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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Guillemot et al. (US 2015/0144613).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Guillemot teaches a glass ceramic (Guillemot para 1) comprising a glass material layer with an uneven surface where the uneven surface, is formed within the glass material and may be considered micro-dimples as they are on the micron scale (Guillemot para 8-9, 19) (it is noted that while less preferred embodiments are less preferred, they are still taught embodiments, all the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phrased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose, In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966); In re Smith, 65 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1945); In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960); In re Watanabe, 137 USPQ 350 (CCPA 1963)).
Guillemot further teaches a, upper face coating layer, which may comprise Si and Zr (Guillemot para 19-22) and finally Guillemot teaches a lower layer coating on the lower face (Guillemot para 30). It is respectfully noted that ‘printed layer’ is a product-by-process type limitation. As the structure of ‘coated layer’ is the same, there is no clear patentable difference in how the coating is applied.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1. Because Guillemot teaches that the coating comprises the same materials, and that the coating is transparent (Guillemot para 20), it would be expected to possess the claimed transparency of 80-90% and be considered a ‘display layer.’ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1. Because Guillemot teaches that the glass-ceramic has the same structure and materials as claimed in claim 1, it would intrinsically possess a surface color difference ΔE of 1.0 or less if subjected to the claimed test process. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 15, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1. Because Guillemot teaches that the glass-ceramic has the same structure and materials as claimed in claim 1, it would intrinsically possess the claimed vertical force causing scratches between 15 and 20 Newtons. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al. (US 2015/0144613).
Regarding claim 2, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1. Guillemot further teaches the glass ceramic has a composition comprising 18-27 wt% Al2O3 and 2.5-5.5 wt% Li2O, balance SiO2 and other minor components (“impurities”) (Guillemot para 34).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Guillemot overlaps with the instantly claimed compositional proportions and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1. Guillemot teaches a ‘surface roughness’ (i.e. texturing including the micro-dimples) to have a depth of 2-50 µm and a width of 2-100 µm (Guillemot para 8-9). Guillemot further teaches that the actual surface roughness can be controlled via these elements to be between 2 and 100 µm (Guillemot para 38). One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the surface roughness depth, width, and general (i.e. average) taught by Guillemot overlaps with the instantly claimed surface roughness depth, width, and general and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1. Guillemot further teaches that the L* value is 70(%) or less (Guillemot para 33), which would overlap with the claimed 25 or more. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the L* value taught by Guillemot overlaps with the instantly claimed L value and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 18, Guillemot teaches a glass ceramic (Guillemot para 1) comprising a glass material layer with an uneven surface where the uneven surface, is formed within the glass material and may be considered micro-dimples as they are on the micron scale (Guillemot para 8-9, 19) (it is noted that while less preferred embodiments are less preferred, they are still taught embodiments, all the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art even though the art teachings relied upon are phrased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or even as being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose, In re Boe, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966); In re Smith, 65 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1945); In re Nehrenberg, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960); In re Watanabe, 137 USPQ 350 (CCPA 1963)).
Guillemot further teaches a ‘surface roughness’ (i.e. texturing including the micro-dimples) to have a depth of 2-50 µm and a width of 2-100 µm (Guillemot para 8-9).
It is noted that the limitations ‘to improve cleanability and prevent decrease in clarity of color’ are functional limitations. As the materials and structure are the same as in Guillemot, Guillemot would be expected to be fully capable of ‘improving cleanability and prevent[ing a] decrease in clarity of color.’
Guillemot further teaches an upper face coating layer (Guillemot para 19-22) comprising Si and/or Zr (Guillemot para ; and finally Guillemot teaches a lower layer coating on the lower face (Guillemot para 30). Because Guillemot teaches that the coating comprises the same materials, and that the coating is transparent (Guillemot para 20), it would be expected to possess the claimed transparency of 80-90% and be considered a ‘display layer.’ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Further, it is noted that ‘for preventing diffused reflection and for having transparency’ are functional limitations. As the materials and structure are the same as in Guillemot, Guillemot would be expected to be fully capable of ‘preventing diffused reflection and for having transparency.’
Finally, as Guillemot teaches that the upper side coating layer may be repeated on the lower side of the glass-ceramic plate (Guillemot para 35) and as that may withstand temperatures in excess of 400 °C (Guillemot para 57) the coating of Guillemot may be considered to be a heat-resistant shielding layer.
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al. (US 2015/0144613), as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Iritani et al. (US 2010/0313871).
Regarding claims 9, 12, and 13, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claim 1.
Guillemot does not teach a coating layer with a thickness of 30-800 nm.
Guillemot and Iritani are related in the field of Si and Zr-based layers for crystalline glasses. Iritani teaches a silica and zirconia combination layer (Iritani para 50-52) with a thickness of 10-100 nm to balance wear resistance and interference fringes while providing antifouling properties (Iritani para 39). Further, Iritani teaches that this additional coating layer is subjected to the same heat treatments (350 °C) provides a coating with a hydrophilic property (Iritani para 29). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coating of Guillemot with an additional layer of the silica-zirconia combination at a thickness of 10-100 nm as taught by Iritani because this would provide the coating of Guillemot with the additional property of antifouling.
As these are the same materials as claimed, at the same thicknesses, it would further be expected to possess the claimed contact ancle of 100° or more after heating at 350 °C for 24 hours or 70° or more after heating at 350 °C for 72 hours. That is, because the materials and structure of Guillemot in view of Iritani are the same, if subjected to the same treatments as claimed they would be expected to intrinsically possess the same contact angle as claimed. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemot et al. (US 2015/0144613), as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Llaluet et al. (US 2015/0219312).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Guillemot teaches a coated glass ceramic as above for claims 1 and 16. Guillemot teaches there may be one or more display devices seen through the substrate (Guillemot para 36).
Guillemot is silent with respect to the display device being a ‘chroma color layer.’
Guillemot and Llaluet are related in the field of glass ceramic cooktops with a display region. Llaluet teaches that polychromatic (i.e. chroma color) RGB LEDs may be combined to provide a wide spectrum of display colors (Llauet para 37-40). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polychromatic RGB LEDs of Llaluet as the display device of Guillemot to provide a wide spectrum of display colors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 3/7/26