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 § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka (US 20190177206).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Dejneka discloses a method of forming multi colored glass [0003]-[0005].
Dejneka discloses a glass substrate of compositions [0007]-[0009] and having Au [0020]/ [0066], (which overlaps with those compositions of the present application specification at least [00131]-[0132]).
Dejneka discloses subjecting the glass to irradiation of a laser to locally produce colors including different colors and indicia [0096].
Dejneka lists a variety of temperatures and times for the irradiation thermal processing [0092]-[0093] and that different thermal processing yield different colors which may be localized, thus corresponding to the claimed regions.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the local laser heat treatment of each first, second, and third region of the glass substrate of Dejneka as motivated to obtain the desired color for that region [0096]-[0097], It is further obvious to a skilled artisan this can be accomplished by changing the parameters of the thermal treatment per region or repeating the thermal treatment with different parameters individually for each region either of which is considered multiple heat treatment steps given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Dejneka does not disclose the color coordinates of one region being different than two other regions however where Dejneka suggests producing localized different colors in regions [0097] each color desirable meeting different color coordinates thus the third meeting a different color coordinate than said first and second region.
Regarding claim 5, Dejneka discloses controlling heating to create the desired colored precipitates [0096]. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation this includes isothermal heating and/or gradient heating.
Regarding claim 6, Dejneka suggests heating for a time of 1 second to 24 hours [0093], overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Dejneka suggests temperatures of 500-900 deg. Celsius [0092] and .5-12 hours [0093].
Regarding claim 22, Dejneka suggests heating a glass with Au [0066] for a time of 1 second to 24 hours [0093], Dejneka suggests temperatures of 500-900 deg. Celsius [0092] and .5-12 hours [0093]. overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. It would be obvious to optimize the heat treatment withing these ranges as motivated to obtain the desired color from that heat treatment
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dejneka (US 20190177206) as applied above and further in view of Luers (US 4302235).
Regarding claim 2, Dejneka discloses using a laser or localized heat source [0096] however fails to specifically state an X-ray source or UV source .
In an analogous art of producing multi-colored glass with masking Luers discloses, masking glass substrate and irradiating with high thermal energy to yield color to the substrate. Luers discloses using a high energy radiation of X-rays or UV radiation (Col 1; lines 54-57, Col 1; lines 60-62).
MPEP 2143 simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute one known equivalent for another as motivated to obtain the predictable result of providing high energy radiation and change the color of the substrate.
Claim(s) 2 is alternatively rejected and 3-4 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dejneka (US 20190177206) as applied above and further in view of Hoppe et al. (US 20160031755).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Dejneka discloses radiation however fails to specifically state an X-ray source.
In an analogous art of producing multi-colored glass with masking [0008], [0057] or locally coloring [0040] Hoppe discloses creating coloration by irradiating a substrate [0057]-[0059].
MPEP 2143 simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute one known equivalent for another as motivated to obtain the predictable result of providing high energy radiation and change the color of the substrate.
Regarding claim 3-4, Hoppe discloses optimizing the laser with a wavelength .01-10nm and power less than 4000W [0017] at an energy to interact with specific elements of the glass [0041]
and a modification of transmission may be caused at one or more wavelengths within this range due to physico-chemical reactions of the elements and compounds included in the glass. This is due to the fact that although the irradiated energy only interacts with specific elements of the glass or the glass ceramic it has an effect on the overall structure of the glass or glass ceramic it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the laser parameters or radiation parameters as motivated to yield sufficient energy to form electron-hole pairs to react with the photosensitizer metallic element in the glass as motivated to cause the desired colorization.
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka (US 20190177206) and Baum JR. (US 20160168023).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Dejneka suggests multiple heating steps to develop color and heating may comprise localized heating to produce different color regions where a laser may be swept across a variety of regions or directed only at a single region, however fails to precisely discuss masking the glass.
In an analogous art Baum Jr. discloses regions of the glass to produce a color change pattern in regions [0018], it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mask regions with of the glass with masks prior to any heating step of Dejneka as motivated to form any colored numeric, alphabetic symbols, logos, or any other design.
Additionally providing multiple masks to prevent heat treatment touching the glass to yield color is obvious as In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejneka (US 20190177206) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Borrelli et al. (US 2017355636).
Regarding claim 10, Dejneka discloses chemically strengthening glass [0064] however fails to disclose the details thus it would be obvious to look to analogous art and glass with a suitable strengthening method.
In an analogous art Borelli discloses a glass with an overlapping composition suitable for thermal treatment for forming color centers. Borelli discloses a chemical strengthening process of ion exchange in a salt bath of 400-480 deg. Celsius for 15 min to 24 hours [0086] overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Dejneka fails to disclose the chemical strengthening steps thus it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to look to the analogous art for a suitable method of chemical strengthening.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Borrelli does not disclose multiple heat treatments.
In response to this argument Dejneka is now relied on in view of the amendments for a method of forming multi colored glass [0003]-[0005].
Dejneka lists a variety of temperatures and times for the irradiation thermal processing [0092]-[0093] and that different thermal processing yield different colors which may be localized, thus corresponding to the claimed regions.
local laser heat treatment of different regions of the glass substrate of Dejneka to obtain the desired color for that region id taught by Dejneka [0096]-[0097].
This can be accomplished by changing the parameters of the thermal treatment per region as indicated in [0092]-[0093] or repeating the thermal treatment with different parameters individually for each region either of which is considered multiple heat treatment steps given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
There is no time claimed for each heat treatment of claim 1, there is no composition of glass claimed. Dejneka makes it very clear a skilled artisan will optimize thermal treatment as motivated to achieve a desired color. Without any specific time limits or energy, or wavelength limiting each of the first second and third heating treatments individually there is nothing preventing the broadest reasonable interpretation to also include a single heat treatment divided into three random treatments by a temperature or time or other defining factor.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose the color coordinates. In response, these are dependent on the color created in said region, which is an obvious matter of choice to the skilled artisan as motivated to create the desired pattern, logo, indicia, pictures [0096] of a variety of colors [0097].
Although Borrelli is no longer relied on as the primary reference, Examiner wants to address Dejneka indicates a thermal treatment changes the color centers of the doped glass and yields colored portions. A skilled artisan knows that a furnace, laser, radiation can all heat the glass. Examiner maintains that an X-ray, laser other radiation device, or furnace, are suitable substitutes for one another to heat the glass. Applicant has not provided sound evidence or reasoning why the heating elements relied on in the prior art are not capable of heating and yielding color thus this argument amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741