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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 3/27/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-12 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al (US 2013/0273320 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Bockmeyer teaches a substrate (e.g., glass or ceramic cooktops) comprising a coating consisting of essentially of a glass frit (abstract, para 2, 49-51).
Bockmeyer teaches the coating may be applied in a variety of patterns and also me be applied as a liquid stopping coating on cooktops and have an average layer thickness from 1 to 50 µm which lies within the range of the instant claims (para 19, 92,141, 143; figs 1, 3) which would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a substrate having a spill retention mechanism that hinders movement of a liquid that spills on the substrate.
Regarding the location of the liquid stopping coating or spill retention mechanism, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location of the liquid stopping coating to optimize its ability to retain or stop spills.
Regarding claim 4, Bockmeyer teaches using glass flow forming particles with a diameter of 10 µm or less (para 53) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a D50 grain size within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 6, Bockmeyer further teaches the frit contains glass spherical particles (i.e., hollow or solid glass spheres) and other particles which may have a polygonal shape (e.g., BN, SiN) (para 66-72, table 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Bockmeyer teaches adjusting the shape of the texturing particles and the peak-to-valley (PV) value for the layer to adjust its roughness (i.e., Ra and Rz of the frit) (para 36, 62-66); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the shape of the texturing particles and the peak-to-valley (PV) value for the layer to optimize its roughness.
Regarding claim 8, Bockmeyer teaches an example wherein 14 g of glass texturing particles are used in a 60 g paste, so ~23.3 wt. % (para 150), which lies within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claims 10, Bockmeyer teaches the frit contains glass spherical particles (i.e., hollow or solid glass spheres) which would have suggested to one ordinary skill at the time of invention maximizing the sphericity of the particles (para 65, 69-70, table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Bockmeyer gives examples of the applied layer or coating being transparent (para 172-173).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the size of the liquid stopping coating of Bockmeyer based upon the size or volume of the spillage it needs to contain.
Regarding claims 19-22, and 26, Bockmeyer teaches a substrate (e.g., glass or ceramic cooktops) comprising a coating consisting of essentially of a glass frit (abstract, para 2, 49-51).
Bockmeyer teaches the coating may be applied in a variety of patterns and also me be applied as a liquid stopping coating on cooktops and have an average layer thickness from 1 to 50 µm which lies within the range of the instant claims (para 19, 92,141, 143; figs 1, 3) which would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a substrate having a spill retention mechanism that hinders movement of a liquid that spills on the substrate.
Regarding the location of the liquid stopping coating or spill retention mechanism, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location of the liquid stopping coating to optimize its ability to retain or stop spills.
Bockmeyer further teaches the frit contains glass spherical particles (i.e., hollow or solid glass spheres) and other particles which may have a polygonal shape (e.g., BN, SiN) (para 66-72, table 1).
Bockmeyer teaches adjusting the shape of the texturing particles and the peak-to-valley (PV) value for the layer to adjust its roughness (i.e., Ra and Rz of the frit) (para 36, 62-66); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the shape of the texturing particles and the peak-to-valley (PV) value for the layer to optimize its roughness.
Regarding claim 23, Bockmeyer teaches the frit contains glass spherical particles (i.e., hollow or solid glass spheres) which would have suggested to one ordinary skill at the time of invention maximizing the sphericity of the particles (para 65, 69-70, table 1).
Regarding claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the size of the liquid stopping coating of Bockmeyer based upon the size or volume of the spillage it needs to contain.
Regarding claim 25, Bockmeyer teaches using glass flow forming particles with a diameter of 10 µm or less (para 53) which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention a D50 grain size within the range of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights