DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-15 are pending and presented for the examination. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2023, 07/31/2023, 11/20/2023, and 08/05/2025 are being considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1- 10 and 14- 15 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 states that the glass ceramic comprises “a glass material” upon which the uneven layer is etched. This use of “glass material” when describing a glass ceramic article renders unclear the nature of the parts of the glass ceramic. It is ambiguous if this is meant to convey that the etched surface comprises only non-crystallized glass ceramic (i.e. only amorphous glass), or if the term is being used synonymously with “glass ceramic”, and the glass ceramic surface is what has the uneven pattern. Similarly, the limitation of the lower printed layer being “under the glass material” is unclear because it is uncertain if this is mean to convey the printing being on an opposite surface of the glass ceramic substrate, or under a portion of the glass ceramic that is only “glass”, i.e. only amorphous non-crystallized glass ceramic. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are indefinite and the claim is rejected under USC 112. Claims 2-10 are rejected as indefinite for depending from claim 1 and thus containing the indefinite limitations thereof. Claim 14 is indefinite for substantially the same reasons as discussed for claim 1 above. Claim 15 is rejected as indefinite for depending from claim 14 and thus containing the indefinite limitations thereof. 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. 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. 9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 10. Claim s 1- 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al (US 2015/0144613 A1) in view of Zukawa et al (WO 2021/172129 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Guillemot et al teaches a glass ceramic cooktop comprising a substrate having surface roughness formed from a network of patterns (unevenness) in at least one zone of at least one surface, and an enamel layer for decoration purposes formed on one of the surfaces of the substrate (see paragraphs [0013], [0027] and [0034]-[0036] and claims 1-5). The surface roughness of the Guillemot et al glass ceramic constitutes an uneven layer. That the layer is etched constitutes a product-by-process limitation; the designation “etched” does not impart any further structural limitations on the layer formed apart from it being uneven. Thus, the Guillemot patterned layer is uneven and therefore meets the structural limitation of the instantly claimed glass ceramic. The Guillemot enamel layer for decoration meets the instant limitation of an upper printed layer on the uneven layer. Claim 1 differs from Guillemot et al because Guillemot does not teach an embodiment wherein there is also a lower printed layer under the glass ceramic substrate (under the glass material). Guillemot teaches that the substrate may have additional layers such as those for extraction of the radiation emitted by light sources (see paragraph [0035]) ; these can be printed with enamel, and can be positioned on the opposite surface (in particular, lower surface) of the substrate (see paragraph [0034]) . In these proposed embodiments, the Guillemot substrate would comprise a lower printed layer, and this would be under the glass ceramic material as it is on the opposite side from the surface side. The teachings of Zukawa et al would provide further motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a substrate according to Guillemot et al with an additional printed layer on the opposite surface (lower printed layer under the glass ceramic material). Zukawa teaches a glass ceramic top plate for a heating cooker, wherein roughening treatment of the lower surface of crystallized glass is performed by a physical method such as sandblasting and grain polishing for glass polishing using an abrasive, and a chemical method of immersion in an etching solution (see paragraph [0060]) . Zukawa further teaches a color tone adjustment layer positioned on the lower surface of a crystallized glass substrate (see claim 1). These teachings would show one of ordinary skill that printed or color layers are advantageously placed below the glass ceramic top layer in cooking surface substrates of the type taught by Guillemot et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification and in forming a Guillemot embodiment having printed layers on both surfaces of the substrate because Guillemot and Zukawa teach similar glass ceramic configurations used for the same cooktop application. Each limitation of claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 2 , Guillemot et al teaches that structured coatings can partially cover one or more of the other coatings present on the surface of the substrate for the purposes of preventing finger marks (see paragraphs [0031] and [0034]). This therefore constitutes an outermost coating layer disposed on the upper printed layer. Regarding claim 3 , Guillemot et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic substrate has a thickness of 4 mm (see paragraph [0063]). Regarding claim 4 , Guillemot et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic substrate is used as a cooktop and has various zones formed by the textured layer for purposes such as control panels. Guillemot further teaches that the enamel printed layers are used for functional and decorative purposes. These constitute UX and/or UI printed layers because they affect the user’s use of the cooktop. Regarding claim s 5 -6 as discussed above, Zukawa et al teaches a color tone adjustment layer on the lower side (surface) of the glass ceramic substrate. Zukawa further teaches a that the color tone adjustment layer can comprise a layer coated with ink containing a metal oxide of a vitreous component of Si O 2 and A l 2 O 3 and an inorganic pigment such as CuO on the. This latter layer is on the lower surface of the color tone adjustment (high-chroma color) layer (under the layer), and is provided for heat resistance (see paragraph [0100]). The layer is thus a shielding layer meeting the further limitations of instant claim s 5 -6 . Regarding claim 7 , Guillemot et al teaches that the characteristic dimensions of the patterns forming surface roughness are 2-100 µum, and in particular, the height of the patterns is 2-50 µm and a spacing between each of the patterns is 50 um or less (see claims 1 and 3). Routine optimization and experimentation with these overlapping ranges would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a surface roughness Ra of 3-5 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 8 , Guillemot et al teaches that the article has light transmittance in the range of 0.8-40% for at least one wavelength included in the visible range of 420-7 80 nm (see paragraph [0030]). Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Regarding claim 14 , as discussed above for claim 1, Guillemot in view of Zukawa teaches a glass ceramic substrate meeting each layer limitation of the instant claim 14. The Guillemot glass ceramic is used as a cooktop, and this cooktop would thus comprise a main body on which the glass ceramic substrate having the instant claim 14 features is positioned (see Fig.). 11. Claim s 9 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al (US 2015/0144613 A1) in view of Zukawa et al (WO 2021/172129 A1) and in further view of Roux et al (US 2020/0361813 A1) . Regarding claim 9 , the claim differs from Guillemot et al in view of Zukawa et al as applied above because while Guillemot et al teaches that the inventive coating is intended for use in preventing fingerprints (finger marks) and thus would have a surface gloss equivalent to that of the instantly claimed glass ceramic used for the same purpose, this gloss value is not quantitatively taught. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guillemot et al in view of Roux et al in order to use the gloss value at 60° taught therein, because Roux et al teaches a similar glass ceramic substrate used for equivalent cooktop purposes, teaches that the enameled portion leads to fingerprint prevention, and specifies a value for glass at 60°. Roux teaches a value for the glass of 40 GU or less (see paragraph 0029). One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use this value with the Guillemot enamel coating because the lack of specific quantitative teaching as to this value in Guillemot would lead one to look to other sources for an appropriate gloss. Roux et al provides such a teaching. The overlapping range of the Roux et al glass value renders obvious the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Each limitation of claim 9 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 10 , Guillemot et al teaches that the enamel coating can be used to impart a hydrophobic property to the surface, however, it does not specify a water contact angle on the surface. Roux et al teaches that a hydrophobic surface is one for which the water contact angle is 90° or greater (see paragraph 0048). As such, the teachings of the prior art show that each limitation of the instant claim is met by Guillemot in view of Zukawa and Roux. 12. Claim s 11 and 1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al (US 2015/0144613 A1) in view of Zukawa et al (WO 2021/172129 A1) and in further view of Iritani et al (JP 2013087986 A ). Regarding claim 11 , Guillemot et al teaches a glass ceramic cooktop comprising a substrate having surface roughness formed from a network of patterns (unevenness) in at least one zone of at least one surface, and an enamel layer for decoration purposes formed on one of the surfaces of the substrate (see paragraphs [0013], [0027] and [0034]-[0036] and claims 1-5). The Guillemot enamel layer for decoration meets the instant limitation of a printed layer on the surface. Guillemot et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is prepared by the steps of melting a starting glass composition in order to form a glass ceramic; rolling the molten glass into a standard ribbon or sheet , and cutting the glass to desired dimensions; ceramizing cut plates through heating; maintaining the temperature for several minutes ; and then rapidly cooling same to ambient temperature . Guillemot teaches that the surface roughness is produced through a making process rather than by etching and blasting, but suggests that layers can also be comprised on the substrate as produced by such means as blasting and etching (see paragraph 0036). One of ordinary skill would have had further motivation to use etching and sand blasting to form patterned layers on the Guillemot substrate through modification in view of Iritani et al. Iritani et al teaches a method for manufacturing a glass plate for a top plate for a cooker comprising the steps of forming a recessed part by grinding a part of one main surface of the glass plate; and reducing the specific surface area of the surface of the recessed part by polishing, etching or fire-polishing the surface of the recessed part (see claims 4-7). This teaching would provide one of ordinary skill with motivation to also use these polishing, etching, and blasting steps (suggested by Guillemot) when preparing the patterned layer and/or additional layers called for by Guillemot. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in employing these steps through the modification because Guillemot and Iritani are each drawn to preparation methods for glass ceramic cooktops. Claim 1 1 differs from Guillemot et al because Guillemot does not teach an embodiment wherein there is also a lower printed layer under the glass ceramic substrate (under the glass material). Guillemot teaches that the substrate may have additional layers such as those for extraction of the radiation emitted by light sources (see paragraph [0035]) ; these can be printed with enamel, and can be positioned on the opposite surface (in particular, lower surface) of the substrate (see paragraph [0034]) . In these proposed embodiments, the Guillemot substrate would comprise a lower printed layer, and this would be under the glass ceramic material as it is on the opposite side from the surface side. The teachings of Zukawa et al would provide further motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a substrate according to Guillemot et al with an additional printed layer on the opposite surface (lower printed layer under the glass ceramic material). Zukawa teaches a glass ceramic top plate for a heating cooker, wherein roughening treatment of the lower surface of crystallized glass is performed by a physical method such as sandblasting and grain polishing for glass polishing using an abrasive, and a chemical method of immersion in an etching solution (see paragraph [0060]) . Zukawa further teaches a color tone adjustment layer positioned on the lower surface of a crystallized glass substrate (see claim 1). These teachings would show one of ordinary skill that printed or color layers are advantageously placed below the glass ceramic top layer in cooking surface substrates of the type taught by Guillemot et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification and in forming a Guillemot embodiment having printed layers on both surfaces of the substrate because Guillemot and Zukawa teach similar glass ceramic configurations used for the same cooktop application. Each limitation of claim 1 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 13 , Guillemot et al teaches that the characteristic dimensions of the patterns forming surface roughness are 2-100 µum, and in particular, the height of the patterns is 2-50 µm and a spacing between each of the patterns is 50 um or less (see claims 1 and 3). Routine optimization and experimentation with these overlapping ranges would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a surface roughness Ra of 3-5 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. 13. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al (US 2015/0144613 A1) in view of Zukawa et al (WO 2021/172129 A1) and Iritani et al (JP 2013087986 A ) and in further view of Sadowsky et al ( WO 2013171047 A1 ). Regarding claim 12 , Zukawa et al teaches etching with hydrofluoric acid. However, Guillemot et al, Zukawa et al, or Iritani et al do not specify an etching time. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guillemot et al in further view of Sadowsky et al in order to use the etching time disclosed therein. Sadowsky teaches a method of producing a glass ceramic having utility for applications such as cooktops, and teaches etching of the glass ceramic surface using hydrofluoric acid. Sadowsky teaches an etching time of 60 minutes for the etching. One would have had motivation to use the Sadowsky etching time with the process taught by Guillemot in view of Iritani because the latter two documents do not provide a specific time for this step, causing one of ordinary skill to look to other teachings for an appropriate value. Sadowsky provides such a teaching of a quantitative time. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Guillemot, Iritani, and Sadowsky are each drawn to methods for preparing glass ceramic surfaces for use in applications such as cooktops. Each limitation of claim 12 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. 14. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al (US 2015/0144613 A1) in view of Zukawa et al (WO 2021/172129 A1) and in further view of Bassill et al (US 6630650 B2). Regarding claim 15 , the claim differs from Guillemot et al as applied above because while Guillemot et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic substrate is used as a cooktop surface, it does not specify that the cooktop comprises a heating, coil mount, circuit board, and second glass. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Guillemot in view of Bassill et al in order to use the cooktop configuration taught therein, because Bassill et al teaches an induction heating and control system with a glass ceramic cooking surface, and provides a more thorough teaching of the components included therein. The Bassill system comprises said cooktop, a coil and mount under the heater, a circuit board, and a glass barrier material under the cooktop and over the circuit board (see Fig. 2). One of ordinary skill would have had motivation to use this Bassill et al configuration when preparing a cooktop as called for by Guillemot because Guillemot is focused on the details of preparing a patterned surface, and thus does not specify the components of the device in sufficient detail. Thus one would have had motivation to look to other teachings for such a specific teaching, and Bassill provides details for how one would prepare a cooktop device. Each limitation of claim 15 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Conclusion 1 5 . No claim is allowed. 1 6 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 7 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596 . The exam iner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NOAH S WIESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW 26 November 2025