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 Applicants Arguments and Remarks
The Amendment/Request for Reconsideration After Non-Final Rejection filed 12/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-20 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer to any subject matter therein.
Applicant’s Arguments with respect to claim(s) in the Non-Final rejection dated 12/08/2025 have been considered persuasive and have been withdrawn. Due to the Amendments filed 12/08/2025, there are new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Amendments.
Applicant' s Arguments and Amendments, filed 12/08/2025, are persuasive with respect to the objections to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims except as specifically noted below.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks, see page 4, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks, see pages 4-6, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to Claims 1, 2-6, 8, 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner wished to apologize for the typographical error in regard to “Gudeon”. The proper spelling is “Guedon” and has been rectified in this office action.
Regarding Claim 2 the Applicant argues that,
Claim 2 recites the original version of ISO 24790 which was released in 2009 and is disclosed in the specification, and further, submits that the definition of raggedness in ISO 24790 was not modified by and superseding version of the standard.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
The feature upon which the Applicant relies (i.e. ISO 24790 released in 2009 ) is not recited in the claim. The claim cites ISO 24790. Further, the specification does not make reference to ISO 24790 released in 2009, only that the ISO 24790 standard is used. Hence, Applicants argument is moot. Further, it is referenced the first edition of ISO 24790 was in 2012, replacing ISO/IEC 13660:2001 (As reference, see “Preview ISO+IEC+TS+24790-2012”). The rejection of Claim 2 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
a) the limitation of concern is “the coating has a raggedness in two subregions that different by not more than 10 %.” (emphasis added by the Applicant).
b) Guedon846 is not concerned about comparing coatings in two subregions to one another.
c) Guedon846 does not provide any hint or suggestion that its process is capable of providing a coating on two regions of the same glass sheet and that those regions differ from each other by 10% as claimed.
d) Guedon 846 estimates print quality of an enamel printed on the surface of a glass ceramic cooktop by comparing the actual shape of the enamel with an ideal shape ((resolution of cured enamel line), which has nothing to do with a raggedness of a coating.
e) Guedon 846 is focused on the production of a cooktop having a matte surface which leads to the question, if the decors can still have sharp edges even if they are applied onto a rough surface.
In response to the Applicant’s argument the Examiner replies that,
a) acknowledges the limitation of concern.
b) Guedon846 is not relied upon to compare coatings in two subregions to one another. Guedon is relied upon to teach edge resolution of a line of a coating. Hence, the argument is moot.
c), d) The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that Guedon provides a measure of print quality by comparing actual printed shape to ideal printed shape. See the diagram below:
PNG
media_image1.png
557
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guedon measures a ratio of the actual printed line width to the ideal printed line width. Per the diagram, the ratio, r, would be: (1+3+4)/(1) = r, where Guedon provides that r is less than 1.5.
Raggedness, which is a measure of print quality, is defined by the arithmetic mean of the standard deviations on each side of the line. In the diagram, this would amount to the arithmetic mean of the standard deviations of the peaks outside the ideal line width. In the diagram above, 2 would represent a peak, and as can see seen, there are many peaks on each side of the line width that is defined by 1 in the diagram.
While not the exact mathematical algorithm used by the term raggedness, Guedon provides for a measure of print quality as does the claim. A mere difference in calculation to quantify print quality is a choice, not an invention. In regard to a measure of print quality defined by raggedness not being provided by the process of Guedon where the raggedness different is less than 10% when comparing raggedness in two different regions, the target of less than 10% is a process optimization. A screen printing process contains many variables that can affect raggedness that need to be controlled and optimized such as, but not limited to : 1) emulsion edge quality/emulsion thickness, 2) viscosity of material to be printed, 3) squeegee pressure and squeegee speed during printing, 4) print direction relative to the orientation of the artifact to be printed, 5) screen tension, 6) screen mesh size/thread diameter, 7) durometer hardness of the squeegee. Further, regarding the 10% or less difference in raggedness between two different coated regions, this amount to a mere action to meet a desired customer requirement or product specification, not an invention. Hence the argument is moot.
e) Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Hence, the argument is moot.
Hence, The rejection to Claim 1 is maintained.
Further, as the Applicant’s Arguments for Claims 2-6, 8, and 11-13 are the same as for Claim 1, the Examiner response for Claims 2-6, 8, and 11-13 are the same as for Claim 1.
The rejection for Claims 2-6, 8, and 11-13 are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations presented in the CTNF are maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20190128534A1 by Roux534 et. al. (herein “Roux534”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20210214270A1 by Shimazu et. al. (herein “Shimazu”) and in further review of USPGPUB
20200361813A1 by Roux813 et. al. (herein “Roux813) and in further view of WO2021121846A by
Guedon (herein “Guedon 846”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Roux534 teaches,
A glass or glass-ceramic plate; [0001] “The present invention relates to a sheet (made) of glass-ceramic…”
comprising:
two mutually opposite side faces; a circumferential edge face;[0029], “ It is generally of geometric shape, in particular rectangular, indeed even square, or even circular or oval, etc., and generally exhibits a face which is “upper” (face which is visible) in the position of use, another face which is “lower” (generally hidden, in a framework or carcass) in the position of use, and an edge face (or edge or thickness).”
a thickness between the side faces of between 2 mm and 6 mm; [0030] “The thickness of the glass-ceramic sheet is…in particular at least 2.5 mm…”
a flatness less than or equal to 0.1% of a lateral dimension between the side faces; [0029], “The glass-ceramic sheet used is preferably flat (or predominantly or virtually flat) and in particular has a flatness (height between the highest point and the lowest point of the substrate, with respect to the mean plane of the substrate, excluding any possible deliberate deformations produced on the substrate for esthetic or functional purposes) of less than 0.1% of the diagonal of the substrate…”
Roux534 mentions that the sheet upper side of the sheet is flat and smooth [0029], and also notes that glass-ceramics have been used in particular for several years to form vitreous ceramic hobs, which have been very successful with housekeeping experts, manufacturers of household electrical appliances and users alike, because of their attractive appearance and ease of cleaning [0002], but fails to teach,
a region of a first face of the side faces having a mean surface roughness of less than 0.5 um and a standard deviation of the surface roughness of less than 0.1 um,
In an analogous endeavor of ceramic items having a surface roughness, Shimazu teaches a desire for a surface with a variation coefficient of a root mean square slope of a roughness curve (RΔq) being in the range of 0.04 to 0.1 [0016] and an arithmetic average roughness (Ra) being in the range of 0.0 μm to 0.5 μm [0017] for a surface glaze on the surface of a ceramic element.
Since variation coefficient of a root mean square slope is what is known as coefficient of variation, CV, the standard equation is CV = standard deviation / arithmetic average (mean).
Therefore,
.04-0.1 = standard deviation/0.5, with 0.5 being an example of the arithmetic mean.
Standard deviation = .02-0.5, which is less than 0.1um.
Shimazu also teaches that the surface is a layer formed by a mixture which includes glass [0069], thereby having essentially a glass surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plate with a surface roughness within the claimed range due to the teaching by Shimazu that such a glass ceramic surface has excellent cleaning property [0060].
Roux534 fails to teach wherein, the mean surface roughness and the standard deviation of the surface roughness are determined by ,
by measuring a line profile with a stylus device
and with evaluation according to ISO 4287,
measuring a roughness at nine points on the first face
wherein,
the nine points are at least 5 cm apart from one another;
Shimazu further cites by using a stylus type surface roughness tester in accordance with JIS B0651 (2001) and are stipulated in accordance with JIS B0601 (2001) [0015]. As well, a measuring scheme where 10 locations are measured inside a 50mm x 50mm area. While Shimazu does not teach exactly the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a surface roughness measurement scheme referenced to a standard as suggested by Shimazu for the glass article of Roux534, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to define a specific measurement scheme for the purpose of industry standards for certain products as well size of the product. Where 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Roux534 further fails to teach,
and a coating on two subregions of the region, wherein
the two subregions are at least 3 cm apart from one another,
In an similar endeavor of a coated glass ceramic article, Roux813 teaches coating a glass ceramic cooktop [0019] in at least one area on the user facing side, “In accordance with the invention, the glass-ceramic substrate concerned is coated in at least one area (or at least one area of said substrate is coated), more particularly on the surface, on at least part of one side, advantageously on at least part of the side facing the user in the position of use”, ([0026]), where the size of the coated area is at least 5cm by 5cm ([0027]). Further Roux813 cites the enamel coating has a coverage rate of 40% to 80% on the surface ([0030]). Thus, there are two coated regions separated some distance from each other. While Roux813 does not teach a 3cm separation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a specific spacing being motivated by the desire for certain areas for which the anti-fingerprint effect is sought, as noted by Roux813 ([0030 lines 1-2). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Roux534 further fails to teach wherein,
the coating has a raggedness in the two subregions that differ by not more than 10%.
In the same endeavor as coating glass ceramic plates, Guedon846 teaches edge resolution of enamel
decoration features and provides a target of edge resolution of r that is acceptable, “The possibility of
subsequent screen-printed enamel deposition…decorative or functional patterns on.. glass-ceramic
ware was assessed by measuring the resolution of an enamel decoration line, “Then,
the ratio between this measured length and the theoretical length of this same border if it
were perfectly straight is calculated. This ratio, noted r, corresponds to the resolution of the
enamel decoration line. A resolution is considered aesthetically acceptable when this value is
less than 1.6, preferably less than 1.5. ([0101, 0080]). Guedon846 fails to teach a measure of print
quality by a raggedness of less than 10%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to use the concept of a measure of print quality by Guedon in the process of the
combination as one would be motivated to do so for the common industrial reason of process control.
A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp.
If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Further, in regard to raggedness in two sub regions differing by not more than 10%, it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to optimize the raggedness difference to less than 10%, since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or
workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to do so for the
purpose of the common industrial reason of process control and meeting customer or product
requirements.
Regarding Claim 2 – Roux534 ,Shimazu , Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 fails to teach fails to teach wherein,
wherein the raggedness is determined according to ISO 24790.
While Guedon846 teaches a method of measuring edge resolution with a microscope but does not
teach a method according to ISO 24790, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use an appropriate standard of measurement for
edge resolution, being motivated by industry requirements. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is
likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 3 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 teaches wherein,
the side faces are parallel to one another; Fig. 1a, [0029], “ It is generally of geometric shape, in particular rectangular, indeed even square, or even circular or oval, etc., and generally exhibits a face which is “upper” (face which is visible) in the position of use, another face which is “lower” (generally hidden, in a framework or carcass) in the position of use, and an edge face (or edge or thickness).”
Regarding Claim 4 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 teaches wherein,
the glass or glass-ceramic plate is a lithium aluminum silicate glass or a lithium aluminum
silicate glass-ceramic; [0031] “ It is in particular a lithium aluminosilicate glass-ceramic.”
Regarding Claim 5 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
the nine points are at least 15 cm apart from one another;
While the combination fails to teach the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the distance between the measurement points in the scheme of the combination being motivated by a change is size of the article being measured. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination fails to teach wherein,
the two subregions are at least 15 cm apart from one another.
While the combination fails to teach the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sub-regions in different locations in the combination based upon product design needs for certain areas for which the anti-fingerprint effect is required. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 8 –– Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 further teaches wherein,
the coating comprises a glass flux and/or is an enamel; [0032], “As indicated
hereinabove, the sheet may where appropriate comprise various functional and/or decorative
coatings, in particular from among those generally used with glass-ceramics, for example
coatings based on enamel…”
Regarding Claim 11 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 teaches wherein,
the side faces each lack a nubbed structure or wherein the first face lacks a first nubbed structure and a second face of the side faces has a second nubbed structure; [0029], “The upper face is generally flat and smooth but may also exhibit at least one protruding zone and/or at least one recessed zone and/or at least one opening and/or beveled edges etc., these variations in shape advantageously constituting continuous variations in the sheet (with no change in materials or joins). The lower face is preferably smooth, or indeed provided with bumps.”
Regarding Claim 12 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 teaches wherein,
the glass or glass-ceramic plate comprises a volume-colored glass-ceramic and/or comprises no vitreously embodied surface zone on the first face; [0031] , “The glass-ceramic may be in a dark color (black, dark brown) or a pale color (white, cream)…depending on the desired use and the desired look”.
Regarding Claim 13 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 teaches wherein,
the glass or glass-ceramic plate is configured for use as a cooking surface; [0009], [0067], “This objective has been achieved by the novel glass-ceramic sheet according to the invention, which is intended in particular to be used as a surface…or as a worktop”, “The sheet according to the invention may in particular be used to advantage to produce a new range of cooking devices.”
Claims 7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20190128534A1 by Roux534 et. al. (herein “Roux534”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20210214270A1 by Shimazu et. al. (herein “Shimazu”) and in further review of USPGPUB
20200361813A1 by Roux534 et. al. (herein “Roux813),
and in further view of WO2021121846A by Guedon (herein “Guedon 846”) and in further view of
USPGPUB 2021011528A1 by Guedon (herein “Guedon528 ”).
Regarding Claim 7 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 1 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Roux534 suggests the faces of article are coated with enamels for decorative purposes [0032] but fails to teach a coating technique.
In a similar endeavor of decorating glass ceramic items, Guedon528 further teaches a coating that is an inkjet coating; “The mineral ink according to the invention is suitable for deposition by inkjet printing methods on mineral substrates made of glass, ceramic and glass-ceramic” [0030]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the inkjet coating of Guedon528 on the plate glass ceramic plate of Roux534 being motivated to, as is an industrial known, eliminate the tooling and set-ups costs of screen printing, as well as extend the color gamut for printing as ink jet printing is based on the 4 process colors of cyan, magenta, yellow, and blue, as noted by Guedon528 [0031].
Regarding Claim 9 – Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the rejection of claim 8 above
teaches all of the limitations of claim 8.
The combination fails to teach,
the coating further comprises a pigment;
Guedon528 further teaches the use of a pigment, “ In one embodiment of the invention, the mineral ink
may in addition comprise a mineral pigment”, [0046]. It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use
the pigment of Guedon528 in a coating of the combination, being motivated by gaining the ability to tint
or color the enamel, as noted by Guedon528 ([0046] lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 10, which depends on Claim 9 – R Roux534 ,Shimazu, Roux813 and Guedon846 in the
rejection of claim 9 above teaches all of the limitations of claim 9.
Roux534 teaches a d50 particle size range, but fails to teach wherein,
the pigment comprises no pigment particles having a primary grain size, determined as d50 of equivalent diameter, of more than 1.0 um and/or comprises no pigment particles having a primary grain size, determined as d90 of equivalent diameter, of more than 2.5 um.
Guedon528 further teaches a d90 of pigments between 1um and 2um; “The D90 is calculated from the particle size distribution determined by laser particle size analysis methods according to the standard ISO 13320:2009. It corresponds to the size of the particles that represent 90% of the total volume of particles of the mixture. In other words, 90% of the volume of particles of the mixture of the glass frit and of the mineral pigment consists of particles having a size of between 1 μm and 2 μm” [0049].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date
of the claimed invention was made to use the d90 particle size of Guedon528 in the coating of Roux534,
such that enamel be prepared in the form of a colloidal suspension of a finely divided mineral solid
phase whose size is micrometric to meet the requirements for inkjet printing, as noted by Guedon528
([0010], [0011]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741