DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seth et al. (US 7,919,158 B2).
With regard to claim 1: Seth et al. discloses a double-pane insulating glazing unit (200) (fig. 2), the double-pane insulating glazing unit having a single between-pane space (240) and two glass panes (210, 212) (fig. 2; claim 2), such that the single between-pane space (240) is located between the two glass panes (210, 212) (fig. 2; claim 2). Seth et al. discloses that the width between the two glass panes is 0.5 inches (col. 12, lines 63-67), converted and rounded is 13mm
Seth further discloses that the double-pane insulating glazing unit (200) is devoid of a third glass pane, the double-pane insulating glazing unit (200) having an aerogel layer (in contact with or attached to the multilayer polymeric film 250) and a low-emissivity coating (fig. 2; col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 24; claim 4),
the low-emissivity coating being on an interior surface of a first one (210) of the two glass panes (210, 212) (col. 8, lines 50-55), the aerogel layer (in contact with or attached to the multilayer polymeric film 250) being on an interior surface of a second one (212) of the two glass panes (210, 212), such that the low-emissivity coating and the aerogel layer are both located in the between-pane space (240) (fig. 2; col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 24; claim 4), the low-emissivity coating and the aerogel layer being separated from each other by a gas gap, the gas gap containing a gaseous atmosphere (fig. 2; col. 8, lines 63-67).
With regard to claim 2: Seth et al. discloses that the structure of the double-pane insulating glazing unit as claimed and would be expected to have the same performance characteristics including a U factor in a range of from 0.11 to 0.21 Btu/(h-f²-°F).
With regard to claim 3: Seth et al. discloses that the structure of the double-pane insulating glazing unit as claimed and would be expected to have the same performance characteristics including a visible transmission in a range of 0.64 to 0.76.
With regard to claim 4: Seth et al. discloses that the structure of the double-pane insulating glazing unit as claimed and would be expected to have the same performance characteristics including a haze of from 0.5% to 4%.
With regard to claim 5: Seth et al. discloses that the aerogel layer is devoid (monolithic or fiber
reinforced sheet) of flowable aerogel particles (col. 11, lines 30-33).
With regard to claim 6: Seth et al. discloses the aerogel layer is formed by one or more aerogel sheets (monolithic or fiber reinforced sheet) adhered to the interior surface of the second one (212) of the two glass panes via the infrared radiation reflecting multilayer polymeric film (250) (col. 11, lines 33- 36).
With regard to claim 7: Seth et al. discloses that the aerogel layer is formed by a single aerogel sheet that is a self-supporting sheet (monolithic or fiber reinforced sheet).
With regard to claim 8: Seth et al. discloses that the width between the two glass panes is 0.5 inches converted and rounded to 13mm, the thickness of an infrared radiation reflecting multilayer polymeric film (250) having a thickness of less than 1 micrometer and an aerogel thickness in the range of 3mm (col. 8, lines 56-67; col. 11, lines 26-30; and col. 12, lines 62-67). Accordingly, the width of the gas gap would be approximately 10mm taking into account the thickness of aerogel layer.
With regard to claim 9: Seth et al. discloses that that the aerogel layer has a thickness in the range of 3mm (col. 11, lines 26-30).
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) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth et al. (US 7,919,158 B2) in view of de Moncuit et al. (US 5,154,953).
With regard to claim 10: Seth et al. discloses a double-pane insulating glazing unit (200) (fig. 2), the double-pane insulating glazing unit having a single between-pane space (240) and two glass panes (210, 212) (fig. 2; claim 2), such that the single between-pane space (240) is located between the two glass panes (210, 212) (fig. 2; claim 2). Seth et al. discloses that the width between the two glass panes is 0.5 inches (col. 12, lines 63-67), converted and rounded is 13mm.
Seth further discloses that the double-pane insulating glazing unit (200) is devoid of a third glass pane, the double-pane insulating glazing unit (200) having an aerogel layer (in contact with or attached to the multilayer polymeric film 250) and a low-emissivity coating (fig. 2; col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 24; claim 4),
the low-emissivity coating being on an interior surface of a first one (210) of the two glass panes (210, 212) (col. 8, lines 50-55), the aerogel layer (in contact with or attached to the multilayer polymeric film 250) being on an interior surface of a second one (212) of the two glass panes (210, 212), such that the low-emissivity coating and the aerogel layer are both located in the between-pane space (240) (fig. 2; col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 24; claim 4), the low-emissivity coating and the aerogel layer being separated from each other by a gas gap, the gas gap containing a gaseous atmosphere (fig. 2; col. 8, lines 63-67).
Seth et al. does not disclose a transparent conductive oxide coating, the transparent conductive oxide coating being on an exterior surface of the second one of the two glass panes, such that the second one of the two glass panes supports both the aerogel layer and the transparent conductive oxide coating.
However, de Moncuit et al. discloses a transparent conductive oxide coating (5), the transparent conductive oxide coating (5) being on an exterior surface of the second one (10) of a two glass panes (6, 10) (fig. 3; col. 5, lines 34-38; col. 8, lines 22-28).
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 double-pane insulating glazing unit of Seth et al. to include a transparent conductive oxide coating being on an exterior surface of a second one of glass panes such as taught by de Moncuit et al. in order to provide a means of reducing the emissivity of the coated face in respect of a long wavelength infrared radiation where the coating is highly resistant to abrasion and weathering. Seth et al. as modified by de Moncuit et al. discloses that the second one of the two glass panes supports both the aerogel layer and the transparent conductive oxide coating.
With regard to claim 11: Seth et al. discloses that the structure of the double-pane insulating glazing unit as claimed and would be expected to have the same performance characteristics including a U factor in a range of from 0.11 to 0.19 Btu/(h-f2-oF).
With regard to claim 12: Seth et al. discloses that the structure of the double-pane insulating glazing unit as claimed and would be expected to have the same performance characteristics including a visible transmission in a range of 0.64 to 0.72.
With regard to claim 13: Seth et al. discloses that the structure of the double-pane insulating glazing unit as claimed and would be expected to have the same performance characteristics including a haze of from 0.5% to 4%.
With regard to claim 14: Seth et al. discloses that the aerogel layer is devoid (monolithic or fiber
reinforced sheet) of flowable aerogel particles (col. 11, lines 30-33).
With regard to claim 15: Seth et al. discloses the aerogel layer is formed by one or more aerogel sheets (monolithic or fiber reinforced sheet) adhered to the interior surface of the second one (212) of the two glass panes via the infrared radiation reflecting multilayer polymeric film (250) (col. 11, lines 33- 36).
With regard to claim 16: Seth et al. discloses that the aerogel layer is formed by a single aerogel sheet that is a self-supporting sheet (monolithic or fiber reinforced sheet).
With regard to claim 17: Seth et al. discloses that the width between the two glass panes is 0.5 inches converted and rounded to 13mm, the thickness of an infrared radiation reflecting multilayer polymeric film (250) having a thickness of less than 1 micrometer and an aerogel thickness in the range of 3mm (col. 8, lines 56-67; col. 11, lines 26-30; and col. 12, lines 62-67). Accordingly, the width of the gas gap would be approximately 10mm taking into account the thickness of aerogel layer.
With regard to claim 18: Seth et al. discloses that that the aerogel layer has a thickness in the range of 3mm (col. 11, lines 26-30).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,438. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the elements of the instant claims can be found within the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to energy efficient windows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights