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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 14-15 and 17 are pending examination, claims 2, 5-6, 10-13, and 16 have been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalczyk et al (US 2008/0118741; hereafter Michalczyk) in view of Kim (US2015/0359383; hereafter Kim) and Yang ( “The advantage of Brown Fused Alumina in Sandblasting” webcapture from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/advantage-brown-fused-alumina-sandblasting-qin-yang, published 11/29/2019; hereafter Yang).
Claim 1: Michalczyk teaches a method for preparing a coating layer (such as non-stick coating) on a surface of a borosilicate glass product (See, for example, abstract, [0006],[0011]) comprising the following steps:
Sandblasting the borosilicate glass product to obtain a sandblasted glass product (See, for example, [0011], [0048-53], claim 14);
spraying the coating layer on a surface of the sandblasted glass product to obtain a coated glass product (See, for example, [0011], [0048-53], claim 14),
and sintering (baking, such as at 427 oC) the coated glass product to obtain the coating layer on the surface of the borosilicate glass product (see, for example, [0048-53]);
wherein the coating layer comprises a first coating layer and second coating layer (see, for example, [0006], [0048-53])
the first coating layer is an inner surface coating layer and the second coating layer is an outer surface coating layer (see, for example, [0006] [0048-0053], wherein the first layer is applied beneath, thus inner, with respect to the overlying, outer the second layer).
Wherein the inner surface coating layer comprises one layer of the coating layer, which is a top coating layer (see, for example,[0006], [0048-53]; wherein at the point of application it is the topmost coating layer).
Michalczyk teaches wherein a surface of the top coating layer is an inner top coating layer (see, for example, [0006], [0048-53], wherein the first layer is applied beneath, thus inner, with respect to the overlying, outer the second layer); but does not explicitly teach it is provided with a decorative sprinkling layer. Kim teaches a method of preparing a non-stick coating layer on a surface of a product (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, 3, [0007]). Kim further teaches that positioning a decorative sprinkle coated layer (one or more layer(s) or dot particles (120)) over the top most surface of an initially applied resin coating (110) of the non-stick article can achieve reduced failure rate, enhanced coating selectivity, reduced coating scatter, improved aesthetics and coloring (See, for example, [0009], [0018] [0055-0057], Fig 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a decorative sprinkling layer at a surface of the inner top coating layer since such a layer would predictably achieve reduced failure rate, enhanced coating selectivity, reduced coating scatter, improved aesthetics and coloring. Kim further teaches wherein the dot particle layer possesses a thickness of 20-150 micron, and wherein the layer can comprise 0 to 20 sublayers of dot particles (see, for example, [0018-0019], thus interpreting such sublayers as the sprinkled layer, thickness down to 1 micron are achievable (calculated by 20 micron end point of first range divided by 20 sublayers of second range). Although such a range is not explicitly 5 to 50 micron as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
By combination, the second coating layer is an outer surface colored coating layer such as when viewed from above the second coating layer it would appeared colored based on the underlying applied colorant, or alternatively the second coating layer can be interpreted as at least inclusive of an outer portion of the applied dot particles which possess color. Further still, Michalczyk and Kim have additionally taught an embodiment wherein outer second coating layer possesses colorants, such as oxides and mica (See, for example, [0054] of Kim and Tables 2-4 and [0048-0053] of Michalczyk).
Michalczyk is silent as to the type of abrasive for the blasting treatment, so it does not explicitly teach brown or white corundum. Yang is directed to a method of performing sandblasting, and further provides a teaching of conventional knowledge within the art (See, for example, pg 1). Yang further teaches wherein brown corundum is well known and widely used abrasive for sandblasting because it provides a number of advantages including less dust production ensuring improved health, safety, and visibility, enables faster spraying methods, reduces loss of abrasives, usually saving 1/3 of conventional abrasives, achieves high quality surface treatment, non-polluting / non-toxic, and recyclable (see, for example, pg 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated brown corundum as it is a well known and conventional to act as sandblasting media and since it further provides a number of advantages including less dust production ensuring improved health, safety, and visibility, enables faster spraying methods, reduces loss of abrasives, usually saving 1/3 of conventional abrasives, achieves high quality surface treatment, non-polluting / non-toxic, and recyclable.
Claims 3-4, and 14-15: These claims all only conditionally limit claim 1. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the inner surface coating layer comprises one layer…two layers…, or N layers…” thus establishing alternatives such as (a) one layer (b)two layers and (c) N layers which can satisfy the presently claimed scope. All of Claims 3-4 and 14-15 only further limit aspects of (b) and / or (c) alternatives and do not presently actively limit the (a) alternative. As such, claims 3-4 and 14-15 are taught by Michalczyk in view of Kim via its teaching of the “one layer” (a) alternative ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016)).
Claim 7: Michalczyk in view of Kim and Yang teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Michalczyk has further taught the spraying is performed by a process comprising subjecting the surface of the sandblasted glass product to top coating spraying (see, for example, [0008], [0048-0053]), and wherein Kim has taught spray application of the sprinkling layer occurs after drying of the underlying top coating sprayed layer at a temperature of 100-200oC (See, for example, [0018], [0022]).
Claim 9: Michalczyk in view of Kim and Yang teach the method of claim 1 above, Michalczyk further teaches sintering is conducted at 427oC) (see, for example, [0048-0053]) and Kim similarly teaches sintering at 400-420oC (see, for example, [0022-23]).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalczyk in view of Kim and Yang as applied to claims 1, 7 above, and further in view of Schultz et al (US 2,842,929; hereafter Schultz).
Claims 8 and 17: Michalczyk in view of Kim and Yang teach the method of claims 1 and 7 above, including sandblasting followed by resin coating by spraying (see above). But they do not explicitly teach during the spraying the sandblasted glass product is at a temperature of 5oC to 65oC. Schultz teaches a method sandblasting and subsequent coating, including application of an additional sprinkled coating (See, for example, col 3 lines 14-50). Schultz further teaches wherein it is known in the art that the sandblasted substrates should be cooled to avoid excessively fast curing of the coating, and further teaches cooling to a temperature of below 125oF (~51.7oC) (See, for example, col 3 lines 14-28). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated during the spraying that the sandblasted glass product is at a temperature of below 51.7oC since it would predictably avoid excessively fast curing of the coating. Although such a range is not explicitly 38-65oC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 11/19/25 amendments to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the previously applied 35 USC 112 (b) rejections; therefore they have withdrawn. As noted above.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/19/25, overcome the previously applied 35 USC 103 rejections over Ignatius in view of Kim (as in Final Action of 8/19/25). Therefore, that rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration as required by Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Michalczyk in view Kim and Yang (and further Schulz), as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712