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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is supplemental to the Office Action mailed 23 December 2025 to address the changes from the supplemental amendment filed 19 December 2025.
The supplemental amendment filed 19 December 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 remain pending in the application, wherein claim 18 has been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19 each recite “the glass article” in line 1 of these claims (also line 2 of claim 2). Although the terminology is changed from the previously introduced “coating-attached glass article”, these limitations are considered to be the same feature.
Claim 2 recites “the contact angle” in line 1 whereas claim 1 previously introduced this feature as “the contact angle of water”. Although the terminology is shortened, these limitations are considered to refer to the same feature.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 11-13, 16-17, and 19-20 each recite “the coating” whereas the claims previously introduced “an easy-to-clean coating”. Although the terminology is shortened, these limitations are considered to refer to the same feature.
Claim 19 recites wherein the coating is a single-layer film or a multi-layer film, whereas the base claim (i.e. claim 13) recites the coating is substantially free of a component other than the cerium oxide. Therefore, when the coating is a multi-layer film, each layer of the multi-layer film is considered to be substantially cerium oxide.
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 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323, previously cited).
Claim 1: Bockmeyer teaches a glass or glass-ceramic substrate having self-cleaning and/or dirt-repellent coating for improved cleanability provided on at least one surface thereof (i.e. an easy-to-clean coating on a glass substrate) (paragraph 0001). Bockmeyer teaches that the substrate is at least partially provided with an inorganic layer having a surface which forms at least a portion of the outer surface of the product and including a metal oxide, wherein the layer has an at least partially nanocrystalline structure and comprises at least one of the metal oxides of elements Ce, Hf, etc. as a basic material and at least one further metal cation of any of the elements Ce, Ca, etc. (i.e. since Ce is positively listed as a choice of elements of the basic material and/or as a further element, it would have been obvious for the inorganic layer to include Ce as a metal cation of the metal oxide, i.e. cerium oxide) (paragraphs 0027-0029). Specific Example 3 disclosed by Bockmeyer has a coating made using a mixture of CeO2 and ZrO2 (paragraph 0077). Bockmeyer teaches that the layer may be applied to the substrate using a sol-gel process (paragraph 0059), and hybrid polymeric sol-gel precursors with organic crosslinkable substituents functionalized with methacrylate groups or epoxide groups (i.e. includes an epoxy group) may be used (paragraph 0066). Bockmeyer teaches that the basic material of the layer preferably comprises ZrO2 or CeO2, preferably in nanocrystalline form having a crystallite size in a range from 4 to 50 nm (paragraph 0041). Since the basic material forms at least a portion of the outer surface of the product (paragraph 0027, this is considered to teach where a plurality of CeO2 nanocrystallites (i.e. cerium oxide particles) are at/on the surface of the coating. The layers have low surface energy such that a contact angle to water is >80° (paragraph 0031), which overlaps the instantly claimed contact angle of water. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that, as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed glass article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date due to the substantially overlapping subject matter as outlined above, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Bockmeyer teaches that the layer should be highly heat-resistant in a temperature range around 400°C and to peak temperatures in a range of up to 700°C (paragraph 0017), which is close to the instantly claimed thermal treatment temperature, and where the coated substrate may be used as a component in or on devices for cooking, frying, baking, or grilling, and for furnace lining, as a viewing window, etc. (paragraph 0057). Based on the recited temperature range and the intended uses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the desired surface quality (i.e. the water contact angle) would remain after exposure to the instantly claimed thermal treatment. This property (i.e. contact angle after thermal treatment) is also considered a material property imparted by cerium oxide, which is stable even when heated to higher temperatures (as disclosed in paragraph 0017 of the instant specification). In this regard, as outlined above, Bockmeyer teaches cerium oxide as an obvious choice of materials and a material and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 3: Bockmeyer teaches CeO2 as one of the possible metal oxides as a basic material (i.e. the cerium oxide includes CeO2) (paragraph 0028).
Claim 4: Bockmeyer teaches generally that the layer (i.e. the coating) may include metal oxides of Ce as a basic material (i.e. cerium oxide as a majority fraction) (paragraph 0027) or may be doped with Ce cation up to 50 mol% (i.e. up to 50 mol% cerium oxide) (paragraph 0029), and specific Example 3 includes a mixture of 30% CeO2 with 70% ZrO2 along with additional agents which are dried together to form the coating (paragraph 0077). These ranges each overlap or are very close to the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 5: Bockmeyer teaches that a further layer may be provided below the layer of the invention (i.e. below the layer containing cerium oxide) such as an adhesion promoting layer (paragraph 0061), which is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be between the substrate and the layer above (i.e. between the substrate and the coating containing cerium oxide) in order to promote adhesion since it is an adhesion promoting layer.
Claim 6: Bockmeyer teaches that the layer may exhibit a transmittance in a range of more than 80% and more preferably more than 88% for electromagnetic radiation in a range of wavelengths from 380 nm to 780 nm (i.e. visible light) (paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that any other layers (i.e. in addition to the above outlined coating) also should have a similar transmittance since Bockmeyer teaches that the layer should not change the visual appearance of the substrate (paragraph 0022). Bockmeyer teaches that the substrate may be transparent (paragraph 0051), and therefore the substrate having a high visible transmittance is considered an obvious design choice (i.e. an aesthetic design choice of the glass substrate on which to apply the coating), absent an objective showing. See MPEP § 2144.04(I).
Claim 7: Bockmeyer teaches the thickness of the layer is preferably up to 80 nm (paragraph 0038), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9: Bockmeyer teaches that the coated substrate (i.e. the glass article) may be used as a component in or on devices for cooking, frying, baking, or grilling, as well as on microwave devices etc. (paragraph 0057) or for heat generating devices such as fireplaces, wood-burning stoves, etc. (paragraph 0058) (i.e. glass for home appliances would have been obvious based on these descriptions). Bockmeyer also discloses the use as a viewing window or for interior trim (paragraph 0057-0058).
Claim 11: Bockmeyer does not specify the coating to be substantially-free of a fluorine-containing organic compound. However, Bockmeyer does not disclose a fluorine-containing organic compound as a component of the coating and further even teaches that organofluorine systems have a risk of setting free harmful substances at temperatures of more than about 200°C, which renders as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the coating is substantially free of a fluorine-containing organic compound.
Claim 12: The disclosure of Bockmeyer is primarily directed to a single-layer film (e.g., “a self-cleaning and/or dirt-repellent, high-temperature resistant layer” as recited in paragraph 0001); however, Bockmeyer teaches that a further layer may be included (paragraphs 0087-0088) or that a multi-layer system may be deposited (paragraph 0082).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kishikawa et al. (US 2009/0304996, previously cited).
Claim 8: The teachings of Bockmeyer regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Bockmeyer teaches a coated glass where the coating includes a metal oxide such as cerium oxide for improved cleanability and hydrophobic properties (paragraphs 0002 and 0027-0030). Bockmeyer teaches various applications of the coated glass such as for different types of heating devices, but does not teach the instantly claimed reinforced glass substrate.
In a related field of endeavor, Kishikawa teaches a water-repellent (i.e. hydrophobic) substrate having a surface layer of metal oxide (paragraphs 0022-0024), wherein the metal oxide may be CeO3 (i.e. a cerium oxide), ZrO2, etc. (paragraph 0033). Kishikawa teaches water-repellent coated glass can be used for window glass for buildings (i.e. glass for architecture) or for window glass for transport machines such as automobiles (i.e. glass for transport vehicles) (paragraph 0027). Kishikawa teaches that window glass for a transport machine may have a curvature imparted to it or may be reinforced for a safety reason (i.e. the glass substrate is formed of a reinforced glass) (paragraph 0093).
As Bockmeyer and Kishikawa both teach a glass coated for providing hydrophobic properties wherein the coating may include a cerium oxide, ZrO2, etc., they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coated glass of Bockmeyer to include where the coating may be used as a window glass for buildings or transport machines as this is considered a conventionally known application of a hydrophobic coating as taught by Kishikawa, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the coating may be applied to a reinforced glass such as when used for window glass of a transport machine as taught by Kishikawa, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walther et al. (US 2015/0152558, previously cited).
Claim 10: The teachings of Bockmeyer regarding claim 1 are outlined above. Bockmeyer teaches a glass or glass-ceramic substrate having self-cleaning and/or dirt-repellent coating for improved cleanability provided on at least one surface thereof (i.e. a coating-attached glass article of an easy-to-clean coating on a glass substrate) (paragraph 0001), where the coating includes a metal oxide such as cerium oxide for improved cleanability and hydrophobic properties (paragraphs 0002 and 0027-0030). However, Bockmeyer does not specify the recited glass articles for the hydrophobic dirt-repellent coating.
In a related field of endeavor, Walther teaches easy-to-clean coatings resistant to dirt and hydrophobic (paragraphs 0018-0019) on a surface of transparent material such as glass or glass-ceramic (paragraph 0005). The easy-to-clean surface is desirable for touchscreens, such as cover screens of mobile electronic devices, refrigeration units, display windows, kiosks, glass cabinets, etc. (paragraph 0006). Other applications include oven front plates, shop fronts, architecture, decorative glass elements used in kitchens, bathrooms, or laboratories, covers of solar modules, glass having a mirror coating (i.e. mirrors), etc. (paragraphs 0125-0132)
As Bockmeyer and Walther both teach a hydrophobic dirt-repellent coating on a glass surface, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating of Bockmeyer to include where the coating is applied to other glass articles such as for glass used in bathrooms, a mirror, shop fronts or display windows, a cover screen of mobile electronic devices, covers of solar modules (i.e. glass for solar cells), etc. because Walther teaches these articles as desiring a hydrophobic dirt-repellent coating and this would be considered a use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom (US 2017/0274416, cited in the Office Action mailed 23 December 2025).
Claim 13: Yeom teaches coated composite structures formed by application of a coating to a substrate thereby having desirable properties (paragraph 0003), wherein desirable characteristics include one or more of clarity, high transparency, enhanced hydrophobic function, hardness, relatively low weight, and low cost (paragraph 0007), as well as oleophobic properties to provide improved anti-fingerprint and anti-smudging characteristics (paragraph 0008). Being both hydrophobic and oleophobic is considered to be an easy-to-clean coating as it would repel most substances. The substrate may be glass, etc. (paragraph 0041) and the coating may be at least one material chosen from ceria (CeO2; i.e. cerium oxide), etc. (paragraph 0040). The teaching of “at least one material” is considered to teach that there may be only one material, which may be cerium oxide (i.e. the coating is substantially free of a component other than the cerium oxide). Yeom teaches that, as the thickness of the coating increases between 0 and 400 nm, the surface contact angle with water is sharply increased, and a contact angle of 60° or greater is preferred for anti-smudging and anti-fingerprint characteristics and a contact angle of 90° or greater is preferred for water repelling property (paragraph 0058). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Yeom teaches that the composite structure (i.e. the coating-attached glass article) may be used for optical windows, mirrors, etc., such as for phones, tablets, wearable displays, etc. (i.e. glass for mobile devices) (paragraph 0065).
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed coating-attached glass article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date due to the substantially overlapping subject matter as outlined above, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14: Yeom teaches that the composite structure (i.e. the coating-attached glass article) may be used for optical windows, mirrors, etc. (paragraph 0065). Yeom does not specifically teach the location of these structures, but being glass for bathrooms (i.e. an intended use) does not render the structure as being patentably distinct from the prior art as windows and mirrors being suitable for use in bathrooms is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 15: Yeom teaches that the composite structure (i.e. the coating-attached glass article) may be used for mirrors, etc. (paragraph 0065).
Claim 17: Yeom does not particularly teach the haze ratio. However, Yeom teaches that the relative transmittance of the composite structure decreases as thickness of the coating increases, and may have a relative transmittance of 97-98% (paragraph 0048), which would be a haze ratio of less than 2-3% because 100% of the light is either transmitted, absorbed, reflected, or scattered (i.e. haze is a result of scattered light based on basic physics principles regarding the behavior of light).
Claim 19: Yeom teaches that the coating may be at least one material chosen from ceria (CeO2; i.e. cerium oxide), etc. (paragraph 0040) and that application of the coating is accomplished by allowing the coating particulates to be ejected from a nozzle and strike the substrate at high velocity resulting in fragmentation and pulverization of the coating particulates as the coating is applied (paragraph 0032). Choosing a single material, such as ceria, for the coating and applying in this manner renders as obvious a single layer for the coating (i.e. the coating is a single-layer film).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US 2012/0282458, previously cited).
Claim 20: Takeda teaches a water-repellent coating film on at least one side of a substrate (paragraph 0010). The substrate may be glass, etc. (i.e. a glass substrate; i.e. a coating-attached glass article) (paragraph 0056) which may be preliminarily provided with a material to impart at least one function selected from antifouling (i.e. an easy-to-clean coating), etc. (paragraph 0057). The water-repellent coating film includes an undercoat layer containing aggregates of metal oxide fine particles (paragraph 0065) that may include cerium oxide (paragraph 0072) (i.e. the antifouling material along with the water-repellent coating film is considered an easy-to-clean coating that includes cerium oxide). The water-repellent film has a porosity of at most 30% so that it has the desired abrasion resistance (paragraph 0047). This range overlaps the instantly claimed range and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Takeda teaches that the water contact angle of the surface of the water-repellent coating film is preferably at least 100° (paragraph 0046). However, although Takeda teaches this water contact angle as being preferable, no demonstration of a criticality to the water contact angle was presented by either Takeda or the instant application. This range is close to the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d, 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946).
While not teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed coating-attached glass article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as each of the instantly claimed features are disclosed by Takeda or obvious as outlined above, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art pertaining to instant claim 16 is the disclosure of Yeom. However, Yeom does not teach or suggest a motivation for having a porosity of 0%. Furthermore, a porosity of 0% is not necessarily present in a spray coating (i.e. the manner of forming the coating disclosed by Yeom in paragraphs 0031-0035).
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claim 13 has overcome the obviousness-type double patenting rejection to copending application numbers 18/727,129 previously set forth in the Office Actions mailed 20 March 2025 and 10 September 2025 because other components are necessarily present in the claimed layer comprising cerium oxide of the ‘129 application due to the layer having only 0.5-20 atomic% cerium. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection over these applications have been withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 10 have overcome the indefiniteness previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 10 September 2025. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 18 June 20205, regarding the prior art, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues that Bockmeyer does not disclose or suggest cerium oxide particles on the surface of the coating as amended in claim 1. However, as outlined above, Bockmeyer teaches that the basic material of the layer preferably comprises ZrO2 or CeO2, preferably in nanocrystalline form having a crystallite size in a range from 4 to 50 nm (paragraph 0041). Since the basic material forms at least a portion of the outer surface of the product (paragraph 0027, this is considered to teach where a plurality of CeO2 nanocrystallites (i.e. cerium oxide particles) are at/on the surface of the coating.
Regarding instant claims 13-17 and 19, Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7, are persuasive in view of the amendments because the prior art does not teach or suggest a coating that is substantially free of a component other than cerium oxide (i.e. substantially is only cerium oxide). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made regarding claims 13-15, 17, and 19 in view of Yeom, as outlined above.
Applicant argues that Takeda does not suggest a coating with a contact angle of water of 60° to 95° as required by amendment to claim 20. However, as outlined above, the range taught by Takeda is close to the instantly claimed range, and the courts have held this to be prima facie obvious. It is noted that no demonstration of a criticality to claimed ranges has been presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784