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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 23 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 October 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 3 March 2023 and 13 September 2023 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 3 March 2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Comment
Claim 1 recites the following three clauses:
“10 to 25% of at least one of Na2O, Li2O and K2O”
“15 to 35% by weight of at least one of Al2O3, TiO2 and ZrO2”
“1 to 10% by weight of at least one of Fe2O3, Co3O4 and NiO”.
These clauses are read such that the weight percentage is the total content amount of the three components listed and not a range for each individual component. For example, the total amount of Na2O+Li2O+K2O is 10 to 25% by weight.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
Claim 1, line 5, recites “10 to 25% of at least one of Na2O, Li2O and K2O” and it appears that the phrase “by weight” was left off and it should read, “1,0 to 25% by weight of at least one of Na2O, Li2O and K2O”.
Claim 1, line 6, recites “1 to 5% of by weight NaF”, it appears this should be “1 to 5% by weight of NaF”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gwoo et al., International Patent Publication WO 2018/143700 A1.
This rejection is over the International Patent Publication because this reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). However, for convenience, the column and line numbers of the English language equivalent U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0363052 A1 will be cited below.
Gwoo et al. disclose a glass frit comprising in terms of weight percentages: 10-30% of P2O5, 0-18% of B2O3, 0-40% of SiO2, 0-30% of Al2O3, 0-8% of ZrO2, 0-30% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 0-5% of TiO2+SnO2, 0-5% of NaF+CaF2+AlF3, and 1-5% of Co3O4+NiO+Fe2O3+MnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0044]-[0081]. Gwoo et al. disclose the glass frit is used an enamel for a glass glaze coated on a surface of a metal plate. See paragraph [0002]. The compositional ranges of Gwoo et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the enamel as recited in claims 1-5. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Gwoo et al. disclose Examples 1, 2, and 5 (see Table 1),which reads on an enamel comprising in terms of weight percentages: 10-25% of SiO2, 15-30% of P2O5, 1-15% of B2O3, 10-15% of Na2O+Li2O+K2O, 1-5% of NaF, 15-35% of Al2O3+TiO2+ZrO2, and 1-10% of Fe2O3+Co3O4+NiO, as recited in instant claim 1.
Wt%
Claim 1
Ex. 1
Ex. 2
Ex. 5
SiO2
10-25
20.8
24.4
24.4
Al2O3
17.9
17.7
17.7
P2O5
15-30
24.5
24.4
24.4
K2O
13.9
11.3
11.3
TiO2
0.9
0
0
NaF
1-5
1.9
1.8
1.8
Li2O
0.5
0.9
0.9
B2O3
1-15
9.4
7.2
7.2
Na2O
5.7
6.4
6.4
Co3O4
1.9
2.1
2.1
NiO
0.4
0.4
0.4
MnO2
0.4
0.6
0.6
Fe2O3
0.2
0
0
ZrO2
1.9
2.8
2.8
Na2O+Li2O+K2O
10-25
20.1
18.6
18.6
Al2O3+TiO2+ZrO2
15-35
20.7
20.5
20.5
Fe2O3+Co3O4+NiO
1-10
2.5
2.5
2.5
As to claim 2, Gwoo et al. disclose Examples 1, 2, and 5 (see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising at least 5 wt% of Na2O, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Gwoo et al. disclose Examples 1, 2, and 5 (see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising at least 5 wt% of Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Gwoo et al. disclose Example 1 ( see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising 0.1 wt% or more of Fe2O3 and Co3O4, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Gwoo et al. disclose Example 1 (see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising at least 1 wt% of Fe2O3+Co3O4.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2018/0215655 A1.
Kim et al. disclose a glass frit comprising in terms of weight percentages: 20-40% of P2O5, 0-20% of B2O3, 0-30% of SiO2, 0-24% of Al2O3, 0-7% of ZrO2, 0-29% of Li2O+Na2O+K2O, 3-9% of Na2O, 7-14% of K2O, 0.1-1.5% of Li2O, 0-8% of TiO2, 0-2% SnO, 0-5% of NaF+CaF2+AlF3, and 0-5% of Co3O4+NiO+Fe2O3+MnO2. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0047]-[0092]. Kim et al. disclose the glass frit is used an enamel for a glass glaze coated on a surface of a metal plate. See paragraph [0003]. The compositional ranges of Kim et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the enamel as recited in claims 1-5. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Kim et al. disclose Examples 3 and 4 (see Table 1),which reads on an enamel comprising in terms of weight percentages: 10-25% of SiO2, 15-30% of P2O5, 1-15% of B2O3, 10-15% of Na2O+Li2O+K2O, 1-5% of NaF, 15-35% of Al2O3+TiO2+ZrO2, and 1-10% of Fe2O3+Co3O4+NiO, as recited in instant claim 1.
Wt%
Claim 1
Ex. 3
Ex. 4
SiO2
10-25
13.3
15.7
Al2O3
17.3
16.0
P2O5
15-30
25.5
25.0
K2O
11.6
11.3
TiO2
4.0
1.0
NaF
1-5
1.9
1.9
Li2O
1.0
0.9
SnO
0
2.0
B2O3
1-15
12.0
14.6
Na2O
6.6
5.0
Co3O4
1.9
1.9
CaO
1.0
1.0
MgO
0.4
Fe2O3
1.7
0.7
ZrO2
2.7
2.6
Na2O+Li2O+K2O
10-25
19.2
17.2
Al2O3+TiO2+ZrO2
15-35
24.0
19.6
Fe2O3+Co3O4+NiO
1-10
3.6
2.6
As to claim 2, Kim et al. disclose Examples 3 and 4 (see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising at least 5 wt% of Na2O, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Kim et al. disclose Examples 3 and 4 (see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising at least 5 wt% of Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Kim et al. disclose Examples 3 and 4 ( see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising 0.1 wt% or more of Fe2O3 and Co3O4, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Kim et al. disclose Example 3 and 4 (see Table 1), which reads on the enamel comprising at least 1 wt% of Fe2O3+Co3O4.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,401,201. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,479,500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/274,309. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compositional ranges overlap. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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
31 December 2025