DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/6/25 has been entered. Currently claims 1-20 and 22-23 are pending and claim 21 has been cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US Publication 20160340232) in view of Kobayashi et al (US Publication 20170023168).
a. As to claims 1-4, 7, 8, 14-17, 20, 22 and 23, Mitra discloses a heat resistant opaque coating for a glass/ceramic substrate such as borosilicate glass. The coating comprises a glass flux material with pigments, a powder or a paste and filler. The filler can be Zirconia or fillers. The pigment can be a metal oxide pigment such as iron-chromium oxide which is an ir-reflecting material. Mitra discloses that the pigment is an absorption pigment and that the particles within the composition can have a d50 distribution value of .5 to 15 microns. The coating has a thickness of more than 4 microns for example 10 microns. However this reference is silent to the use of hafnium oxide and/or a chalcogenide of a rare earth element as the filler.
b. Kobayashi et al discloses a heat resistant coating for glass wherein the coating contains both zirconia and a chalcogenide as a filler as well as hafnium oxide. The chalcogenide is Gd2Zr2O7 or other chalogenides of rare earth. Kobayashi discloses that the filler can be 1nm to 10 microns with an aspect ratio of 1.5 or more.
c. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mitra and used the chalcogenide with zirconia as they would both provide heat resistant properties to the coating as they are suitable alternatives and provide for additional heat resistant properties. See MPEP 2144.06. As to the particle size Mitra discloses the use of the particles within the composition can have a d50 distribution value of .5 to 15 microns and therefore would have been obvious to have had the chalcogenide or hafnium oxide have those particle sizes. In an alternative combination Kobayashi discloses a mean particle diameter that overlaps with the median diameter as claimed. It would have been obvious to have had the distribution be a gaussian distribution as it would be a normal particle distribution.
Since the filler is the same material as the present invention it will inherently have a specific molar heat capacity of not more than 5 mJ or would have a thermal conductivity of not more than 12 W.
d. As to claims 5 and 18, Mitra discloses that the pigment is an absorption pigment and that the particles within the composition can have a d50 distribution value of .5 to 15 microns.
e. A to claims 6 and 19, Mitra is silent to the vol% of either the pigment or binder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mitra and formed either the pigment to have a solids content of at least 7 to 43 vol% as one would know a lower pigment content would allow for a glossier smooth surface with a deeper more transparent color while a higher pigment volume % would be a matte textured lighter color. Therefore, one would know how to adjust the amount of pigment depending upon the desired color
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had a solids content of the binder be at least 50 to 85 vol% as more binder allows for a smoother glassy layer which would be more expensive while a less amount of binder would be cheaper and less properties to the coating. Therefore one would know how to adjust the amount of binder depending upon the desired end properties of the layer.
f. As to claim 9, Mitra discloses that the thickness of the coating can be 4 microns.
g. As to claim 10, Mitra and Kobayashi render claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to the portion being on at least 60% but less than 95 percent of the main surface. Mitra discloses that the coating can be applied only partly to the substrate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mitra and formed the coating on between 60 and 95 percent of the substrate depending upon the desired use of the article.
h. As to claims 11 and 13, Mitra discloses that the coating can be applied only at the edges and therefore would have a portion that does not comprise the coating as it can be a window for a fireplace pane.
i. As to claim 12, Mitra and Kobayashi render claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to a conductive oxide of less than 500ppm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used antimony tin oxide in an amount of less than 500 ppm as Mitra discloses the use of using antimony tin oxide within the coating and one would know how to adjust the amount of the conductive oxide to obtain desired properties of the coating absent unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a. Applicant’s argue that the combination of Mitra and Kobayashi are not combinable and one would not look to Kobayashi for the filler particles. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Mitra and Kobayashi are both directed to heat resistant coatings for glass. Mitra discloses zirconia filler as well as other fillers used within the composition. Kobayashi also discloses the use of zirconia fillers used within the composition as well as chalcogenide as a filler and hafnium oxide. Therefore, one would see that these fillers are suitable alternatives and look at using these fillers in Mitra. Further, Mitra is the primary reference that teaches particle sizes of the materials used within the composition and the thickness of the coating and therefore the particle sizes would be that of Mitra. Further Kobayashi discloses an overlapping mean particle size and would have been obvious to have the mean and median particle size be the same.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights