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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19, 21-24 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20130299378 A1) (previously cited) in view of Julien (US 20110180510 A1) (previously cited), and Zheng (US 20150079403 A1) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 19, Sharma teaches a coated glass substrate comprising a glass substrate that is a glass container (bottle) that has an exterior surface coated by a blocking layer (coating) that comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds (Sharma, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0005-0007, 0018-0021, 0029-0031, 0042, Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3). Sharma teaches the material for the blocking layer may further include materials that block ultraviolet radiation (Sharma, Par. 0037-0038). While Sharma does not specifically disclose that the glass substrate/container is transparent, Sharma states that the coating is transparent and looks like glass (Sharma, Par. 0021). Sharma further states that the UV blocking materials reduce UV transparency (Sharma, Par. 0037-0038). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the glass container is transparent in order for the UV blocking materials to be effective at UV transparency blocking, see MPEP 2143.
Sharma is silent regarding the material of the blocking layer comprising a blocking material that is capable of blocking electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 10-500 nm.
Julien teaches a glass container comprising a glass substrate and a coating thereon, wherein the coating comprises a UV blocking material that is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0065-0067, and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of Julien would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength range.
Sharma and Julien are analogous art as they both teach glass containers comprising a coating having UV blocking properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the blocking material of Julien in the coating of Sharma. This would allow for suitable UV blocking, protecting the contents of the container from UV radiation, and protecting the coating from UV radiation (Julien, Par. 0065-0067).
Modified Sharma is silent regarding a polyol and/or diol provided at a molar percentage (mol%) of at least 2 mol % and at most 20 mol % of the blocking layer, wherein the polyol comprises one or more of polyether polyols, glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, lactitol, xylitol, isomalt, erythritol, polyvinyl alcohol, and cyclitois, and wherein the diol comprises one or more of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, 1,2-ethanediol, propane-1,3-diol, 2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3-propanediol, neopentyl glycol, 1,4-butanediol, propylene-1,3-diol, beta propylene glycol, resorcinol, methanediol, cyclohexanediol, and 1,5-pentanediol.
Zheng teaches a coating for glass substrates comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds (silane coupling agent) and a polyol that is a polyether polyol in an amount of 0.5-20 wt.% (Zheng, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0008-0015, 0037, and 0041), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 2 mol % and at most 20 mol % and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Sharma and Zheng are analogous art as they both teach coatings for glass substrates comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the polyol of Zheng in the coating of modified Sharma. This would allow for adjusting of the properties of the coating such as flexibility, toughness, and hydrolytical stability (Zheng, Par. 0037).
Regarding claim 21, modified Sharma teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds is cured and comprises Si-O-Si bonds and thus is a material having a crosslinked network of Si-O-Si bonds (Sharma, Par. 0005-0006, 0021, 0026-0027 and 0046-0047).
Regarding claims 22 and 38-39, modified Sharma teaches the blocking material is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of modified Sharma would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength ranges.
Regarding claim 23, modified Sharma teaches the blocking material comprises a benzophenone compound (Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 24, modified Sharma teaches the coated glass substrate comprises a transparent glass substrate that is a transparent glass container and is coated with a blocking layer comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds, a diol (solvent, diethylene glycol) and a blocking component as stated above for claim 19 (Sharma, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0005-0007, 0018-0021, 0029-0031, 0042, Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3). Modified Sharma teaches the blocking material is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of Julien would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength range. Modified Sharma teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds is cured and comprises Si-O-Si bonds and thus is a material having a crosslinked network of Si-O-Si bonds (Sharma, Par. 0005-0006, 0021, 0026-0027 and 0046-0047). Modified Sharma teaches the blocking layer coats the glass substrate to increase the strength of the glass substrate (Sharma, Abstract and Par. 0001-0003). While modified Sharma does not specifically state how much of the glass substrate, since modified Sharma teaches coating the glass substrate to increase the strength of the glass substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the entire glass substrate to ensure the entire glass substrate is strengthened, see MPEP 2143. A glass substrate that is entirely coated would coat 100% of the exterior surface, which lies within the claimed range of at least 80% and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 36, Sharma teaches a method comprising of improving a coated glass substrate comprising a glass substrate coated with a blocking layer that comprises a material having Si-O-Si bonds, and a UV blocking component (Sharma, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0005-0007, 0018-0021, 0029-0031, 0037-0038, 0042, Claim 1, and Figs. 1-3). While Sharma does not specifically disclose that the glass substrate/container is transparent, Sharma states that the coating is transparent and looks like glass (Sharma, Par. 0021). Sharma further states that the UV blocking materials reduce UV transparency (Sharma, Par. 0037-0038). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the glass container is transparent in order for the UV blocking materials to be effective at UV transparency blocking, see MPEP 2143.
Sharma is silent regarding the material of the blocking layer comprising a blocking material that is capable of blocking electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 10-500 nm.
Julien teaches a glass container comprising a glass substrate and a coating thereon, wherein the coating comprises a UV blocking material that is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0065-0067, and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of Julien would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength range.
Sharma and Julien are analogous art as they both teach glass containers comprising a coating having UV blocking properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the blocking material of Julien in the coating of Sharma. This would allow for suitable UV blocking, protecting the contents of the container from UV radiation, and protecting the coating from UV radiation (Julien, Par. 0065-0067).
Modified Sharma is silent regarding a polyol and/or diol provided at a molar percentage (mol%) of at least 2 mol % and at most 20 mol % of the blocking layer, wherein the polyol comprises one or more of polyether polyols, glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, maltitol, lactitol, xylitol, isomalt, erythritol, polyvinyl alcohol, and cyclitois, and wherein the diol comprises one or more of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, 1,2-ethanediol, propane-1,3-diol, 2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3-propanediol, neopentyl glycol, 1,4-butanediol, propylene-1,3-diol, beta propylene glycol, resorcinol, methanediol, cyclohexanediol, and 1,5-pentanediol.
Zheng teaches a coating for glass substrates comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds (silane coupling agent) and a polyol that is a polyether polyol in an amount of 0.5-20 wt.% (Zheng, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0008-0015, 0037, and 0041), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 2 mol % and at most 20 mol % and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Modified Sharma and Zheng are analogous art as they both teach coatings for glass substrates comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the polyol of Zheng in the coating of modified Sharma. This would allow for adjusting of the properties of the coating such as flexibility, toughness, and hydrolytical stability (Zheng, Par. 0037).
Regarding the limitation of the polyol improving the durability to humidity of the coated glass substrate, 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). Modified Sharma teaches a method of improving a glass substrate utilizing a coating material that comprises Si-O-Si bonds, a polyol that is a polyether polyol, and a blocking material that is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone. These materials are the same as the instant invention per the instant claim 19 and the instant specification Page 5. Modified Sharma thus teaches an identical or substantially identical blocking layer (Coating) comprising the same materials, including the same polyol as the instant invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the method of modified Sharma including the polyol would have inherently exhibited an improved durability to humidity to at least some extent.
Regarding claim 37, modified Sharma teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds is cured and comprises Si-O-Si bonds and thus is a material having a crosslinked network of Si-O-Si bonds (Sharma, Par. 0005-0006, 0021, 0026-0027 and 0046-0047). Modified Sharma further teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds comprise one or more organic functional groups (Sharma, Par. 0041-0043 and 0052-0056).
Claims 19, 21-24 and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. in view of Julien.
Regarding claim 19, Zheng teaches a coated glass substrate comprising a transparent glass substrate that is a glass container coated with a layer located on the external surface of the glass container comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds (silane coupling agent) and a polyol that is a polyether polyol in an amount of 0.5 to 20 wt.% (Zheng, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0008-0015, 0037, 0041, 0049-0050, and 0053-0054), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 2 mol % and at most 20 mol % and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Zheng is silent regarding the layer being a blocking layer comprising a blocking material that is capable of blocking electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 10-500 nm.
Julien teaches a glass container comprising a glass substrate and a coating thereon, wherein the coating comprises a UV blocking material that is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0065-0067, and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of Julien would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength range.
Zheng and Julien are analogous art as they both teach glass containers comprising a coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the blocking material of Julien in the coating of Zheng. This would allow for suitable UV blocking, protecting the contents of the container from UV radiation, and protecting the coating from UV radiation (Julien, Par. 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 21, modified Zheng teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds comprises a material having a crosslinked network of Si-O-Si bonds (Zheng, Par. 0041).
Regarding claims 22 and 38-39, modified Zheng teaches the blocking material is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of modified Zheng would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength ranges.
Regarding claim 23, modified Zheng teaches the blocking material comprises a benzophenone compound (Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101).
Regarding claim 24, modified Zheng teaches the coated glass substrate comprises a transparent glass substrate that is a transparent glass container and is coated with a blocking layer comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds, polyol, and a blocking component as stated above for claim 19 (Zheng, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0008-0015, 0037, 0041, 0049-0050, and 0053-0054; Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101). Modified Zheng teaches the blocking material is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Par. 0065-0067 and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of modified Zheng would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength range. Modified Zheng teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds comprises a material having a crosslinked network of Si-O-Si bonds (Zheng, Par. 0041). Modified Zheng teaches the blocking layer coats the glass substrate to increase the chemical resistance (Zheng, Abstract). While modified Zheng does not specifically state how much of the glass substrate, since modified Zheng teaches coating the glass substrate to increase the chemical resistance of the glass substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the entire glass substrate to ensure the entire glass substrate is strengthened, see MPEP 2143. A glass substrate that is entirely coated would coat 100% of the exterior surface, which lies within the claimed range of at least 80% and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 36, Zheng teaches a method comprising utilizing a polyol that is a polyether polyol to improve a coated glass substrate comprising a transparent glass substrate coated with a layer comprising a material having Si-O-Si bonds (silane coupling agent) and the polyol in an amount of 0.5 to 20 wt.% (Zheng, Abstract, Par. 0001, 0008-0015, 0037, 0041, 0049-0050, and 0053-0054), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 2 mol % and at most 20 mol % and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Zheng is silent regarding the layer being a blocking layer comprising a blocking material that is capable of blocking electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of 10-500 nm.
Julien teaches a glass container comprising a glass substrate and a coating thereon, wherein the coating comprises a UV blocking material that is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (Julien, Abstract, Par. 0001-0002, 0065-0067, and 0100-0101), which is the same blocking material as the instant invention per the instant specification Page 5. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2112.01. The instant specification page 5 lists 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone as a suitable blocking material having the required electromagnetic blocking. Therefore, the blocking material of Julien would have inherently been capable of blocked electromagnetic radiation in the claimed wavelength range.
Zheng and Julien are analogous art as they both teach glass containers comprising a coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the blocking material of Julien in the coating of Zheng. This would allow for suitable UV blocking, protecting the contents of the container from UV radiation, and protecting the coating from UV radiation (Julien, Par. 0065-0067).
Regarding the limitation of the polyol improving the durability to humidity of the coated glass substrate, 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). Modified Sharma teaches a method of improving a glass substrate utilizing a coating material that comprises Si-O-Si bonds, a polyol that is a polyether polyol, and a blocking material that is 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone. These materials are the same as the instant invention per the instant claim 19 and the instant specification Page 5. Modified Sharma thus teaches an identical or substantially identical blocking layer (Coating) comprising the same materials, including the same polyol as the instant invention. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the method of modified Sharma including the polyol would have inherently exhibited an improved durability to humidity to at least some extent.
Regarding claim 37, modified Zheng teaches the material having Si-O-Si bonds comprises a material having a crosslinked network of Si-O-Si bonds, and wherein the material having Si-O-Si bonds further comprises one or more organic functional groups (Zheng, Par. 0041).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 28 May 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Sharma does not teach the diol/polyol in the required amount. This is found moot.
The grounds of rejection have been updated above in view of the present claim amendments. Newly cited Zheng is now utilized to render obvious the claimed diol/polyol in the required amount.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights