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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130299482 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an enamel composition, which is a single glass frit prepared from a single melted matrix (“melted glass frit material may be quenched by using a chiller. As a result, the glass frit may be formed” paragraph [0062]), comprising:
15 to 50 wt% of phosphorous pentoxide (
P
2
O
5
) (“about 11.0 wt % to about 17 wt % of
P
2
O
5
” paragraph [0052]);
5 to 20 wt% of one or more of lithium superoxide (
L
i
2
O
), sodium oxide (
N
a
2
O
), or potassium oxide (
K
2
O
) (“about 5.3 wt % to about 14.5 wt % of
N
a
2
O
” paragraph [0052]);
1 to 5 wt% of one or more of sodium fluoride (
N
a
F
), calcium fluoride (
C
a
F
2
), or aluminum fluoride (
A
l
F
3
) (“about 1.8 wt % to about 6.9 wt % of F and/or a compound containing F” paragraph [0052] and “The compound containing F may include
C
a
F
2
… or
A
l
F
3
” paragraph [0046]);
one or more of magnesium oxide (
M
g
O
), barium oxide (
B
a
O
), or calcium oxide (
C
a
O
) (“Also, the glass frit may further include BaO, ZnO, CaO and/or MgO” paragraph [0048]);
one or more of manganese dioxide (
M
n
O
2
), molybdenum trioxide (
M
o
O
3
), bismuth oxide (
B
i
2
O
3
), or nickel oxide (
N
i
O
) (“about 0.1 wt % to about 0.6 wt % of
M
n
O
2
, about 0.3 wt % to about 1.4 wt % of
N
i
O
” paragraph [0052]); and
2 or less wt% of titanium dioxide (
T
i
O
2
) (“about 0.1 wt % to about 1.5 wt % of TiO.sub.2” paragraph [0052]), wherein when the enamel composition includes both
M
o
O
3
and
B
i
2
O
3
, 2 or less wt% of any one of
M
o
O
3
or
B
i
2
O
3
is included (
M
o
O
3
and
B
i
2
O
3
are not included).
Kim does not disclose:
1 to 35 wt% of one or more of magnesium oxide (
M
g
O
), barium oxide (
B
a
O
), or calcium oxide (
C
a
O
);
5 to 30 wt% of one or more of manganese dioxide (
M
n
O
2
), molybdenum trioxide (
M
o
O
3
), bismuth oxide (
B
i
2
O
3
), or nickel oxide (
N
i
O
).
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Kim discloses magnesium oxide (
M
g
O
), barium oxide (
B
a
O
), calcium oxide (
C
a
O
), manganese dioxide (
M
n
O
2
), and nickel oxide (
N
i
O
), but does not specifically recite the claimed weight percent ranges. Achieving the claimed weight percent ranges are results-effective variables because Kim states “As the glass frit further includes BaO, ZnO, CaO and/or MgO, the properties such as the durability, heat resistance, surface tension, and chemical resistance of the coating layer may be further enhanced” (paragraph [0048]) and “The adhesion enhancement component may include at least one of CoO, NiO, MnO.sub.2, and Fe.sub.2O.sub.3” (paragraph [0047]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the weight percentages of magnesium oxide (
M
g
O
), barium oxide (
B
a
O
), calcium oxide (
C
a
O
), manganese dioxide (
M
n
O
2
), and nickel oxide (
N
i
O
), because the selection of weight percentage to achieve desired durability, heat resistance, surface tension, chemical resistance, and adhesion enhancement constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the enamel composition of claim 1, further comprising:
silicon dioxide (
S
i
O
2
) (“about 29.6 wt % to about 38.8 wt % of
S
i
O
2
” paragraph [0052]).
Kim does not disclose 20 or less wt% silicon dioxide (
S
i
O
2
).
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Kim discloses silicon dioxide (
S
i
O
2
), but does not specifically recite the claimed weight percent ranges. Achieving the claimed weight percent range is a results-effective variable because Kim states “
S
i
O
2
may be contained in the glass frit to improve acid resistance of the glass frit” (paragraph [0033]) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the weight percentage of silicon dioxide (
S
i
O
2
), because the selection of weight percentage to achieve desired acid resistance constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the enamel composition of claim 1, further comprising:
1 to 20 wt% of aluminum oxide (
A
l
2
O
3
) (“about 3.8 wt % to about 13.2 wt % of
A
l
2
O
3
” paragraph [0052]);
1 to 5 wt% of zirconium dioxide (
Z
r
O
2
) (“about 0.8 wt % to about 4.1 wt % of
Z
r
O
2
”); and
one or more of tin oxide (
S
n
O
) or zinc oxide (
Z
n
O
) (“the glass frit may further include BaO, ZnO, CaO and/or MgO” paragraph [0048]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose 1 to 20 wt% of one or more of tin oxide (
S
n
O
) or zinc oxide (
Z
n
O
).
However, it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) (quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Although, it has been further held that "[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Refer to MPEP §2144.05(II)(B)(quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Kim discloses zinc oxide (
Z
n
O
), but does not specifically recite the claimed weight percent range. Achieving the claimed weight percent range is a results-effective variables because Kim states “As the glass frit further includes BaO, ZnO, CaO and/or MgO, the properties such as the durability, heat resistance, surface tension, and chemical resistance of the coating layer may be further enhanced” (paragraph [0048]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the weight percentages of zinc oxide (ZnO), because the selection of weight percentage to achieve desired durability, heat resistance, surface tension, and chemical resistance constitutes the optimization of design parameters, which fails to distinguish the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Lee (US 20130299484 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the enamel composition of claim 1.
Kim does not disclose 15 or less wt% of bismuth oxide (
B
i
2
O
3
) (The examiner is interpreting this range as exclusive of zero).
However, Lee teaches 15 or less wt% of bismuth oxide (
B
i
2
O
3
) (
B
i
2
O
3
may improve chemical resistance and heat resistance of the enamel composition according to an embodiment.
B
i
2
O
3
may be contained in an amount of about 3 wt % to about 10 wt % in the glass frit” paragraph [0051]).
In view of Lee’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include 15 or less wt% of bismuth oxide (
B
i
2
O
3
) as is taught in Lee, in the composition disclosed by Kim because Lee sates that
B
i
2
O
3
may improve chemical and heat resistance of the enamel composition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (US 3547098 A)
PNG
media_image1.png
314
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ott (US 3580733 A) “It is essential to the development of good continuous cleaning properties that the enameling composition is in intimate contact with a source of halide in a proportion of at least about 1/2% and up to about 25% measured as the halogen element basis weight of the glass frit” column 8, line 8 and “The halide can be smelted into the frit by addition of fluorspar, sodium silicofluoride, cryolite, sodium fluoride or other alkali metal halide” column 8, line 28
Espargilliere (US 20050014625 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
224
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights