
Regarding claim 7, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said texture pattern comprises dots (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0047-0050, and 0052-0068).
Regarding claim 8, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches a method comprising manufacturing a multi-glazed unit (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 6; Paragraphs 0016, 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0094, and 0101-0108).
Regarding claim 9, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches a method comprising mounting in a building, on a façade and/or on the roof, a multi-glazed unit according to claim 1 (See e.g. Figs. 2-4 and 6; Paragraphs 0016, 0047-0050, 0052-0068, 0078-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0094, and 0101-0108).
Regarding claim 10, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that the lamination interlayer is made of a polymer material (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0093-0094).
Regarding claim 11, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 10, as above.
Matthew further teaches that the polymer material is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0093-0094).
Regarding claim 12, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that each subset of said textured pattern is separated from an adjacent subset by a distance less than 5.08 cm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4; Paragraphs 0056-0065).
Regarding claim 13, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 2, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said electrochromic stack is in contact with said gas gap (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0079-0080, 0082-0086, and 0088-0094, e.g. Paragraph 0079: “When the electrochromic device is provided on S1 and/or S2, the warm electrochromic device is on the outboard lite, and any argon (or other gas) provided interior of the IGU can act as a thermal barrier to minimize the amount of heat that enters the building as a result of the warm electrochromic device”).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthew in view of Minaai (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2024/0093550).
Regarding claim 3, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches at least one reflective layer arranged between the interior transparent substrate and the external face of the exterior transparent substrate (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
While Matthew teaches a structure having a reflective layer, in the interest of compact prosecution Examiner further submits reference Arnold.
Minaai teaches a multi-glazed panel comprising at least one exterior laminated glazed unit (11) and an interior glazed unit (12) intended respectively to be arranged towards the exterior and interior of the building, said exterior laminated glazed unit comprising a lamination interlayer (14) interposed between an interior transparent substrate and an exterior transparent substrate comprising on its exterior face a textured pattern (21) which contrasts with a background and at least one reflective layer (21, 41, 42) arranged between the interior transparent substrate and the external face of the exterior transparent substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-5 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0067-0069 and 0078-0079).
Minaai teaches this reflective layer to provide “a heat barrier film disposed on the second face and serving to reflect near-infrared light” (Paragraph 0038) and as it “improves the yield of glass sheets” (Paragraph 0037) and “reduces the cost of producing the multi-glazed panel, and causes birds to more likely perceive the multi-glazed panel” (Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, even if Matthew did not disclose the claimed reflective layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-glazed unit of Matthew with the reflective layer of Minaai to provide “a heat barrier film disposed on the second face and serving to reflect near-infrared light” and as it “improves the yield of glass sheets” and “reduces the cost of producing the multi-glazed panel, and causes birds to more likely perceive the multi-glazed panel,” as taught by Minaai (Paragraphs 0023 and 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 4, Matthew in view of Minaai teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 3, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is arranged on the inner face of the transparent exterior substrate (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Additionally, Minaai further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is arranged on the inner face of the transparent exterior substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-5 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0067-0069 and 0078-0079).
Minaai teaches this reflective layer to provide “a heat barrier film disposed on the second face and serving to reflect near-infrared light” (Paragraph 0038) and as it “improves the yield of glass sheets” (Paragraph 0037) and “reduces the cost of producing the multi-glazed panel, and causes birds to more likely perceive the multi-glazed panel” (Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, even if Matthew did not disclose the claimed reflective layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-glazed unit of Matthew with the reflective layer of Minaai to provide “a heat barrier film disposed on the second face and serving to reflect near-infrared light” and as it “improves the yield of glass sheets” and “reduces the cost of producing the multi-glazed panel, and causes birds to more likely perceive the multi-glazed panel,” as taught by Minaai (Paragraphs 0023 and 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 5, Matthew in view of Minaai teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 3, as above.
Matthew further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is composed of silicon nitride and/or of oxide MOx (M= Si, Sn, Zn) and/or of metal M (M=Ni, Cr, Ti, Ag) (See e.g. Figs. 4-5; Paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0079-0080, 0082-0086, 0088-0098, 0111, 0117, and 0142).
Additionally, Minaai further teaches that said at least one reflective layer is composed of silicon nitride and/or of oxide MOx (M= Si, Sn, Zn) and/or of metal M (M=Ni, Cr, Ti, Ag) (See e.g. Figs. 1-5 and 10-13; Paragraphs 0067-0069 and 0078-0079).
Minaai teaches this reflective layer to provide “a heat barrier film disposed on the second face and serving to reflect near-infrared light” (Paragraph 0038) and as it “improves the yield of glass sheets” (Paragraph 0037) and “reduces the cost of producing the multi-glazed panel, and causes birds to more likely perceive the multi-glazed panel” (Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, even if Matthew did not disclose the claimed reflective layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-glazed unit of Matthew with the reflective layer of Minaai to provide “a heat barrier film disposed on the second face and serving to reflect near-infrared light” and as it “improves the yield of glass sheets” and “reduces the cost of producing the multi-glazed panel, and causes birds to more likely perceive the multi-glazed panel,” as taught by Minaai (Paragraphs 0023 and 0037-0038), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthew in view of Arnold et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 20170020123; hereinafter – “Arnold”).
Regarding claim 10, Matthew teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 1, as above.
Matthew further teaches that the lamination interlayer is made of a polymer material (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0093-0094).
While Matthew teaches a structure having a polymer material, in the interest of compact prosecution Examiner further submits reference Arnold.
Arnold teaches a bird protection device comprising at least one exterior laminated glazed unit (1) and an interior glazed unit (6) intended respectively to be arranged towards the exterior and interior of the building, said exterior laminated glazed unit comprising a lamination interlayer (5) interposed between an interior transparent substrate and an exterior transparent substrate comprising on its exterior face a textured pattern which contrasts with a background wherein the lamination interlayer is made of a polymer material (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0056).
Arnold teaches this polymer material as a suitable adhesive such that the “composite is fixed in place” (Paragraph 0048) in order “to provide a lower-cost producing process for bird protection devices, which preferably also increases the contrast of the optical structures of the bird protection device” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, even if Matthew did not disclose the claimed polymer material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-glazed unit of Matthew with the polymer material of Arnold such that the “composite is fixed in place” in order “to provide a lower-cost producing process for bird protection devices, which preferably also increases the contrast of the optical structures of the bird protection device,” as taught by Arnold (Paragraphs 0007 and 0048), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, Matthew in view of Arnold teaches the multi-glazed unit according to claim 10, as above.
Matthew further teaches that the polymer material is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (See e.g. Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0093-0094).
Arnold further teaches that the polymer material is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (See e.g. Fig. 3; Paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0056).
Arnold teaches this PVB as a suitable adhesive such that the “composite is fixed in place” (Paragraph 0048) in order “to provide a lower-cost producing process for bird protection devices, which preferably also increases the contrast of the optical structures of the bird protection device” (Paragraph 0007).
Therefore, even if Matthew did not disclose the claimed polymer material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multi-glazed unit of Matthew with the PVB of Arnold such that the “composite is fixed in place” in order “to provide a lower-cost producing process for bird protection devices, which preferably also increases the contrast of the optical structures of the bird protection device,” as taught by Arnold (Paragraphs 0007 and 0048), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cronin et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0295983) teaches doors and entryway systems with variable light transmission panels.
Matthew et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0294016) teaches bird friendly electrochromic devices having a similar construction.
Vikor et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0345206) teaches an IG window unit for preventing bird collisions.
Theios (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2014/0168760) teaches a window for reducing bird collisions with a similar laminated structure.
Mahieu (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2024/0253330) teaches a glazing for preventing bird collisions having a similar structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
