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 § 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.
Claims 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(bas 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 6 recites “further comprising a AlN layer…within said top AlN layer” (emphasis added) and “said top AlN layer” lacks antecedent basis and therefore the scope of the claim cannot be determined. Claims 7-16 are included in this rejection as they depend upon a rejected claim. Additionally, claims 7, 11 and 16 recite “the AlN layer” and it is unclear if this refers to the AlN wetting layer or top AlN layer. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oldfield (US 2022/0267199).
Considering claim 1, Oldfield teaches a toughenable coated float glass substrate (abstract) having a low-e coating for control (Paragraph 6). The structure comprises a glass substrate (Paragraph 57) with a lower anti-reflection layer (Paragraph 58) and a silver-based functional layer (Paragraph 59). The lower anti-reflection layer may comprise a base layer of an (oxi)nitride of Al, etc. (Paragraph 70) with a thickness of at least 5 nm and preferably 5-60 nm (Paragraph 83) and a further separation layer of an (oxi)nitride of Al, etc. (Paragraph 72). The (oxi)nitride of aluminum encompasses both AlNx and AlOxNy (Paragraph 84) which encompasses where the lower anti-reflection layer may comprise a first AlN (wetting) layer and a further AlOxNy separation layer (e.g. subsurface region). Examples of light transmittance of 63.2% and 59.7% are taught (Table 3; Paragraph 156).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed structure this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Oldfield as this is considered a combination of anti-reflection layer materials known to form low-e coated glass and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the thickness and light transmittance taught by Oldfield overlap that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 2 and 20-21, Oldfield teaches where the ratio of O/N in the aluminum (oxi)nitride is below 1 (Paragraph 85) overlapping that which is claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 3, Oldfield teaches where the thickness of the separation layer is at least 0.5 nm and preferably 0.5-6 nm (Paragraph 73). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 4, Oldfield teaches where the base layer has a thickness of at least 5 nm and preferably 5-60 nm (Paragraph 83). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 5, Oldfield teaches where the thickness of the silver-based functional layer is 5-20 nm (Paragraph 99).
Considering claim 6, Oldfield teaches where the upper anti-reflection layer comprises an (oxi)nitride of Al, etc. (Paragraph 120) and a further layer of (oxi)nitrides of Al, etc. (Paragraph 130) which encompasses the claimed subsurface region and top AlN layer, respectively.
Considering claims 7-8, Oldfield teaches where the upper anti-reflection layer optionally comprises a (oxi)nitride of silicon (Paragraphs 120 and 128) (e.g. a protection layer) which encompasses SiOxNy (Paragraph 84).
Considering claims 9-10, Oldfield teaches where the thickness of the (oxi)nitride of silicon is at least 5 nm and preferably 5-50 nm (Paragraph 127).
Considering claims 11-13, Oldfield teaches further optical layers of partial layers in the upper anti-reflection layers including oxides of Ti, Zr, etc. and a (oxi)nitride of silicon (Paragraph 130) which are substantially identical to the claimed color-control materials and therefore are expected to possess the claimed index of refraction, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claims 14-15, Oldfield teaches where the thickness of the (oxi)nitride of silicon in the upper anti-reflection layer is at least 5 nm and preferably 5-50 nm (Paragraph 127). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 16, Oldfield teaches a barrier layer (i.e. blocker layer) between the silver-based functional layer and the upper anti-reflection layer (Paragraphs 57-61).
Considering claims 17-19, Oldfield teaches where the lower anti-reflection layer comprises one or more base layers of a (oxi)nitride of silicon (Paragraph 70) which encompasses SiNx and SiOxNy (Paragraph 84) overlapping the claimed content with a thickness of at least 5 nm and preferably 5-60 nm (Paragraph 83) substantially identical to that which is claimed and is considered to possess the claimed index of refraction as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claims 22-23, Oldfield teaches where the coated glass is an architectural and motor vehicle glazing (Paragraph 13) (i.e. a window).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McSporran et al. (US 9,598,311) and Monmeyran et al. (US 2023/0312408) teach solar coated glass similar to that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights