DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-5 and 8-13 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.
Claim 1 now requires a glass article comprising a glass surface having a surface having a first surface area and a first refractive index and the surface comprising an adhesion promoting region. It is unclear if the first surface area is the same as the adhesion promoting region or is a separate area of the glass article. Examiner notes that the terms “first surface area” and “first refractive index” are not used in Applicant’s specification. Further, based on Applicant’s Figure 1, there does not appear to be any delineation as to what is included in the first surface area. Further note that refractive index is mentioned throughout Applicant’s specification in terms of the difference between the adhesion promoting region formed on the surface of the glass and a glass article without the adhesion promoting region or the coating, see for example Applicant’s specification paragraph 116. It appears Applicant is claiming the refractive index of the glass before the nanostructures are formed. As discussed previously, the glass properties prior to the formation of the nanostructures are not part of the final claimed product and do not limit the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 and 8-13 are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if the first surface area is part of the final product or if it refers to the glass article’s surface prior art to the formation of the adhesion promoting region. Note that Applicant’s specification mentions the adhesion promoting region of the coated glass article may have a greater surface area compared to the untreated surface of the glass article prior to treatment or coating [0005]. As such, limitations that reference the first surface area do not appear to be present in the final claimed product.
Claim 8 requires the adhesions promoting region has a refractive index of within 10% of a refractive index of the glass without the adhesion promoting region and/or a Pegasus Number within 10% of a Pegasus Number without the adhesion promoting region. It is unclear if the glass surface comprises portions without the adhesion promoting region or if the comparison is before the adhesion promoting region is formed and after it is formed. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as comparing the glass article before the region is formed and after it is formed. Note that since the glass prior to the region being formed is not present in the final structure, the claim does not structurally limit the coated glass article.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lasarov et al. (US 2008/0070001).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 8, Lasarov discloses plastic-acceptor hybrid components comprising the direct bonding of over-moulded plastics to an acceptor insert, see abstract. The bonding of said components is obtained by anchoring the plastic component in micro-holes formed in the surface of an acceptor component, see abstract and Fig. 3. The acceptor material refers to any kind of material, which surface structure may be roughened in a manner to create micro-holes, and examples include glass [0019]. The roughened surface area is prepared by etching, sand blasting and/or laser treatment [0034]. Additionally, the reference discloses a glass part roughened by sand blasting to form micro-scale holes and a polyphenylensulfide (PPS) melt is applied to the glass to form a PPS-glass hybrid [0054-0055].
Note that the PPS melt corresponds to the claimed polymer coating. Further note that the roughened glass corresponds to the claimed glass having a surface with an adhesion promoting region comprising a nanostructure with the region comprising materials that are the same as one or more of that of the glass.
Further, it is expected that the roughness Ra of the disclosed article is at least 0.3 nm or greater given the micro-holes have an average depth of 0 to 250 microns and width from 0 to 250 microns [0022]; see Fig. 5.
Lastly, the disclosed article is considered to provide no impedance to optical inspection given it has the same structure and material as the claimed glass article; see above discussion and MPEP 2112.01 I & II.
Regarding claim 9, the reference discloses the plastic material fills the micro-holes in the acceptor component, which corresponds to a coating disposed in the valleys of the adhesion promoting region [0037], see Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses the coating as a single component coating [0055].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lasarov et al. (US 2008/0070001) as evidenced by McMaster-Carr, More about Plastics (2015).
Lasarov discloses the coated glass article of claim 1, which has a PPS layer, see above discussion. Note that PPS has a coefficient of friction of 0.4, which is within the claimed range; see McMaster-Carr and MPEP 2131.03 I.
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 1-5, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0282201).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hancock discloses a textured glass article with a primary surface comprising a textured region composition, see abstract. The reference further discloses an easy-to-clean (ETC) coating disposed over the textured region wherein the ETC coating comprises a fluoro-polymeric coating [0082-0083]. Note that the disclosed textured region and ETC coating correspond to the claimed adhesion promoting region and polymer coating disposed thereon. Additionally, the reference discloses the surface roughness (Ra) of the textured region is from about 10 nm to about 500 nm, which overlaps the claimed range [0009]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges. Further, given the reference discloses the textured glass article as transparent and with low sparkle, it is expected that the coated textured region would provide no impedance to optical inspection.
Regarding claim 2, the reference discloses the glass article as a housing with electrical components providing within the housing, which corresponds to a container [0016]. Given the ETC coating minimizes the adhesion of fingerprint oils and debris, it would have been obvious to provide the textured region on the exterior surface of the housing, see Figs. 4A & 4B and [0082].
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the textured region composition comprises a higher amount of silica than the silica in the bulk composition of the substrate [0017-0018]. Given the reference also discloses the bulk composition comprises about 40 to 80 mol% silica and the textured region comprises at least about 40 mol%, the reference is considered to render obvious a textured region comprising a constituent of the glass in an amount of greater than or equal to 5 mol% of the glass [0017]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses that the textured region comprises silica [0017].
Regarding claim 5, given the reference discloses a surface roughness that overlaps the claimed range, the reference is considered to render obvious a textured region with a surface area of at least 1.05 times greater than the first surface area; see MPEP 2112.01 I. Further note, as discussed above and previously, it is unclear if the first surface area is present in the final product and, as such, whether it is structurally limiting.
Regarding claim 9, the reference discloses the coating as disposed in the valleys of the textured region, see Fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses the coating as a single component coating [0014].
Regarding claim 11, the reference discloses the coating comprises silica particles [0083].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hancock, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0282201) as evidenced by Lyden et al. (US 5,832,636).
Hancock discloses the coated glass article of claim 1, which has a fluoropolymer coating, see above discussion. Note that fluoropolymers commonly have a coefficient of friction of less than 0.4, which is within the claimed range; see Lyden col. 11 lines 21-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1, 5 and 8 obviate the rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees given it is unclear if the first surface area is prior to formation of the adhesion promoting region or if it is present in the final product. Note that Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide support for a first surface area present in the final product and the comparisons appear to be made between the intermediate and final product, see above discussion. Properties that are not present in the final product do not limit the structure of the claimed invention, see above discussion.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Lasarov, Applicant argues that the reference does not teach or suggest that the glass is roughened so as not to provide impedance to optical inspection, contents contained within the glass or both. Examiner notes that the reference discloses surface features having an average depth of 0 to 250 microns and width from 0 to 250 microns, which is considered to render obvious the claimed Ra value, see above discussion. Given the similar composition and surface structure, it is expected the disclosed and claimed glass articles will have similar properties regarding optical inspection MPEP 2112.01 I & II. Although Applicant argues that the Lasarov teaches away from the claimed surface roughness, Examiner notes that ranges for width and height encompass values that render obvious the claimed Ra value. That the ranges also encompass values that may result in an Ra value lower than claimed is not considered a teaching away given the reference does not discredit or otherwise criticize the higher values; see MPEP 2123. As such, Examiner maintains the position that the roughness renders obvious the claimed Ra value thereby rendering obvious the claimed optical inspection properties.
Note the rejections over Bookbinder et al. (US 2016/0145150) under 35 U.S.C. have been withdrawn in view of the current amendment.
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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm 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, 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.
/LAURA A AUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783