DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
1. The amendment filed 2/17/2026 has been entered. Amended Claims 1 and 6 have been noted. The amendment has overcome the specification objections, claim objections and 112(d) rejections previously set forth - those specification objections, claim objections and 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0215655 A1) (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Ruderer et al. (US 5,306,674) (hereinafter “Ruderer”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches of a method for preparing an enamel composition (“enamel composition”) (see at least Abstract, [0042] and Figs. 1-2), comprising:
providing materials for the enamel composition, the materials including:
phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) (“P2O5”) at 15 to 50 wt% (P2O5 at 30.7% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0042]-[0044], [0109] and “Table 1”);
silicon dioxide (SiO2) (“SiO2”) at 10 to 20 wt% (SiO2 at 14.1% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0042]-[0043], [0060], [0109] and “Table 1”);
boron oxide (B2O3) at 1 to 15 wt% (B2O3 at 12.2% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0042]-[0043], [0063], [0109] and “Table 1”);
one or more of lithium superoxide (Li2O), sodium oxide (Na2O), or potassium oxide (K2O) (at least “K2O”) at 5 to 20 wt% (K2O at 11.4% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0095], [0110] and “Table 1”);
one or more of sodium fluoride (NaF), calcium fluoride (CaF2), or aluminum fluoride (AIF3) (at least “AlF3-”) at 1 to 5 wt% (AIF3 at 1% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0083], [0096] and “Table 1”);
one or more of magnesium oxide (MgO), barium oxide (BaO), or calcium oxide (CaO) (at least “BaO”) at 1 to 35 wt% (BaO at 4% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0079], [0096] and “Table 1”); and
one or more of titanium dioxide (TiO2), cerium dioxide (CeO2), molybdenum trioxide (MoO3), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), or copper oxide (CuO) (at least “TiO2” as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1) (see at least [0074]-[0075], [0109] and “Table 1”);
melting the materials (see at least [0097]-[0098] and [0111]); and
quenching the melted materials (“quenched”) to form the enamel composition (via “quenching roller” - see at least [0097]-[0098] and [0111]).
Kim fails to explicitly teach that the enamel composition comprises both of MoO3 and Bi2O3 wherein “any one of the MoO3 or the Bi2O3 is included at 2 wt% or less” and of additionally using the one or more of titanium dioxide (TiO2), cerium dioxide (CeO2), molybdenum trioxide (MoO3), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), or copper oxide (CuO) at an amount of “10 to 25 wt%”.
Ruderer discloses a relatable glass enamel coating and method for making the same (see at least Abstract). Ruderer teaches that the enamel composition comprises both of MoO3 and Bi2O3 wherein (at least) Bi2O3 is included at 2 wt% or less (“less than about 1% by weight bismuth oxide” which falls within the claimed range) (see at least Col. 3 lines 44-61). Ruderer teaches that using these additives prevents “the glass enamel from becoming too ‘refractory’” (see at least Col. 3 lines 44-61). Furthermore, Ruderer teaches that the enamel composition can comprise up to “12%” of “TiO2” (which falls within the claimed range) and that such addition enhances “chemical durability” (see at least Col. 3 lines 33-38 and the table in Col. 3, lines 18-32).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Kim by configuring the existing enamel composition to comprise both of MoO3 and Bi2O3 wherein, at least, the Bi2O3 is included at 2 wt% or less as is taught by Ruderer. Doing so would have prevented the glass enamel from becoming too refractory and thus too brittle. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to have configured the existing enamel composition to also comprise up to “12%” of “TiO2” as is also taught by Ruderer. Doing so would have enhanced chemical durability of the composition. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim also teaches that the materials further include:
aluminum oxide (Al2O3) at 1 to 20 wt% (“Al2O3” at 8% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0066] and Table 1);
zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) at 1 to 5 wt% (“ZrO2” at 1% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0070] and Table 1); and
one or more of tin oxide (SnO) or zinc oxide (ZnO) at 1 to 10 wt% (“ZnO” at 5.1% as is shown in embodiment #1 of Table 1 which falls within the claimed range) (see at least [0070] and Table 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim also teaches that the melting of the materials for the enamel composition may include melting the materials at about 1,200 to 1,400 °C for about one to two hours (In [0097] Kim discloses that “the glass fit material may be melted for about 30 minutes to about 2 hours at a temperature of about 1100° C to about 1500° C” which encompasses “1,200 to 1,400 °C for about one to two hours” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim also teaches that the melting of the materials for the enamel composition may include melting the materials at about 1,300 °C for about 1.5 hours (In [0097] Kim discloses that “the glass fit material may be melted for about 30 minutes to about 2 hours at a temperature of about 1100° C to about 1500° C” which encompasses “1,300 °C for about 1.5 hours” as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim also teaches that the quenching of the melted material includes quenching the melted materials using a quenching roller (“quenching roller”) (see at least [0111]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim also teaches of applying the enamel composition to at least one of an inner surface of a cavity of a cooking appliance or an inner surface a door of the cooking appliance (see at least [0033] and Figs. 2-3 - “the functional layer may be coated or disposed on surfaces that form the cavity portion”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim also teaches that applying of the enamel composition may include applying the enamel composition by a dry process (process wherein “the glass composition according to the embodiment may be coated on the object in a dried state”) that includes dispersing the quenched materials for the enamel composition in an organic binder (“organic polysiloxane”) (see at least [0103], [0112] and Figs. 2-3), milling the quenched materials for the enamel composition and the organic binder to prepare a frit (see at least [0112] - “followed by milling and grinding in a ball mill for about 4 hours to about 6 hours”), and applying the frit to the at least one of the inner surface of the cavity of the cooking appliance or the inner surface the door of the cooking appliance (via at least spraying - see at least [0033], [0103], [0111]-[0115] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches the method of Claim 6 (see the rejection for Claim 6) and also teaches that applying of the enamel composition may include applying the enamel composition by a wet process (process wherein “a dispersion in which the glass fits are dispersed in a solvent such as water”) (see at least [0102]) that includes dispersing the quenched materials for the enamel composition in water (“water”) and a pigment (at least the “organic binder” and the pigment thereof) (see at least [0093]), milling the materials for the enamel composition, water, and the pigment to prepare a frit (via “milling and grinding in a ball mill”) (see at least [0112]), and applying the frit to the at least one of the inner surface of the cavity of the cooking appliance or the inner surface the door of the cooking appliance (via at least spraying - see at least [0033], [0102], [0111]-[0115] and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim also teaches that the applying of the enamel composition includes:
spraying a frit (“glass frits”) that includes the quenched materials for the enamel composition to the at least one of the inner surface of the cavity of the cooking appliance or the inner surface the door of the cooking appliance (see at least [0033], [0102], [0111]-[0115] and Figs. 2-3 - “the functional layer may be coated or disposed on surfaces that form the cavity portion”); and
firing the sprayed frit (“fired”) (see at least [0115]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim also teaches that spraying of the frit includes spraying about 300 g/m2 of the frit onto a steel sheet substrate (“300 g/m2”) (see at least [0114]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim also teaches that the spraying of the frit includes directly applying a single layer (11b) of the frit onto a steel sheet substrate (“low carbon steel sheet” - (11a)) (see at least [0035], [0111]-[0115] and Fig. 2) without using an interposing buffer layer (“without a separate buffer layer” - see [0140]) (see at least [0111]-[0115], [0140] and Fig. 2), and wherein the frit is applied to form a coating layer having a thickness of about 80 to 250 µm (In [0113] Kim discloses “a thickness of 1 mm or less” which encompasses a thickness of “about 80 to 250 µm” as claimed), and the frit is fired at about 830 to 870 °C for about 300 to 450 seconds (see [0115] - “the low carbon steel having the glass fits sprayed thereon was fired at a temperature of 830° C. to 870° C. for 300 seconds to 450 seconds”).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend the claims to include additional method steps and/or structural limitations to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Kim et al. (US 2019/0002336 A1)
Choi et al. (US 2018/0215654 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2013/0299482 A1)
Lecomte et al. (US 2015/0369492 A1)
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 BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 5/23/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights