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 .
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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzbach (WO2021/023965).
Considering claim 1, Katzbach teaches an enamel coating on a coated glass substrate (abstract). The glass substrate may be architectural or automotive glass (p.4 liens 5-6) (e.g. a transparent substrate) with a coating thereon including one or more films of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, etc. (p.4 lines 7-13) (i.e. optionally a monolayer optical coating). The coating is considered in its entirety as no partial coating is disclosed. The enamel is applied as a paste to form a desired pattern (p.2 line 24 – p.3 line 4) where the enamel directly bonds the glass (p.4 lines 24-28) as the enamel dissolves the coating during firing (p.15 lines 15-22) (e.g. selectively dissolved regions) which results in good color depth and an aesthetically pleasing appearance (p.4 lines 28-32).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed heat treatable decorative patterned glass article this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teaching of Katzbach as this is considered a combination of a single layer coated substrate with a patterned enamel coating which dissolves the underlying coating and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. As no other portion of the coating is taught to be removed other than the portion which is dissolved by the enamel this is considered to teach where the optional single layer coating is present on the glass surface except where it is dissolved. The patterned enamel coating is not expressly taught as contrasting in appearance with the dissolved and undissolved regions, but this is considered to be met as Katzbach teaches substantially identical coating and enamel materials as those which are claimed and disclosed, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 2, Katzbach teaches where the coating comprises silicon nitride, silicon oxide, etc. (p.4 lines 7-13).
Considering claim 3, Katzbach teaches where the enamel comprises a bismuth silicate glass frit (e.g. a ceramic frit) (p.13 lines 20-23), a black spinel pigment (p.13 lines 4-5), and optionally 0.1 wt.% or less of a fluorine component (p.13 lines 9-11), etc.
Considering claim 5, Katzbach teaches where the coating has a typical thickness from 50-300 nm (p.4 lines 5-9) overlapping that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 6, Katzbach teaches where the enamel is applied directly to the coating (e.g. covering surface area parts) (p.14 lines 12-15).
Considering claim 7, Katzbach teaches where the enamel has a thickness of 20-45 microns (p.14 lines 27-31). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 8, Katzbach teaches where the enamel directly bonds the glass with a strong, direct bond (e.g. fuses with the surface of the glass) (p.4 lines 24-28).
Considering claim 9, Katzbach teaches where the enamel paste is fired from 400-750 °C (p.15 lines 15-22). See MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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: Katzbach teaches the optional inclusion of a maximum of 0.1 wt.% fluorine (p.13 lines 9-11). However, there is no teaching or suggestion within Katzbach to modify the reference with the specifically claimed materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pp.4-5, filed 29 January 2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9 has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the claims to positively recite dissolved and undissolved regions removing indefiniteness.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pp.5-7 regarding Depauw and pp.8-11 regarding Savary, filed 29 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to positively recite dissolved and undissolved region rather than the prior intended use and neither primary references of Depauw or Savary teach the amended limitations. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Katzbach as outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 at 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784