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.
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 28, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 28 and 35, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 36 depends from claim 35 and does not correct the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 19-21, 23, 26, 28-32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB ‘189 (GB 2024189).
Claim 19 – GB ‘189 teaches a process for manufacturing a coated glass article (Page 1 Lines 34-36), said process comprising: providing a glass substrate having a surface (Page 1 Lines 34-36), providing an aqueous solution of dimethyl tin dichloride (DMT) (Page 1 Lines 37-41), vaporising the aqueous solution of dimethyl tin dichloride to form a gaseous mixture comprising dimethyl tin dichloride and water (Page 1 Lines 46-48, the surface temperature far exceeds the boiling point of water so vaporization necessarily occurs), delivering the gaseous mixture to the surface of the glass substrate (Page 1 Lines 46-48), and depositing a layer based on tin oxide on the surface of the glass substrate (Page 1 Lines 46-48), wherein the surface of the glass substrate is at a temperature of at least 550 degrees C when the gaseous mixture is delivered to said surface of the glass substrate (Page 1 Lines 46-48, 650 degrees C expressly disclosed; Page 2 Line 8, 566-577 degrees C).
Claim 20 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein when the gaseous mixture is delivered to said surface of the glass substrate, the surface of the glass substrate is at a temperature of at least 570 degrees C (Page 2 Line 8, 566-577 degrees C).
Claim 21 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein when the gaseous mixture is delivered to said surface of the glass substrate, the surface of the glass substrate is at a temperature of at least 580 degrees C but at most 750 degrees C (Page 1 Lines 46-48, 650 degrees C expressly disclosed).
Claim 23 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein the gaseous mixture also comprises molecular oxygen and/or a carrier gas (Page 1 Lines 54-58, application occurs after the glass ribbon clears the reducing atmosphere of the bath; air comprises both oxygen and nitrogen, nitrogen being interpreted as a carrier gas).
Claim 26 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein the gaseous mixture has a molar percentage of water of at least 15 mol% (bridging pages 1 and 2, the component solutions are approximately 75% water by weight; water is much smaller than the other molecules, so 100 grams of water has far more moles per weight than 100 grams of the other chemicals).
Claim 28 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein the formation of the gaseous mixture comprises heating the aqueous solution of dimethyl tin dichloride and/or any further precursor compound (Page 2 Lines 5-9, the aqueous mixture is heated by the surface of the glass ribbon).
Claim 29 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 28, wherein the aqueous solution of dimethyl tin dichloride is heated to a temperature of at least 1600C (Page 2 Lines 5-9, the aqueous mixture is heated by the surface of the glass ribbon at a temperature of at least 566 degrees Celsius).
Claim 30 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein the process is carried out using Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) (Page 2 Lines 5-9, pyrolytic deposition is a form of chemical vapor deposition).
Claim 31 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein the process is carried out during the float glass manufacturing process (Page 1 Lines 49-54, application as a finishing process of a float glass manufacturing process).
Claim 32 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein the layer based on tin oxide comprises doped tin oxide and/or comprises a mixed oxide (Page 1 Lines 28-30, mixed cobalt and tin oxides).
Claim 34 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, wherein said layer based on tin oxide is deposited directly on the surface of the glass substrate (Page 1 Lines 49-54, spraying onto the surface of the glass ribbon).
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.
Claim(s) 24, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘189 as applied to claim 19 above.
Claim 24 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the aqueous solution of dimethyl tin dichloride has a concentration of at least 30 %wt. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Selection of a particular concentration of a component is held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 25 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the gaseous mixture has a molar percentage of DMT of at least 0.5 mol%. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Selection of a particular concentration of a component is held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 27 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the gaseous mixture has a molar percentage of oxygen of at least 15 mol%. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Selection of a particular concentration of a component is held to be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim(s) 22 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘189 as applied to claims 19 and 32 above, and further in view of GB ‘069 (GB 25123069.
Claim 22 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the coated glass article exhibits a sheet resistance of at most 50 ohm/sq. GB ‘189 discloses the desire to modify oxide coatings to control reflectance and transmittance of the coated glass at Page 1 Lines 10-12. GB ‘069 discloses aluminum doped tin oxide coatings (Title) for the purpose of modifying resistivity and absorption of the coated substrate (Page 1 Lines 2-5), discloses a process based on DMT, water, and oxygen (Page 2 Lines 16-22), and discloses aluminum-containing tin oxide films commensurate with the claimed sheet resistance (Table 2, examples 96815 #2, #3, #7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of GB ‘189 to include aluminum as a dopant material as suggested by GB ‘069 as a desirable modification of the properties of a glass substrate commensurate with GB ‘189.
Claim 33 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 32, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the doped tin oxide is doped with one or more of fluorine, indium, antimony, boron, manganese, zinc, aluminium, chromium, phosphorus, strontium or cadmium. GB ‘189 discloses the desire to modify oxide coatings to control reflectance and transmittance of the coated glass at Page 1 Lines 10-12. GB ‘069 discloses aluminum doped tin oxide coatings (Title) for the purpose of modifying resistivity and absorption of the coated substrate (Page 1 Lines 2-5), discloses a process based on DMT, water, and oxygen (Page 2 Lines 16-22), and discloses aluminum-containing tin oxide films commensurate with the claimed sheet resistance (Table 2, examples 96815 #2, #3, #7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of GB ‘189 to include aluminum as a dopant material as suggested by GB ‘069 as a desirable modification of the properties of a glass substrate commensurate with GB ‘189.
Claim(s) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB ‘189 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of EP ‘377 (EP 0697377).
Claim 35 – GB ‘189 teaches the process according to claim 19, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein said layer based on tin oxide is deposited indirectly on the surface of the glass substrate and wherein said layer based on tin oxide is deposited over, and optionally contacts, a layer based on silica. EP ‘377 is drawn to forming tin oxide coatings on glass substrates comprising silica coatings (Example 1, pages 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of GB ‘189 to perform the deposition process on a silica-coated glass substrate as suggested by EP ‘377, since tin oxide coatings are desirable for the listed class of substrate.
Claim 36 – GB ‘189 / EP ‘377 teaches the process according to claim 35, wherein said layer based on silica has been deposited over, and directly contacts, a further layer based on tin oxide (the sequence of introduction of materials in a process is a settled matter of design choice).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
