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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 June 2026 has been entered.
Previously Indicated Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed 24 April 2026 is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.
Election/Restrictions
Since the Notice of Allowance has been vacated and a Request for Continued Examination was filed on 15 June 2026, the Restriction Requirement mailed 28 May 2025 has been reinstated. Claims 20-22 are considered withdrawn. The withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder once the elected claims are found allowable.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 18 July 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the nonelected claims depend from the elected independent claim. This is not found persuasive because the elected claims do not require the specific method of claims 20-22 and claims 20-22 are classified separately.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The Examiner will consider rejoinder when the elected claims are deemed allowable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted 15 June 2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 17 April 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Currie et al., International Patent Publication, WO 2019/202295 A1.
As to claim 1, Currie et al. disclose a paste comprising particles of a first glass frit and particles of a second glass frit (see page 3, lines 3-11), which reads on the enamel paste comprising a glass frit and the glass frit comprises at least two glass frits, as recited in instant claim 1. Currie et al. further disclose the paste comprises a transition metal oxide comprising MnO, Fe2O3, CuO, ZrO2, CoO, WO3, MoO3, Nb2O5, Cr2O3, Ta2O5, and TiO2, that can be a coloring component to darken the frit, (see page 6, line 31 to page 7, line 10), which reads on the enamel paste comprising a pigment as recited in instant claim 1. Currie et al. disclose the paste comprises a dispersion medium including organics such as alcohols, glycol ethers, lactates, and others (see page 3, line 25, page 14, lines 17-18 and 25-33, page 15, line 1-22), which reads on the enamel paste comprising an organic carrier medium as recited in claim 1. Currie et al. disclose that the first glass frit has a D90 of at most 40 µm and the second glass frit has a D90 of at most 90 µm (see page 9, lines 26-30 and page 13, lines 8-12), which reads on a first glass frit has a larger particle size than a second glass frit, as recited in claim 1. Currie et al. disclose that the first glass frit has a glass transition temperature of 300-600 °C and a second glass frit having a glass transition temperature of 200-600 °C (see page 9, lines 17-18 and page 13, lines 1-3).
As to claim 2, Currie et al. disclose that the first glass frit has a glass transition temperature of 300-600 °C (see page 9, lines 17-18), which reads on a glass transition temperature in the range of 465-550ºC , as recited in claim 2.
As to claim 3, Currie et al. disclose that the second glass frit has a glass transition temperature of 200-600 °C (see page 13, lines 1-3), which reads on a glass transition temperature in the range of 410-460ºC , as recited in claim 3.
As to claim 4, Currie et al. disclose the first glass frit has a D90 of at most 40 µm (see page 9, lines 17-18), which reads on the first glass frit having a D90 of 7-15 µm, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Currie et al. disclose that the second glass frit has a D90 particle size of at most 40 µm (see page 13, lines 8-12), which reads on the second glass frit having a D90 of at least 0.8 µm and no more than 3 µm, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 8, Currie et al. disclose the first glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75% (See page 13, line 18-23 and Examples 1 and 2 in Table 2), which reads on the first glass frit forms a weight fraction of the glass frit of at least 0.35 and not more than 0.90 as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Currie et al. disclose the second glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75%, (See page 13, lines 18-23 and Examples 1 and 2 in Table 2), which reads on the second glass frit forms a weight fraction of the glass frit of at least 0.1 and not more than 0.55 as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Currie et al. disclose that the weight ratio of the first glass frit to the second glass frit is 3:1 (see Example 1 in Table 2), which reads on the weight ratio of the first glass frit to the second glass frit in the range of 0.8 to 5.0, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 13, Currie et al. disclose the first glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75%, the second glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75%, and Example 1, (See page 13, lines 18-23 and Table 2), which reads on the first glass frit has a larger weight fraction than the second glass frit, as recited in instant claim 13.
As to claim 14, Currie et al. disclose the first glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages: 10-25% of BaO, 0-10% of Bi2O3, 15-35% of ZnO, 15-35% of B2O3, 10-40% of SiO2, 0.5-4% of Al2O3, 1-15% of a transition metal oxide, and 0-10% of other components and Example i, (see page 8, line 32 to page 9, line 10 and Table 1), which reads on the first glass frit being selected from the group consisting of a bismuth-silicate, a zinc-silicate, and a bismuth-zinc-silicate glass, as recited in instant claim 14.
As to claim 15, Currie et al. disclose that the first glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages 21.20 of SiO2 and the second glass frit comprises 8.0% of SiO2 (see Examples i and ii in Table 1), which reads on the second glass frit comprising less silica (SiO2) than the first glass frit, as recited in instant claim 15.
As to claim 16, Currie et al. disclose the first glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages 21.89% of B2O3 and 0% of Bi2O3 (see Example i in Table 1) whereas Currie et al. discloses that the second glass frit 33.0% of B2O3 and 46.2% of Bi2O3 (see Example ii in Table 1), which reads on the second glass frit comprising more bismuth and/or boron than the first glass frit, as recited in instant claim 16.
As to claim 17, Currie et al. disclose that the second glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages 33.0% of B2O3, 46.2% of Bi2O3, 2.8% of ZnO, 8.0% of SiO2, 5.0% of Al2O3, and 5.0% of CuO (see Example ii in Table 1), which reads on the second glass frit being a bismuth-silicate, as recited in instant claim 17.
As to claim 18, since the compositional ranges of Currie et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the first glass frit and second glass frit of the enamel paste composition, the composition of Currie et al. is the same as those claimed herein, it follows that the glass frits of Currie et al. would inherently possess the reduced state and oxidized state as recited in claim 18. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 19, Currie et al. disclose that the paste may further comprise particles of a filler (seeds) (see page 13, lines 24-32), which reads on the enamel paste further comprising a seed additive, as recited in instant claim 19.
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie et al., International Patent Publication, WO 2019/202295 A1.
Currie et al. teach a paste comprising particles of a first glass frit and particles of a second glass frit (see page 3, lines 3-11). Currie et al. teach the paste comprises a transition metal oxide comprising MnO, Fe2O3, CuO, ZrO2, CoO, WO3, MoO3, Nb2O5, Cr2O3, Ta2O5, and TiO2, that can be a coloring component to darken the frit, (see page 6, line 31 to page 7, line 10). Currie et al. teach the paste comprises a dispersion medium including organics such as alcohols, glycol ethers, lactates, and others (see page 3, line 25, page 14, lines 17-18 and 25-33, page 15, line 1-22). Currie et al. teach that the first glass frit has a D90 of at most 40 µm and the second glass frit has a D90 of at most 90 µm (see page 9, lines 26-30 and page 13, lines 8-12). Currie et al. teach that the first glass frit has a glass transition temperature of 300-600 °C and a second glass frit having a glass transition temperature of 200-600 °C (see page 9, lines 17-18 and page 13, lines 1-3). Currie et al. teach the first glass frit has a D90 of at most 40 µm (see page 9, lines 17-18). Currie et al. teach that the second glass frit has a D90 particle size of at most 40 µm (see page 13, lines 8-12). Currie et al. teach the first glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75% (See page 13, line 18-23 and Examples 1 and 2 in Table 2). Currie et al. teach the second glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75%, (See page 13, lines 18-23 and Examples 1 and 2 in Table 2). Currie et al. teach that the weight ratio of the first glass frit to the second glass frit is 3:1 (see Example 1 in Table 2). Currie et al. teach the first glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75%, the second glass frit has a weight percent of 25-75%, and Example 1, (See page 13, lines 18-23 and Table 2). Currie et al. teach the first glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages: 10-25% of BaO, 0-10% of Bi2O3, 15-35% of ZnO, 15-35% of B2O3, 10-40% of SiO2, 0.5-4% of Al2O3, 1-15% of a transition metal oxide, and 0-10% of other components and Example i, (see page 8, line 32 to page 9, line 10 and Table 1). Currie et al. teach that the first glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages 21.20 of SiO2 and the second glass frit comprises 8.0% of SiO2 (see Examples i and ii in Table 1). Currie et al. teach the first glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages 21.89% of B2O3 and 0% of Bi2O3 (see Example i in Table 1) whereas Currie et al. teach that the second glass frit 33.0% of B2O3 and 46.2% of Bi2O3 (see Example ii in Table 1). Currie et al. teach that the second glass frit comprises in terms of mole percentages 33.0% of B2O3, 46.2% of Bi2O3, 2.8% of ZnO, 8.0% of SiO2, 5.0% of Al2O3, and 5.0% of CuO (see Example ii in Table 1). Currie et al. teach that the paste may further comprise particles of a filler (seeds) (see page 13, lines 24-32).
Currie et al. fail to teach any examples or compositional ranges that are sufficiently specific to anticipate the volume fraction and volume ratio of claims 6, 7, 11, and 12. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the paste and glass frit compositions as taught by Currie et al. having weight fractions and weight ratios would have overlapping volume fractions and volume ratios with instant claims 6, 7, 11, and 14. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Currie et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional ranges taught by Currie et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above. Specifically, WO 2019 088526 A1 by Jang et al. which teach a paste composition comprising 2 glass frits having a D50 particle sizes in the range of 0.1-10 µm, an organic vehicle, and coloring metal oxides. See Paragraphs [0007]-[0014] and [0029]-[0039],
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
27 June 2026
Prosecution Insights