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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending and rejected. Claim 2 is withdrawn.
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 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, US 2006/0260734 A1 in view of Fechner, US 2012/0318356 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a method for preparing an enamel composition (a method of making a decorated multilayer glass structure using a single firing step by crystallizing a glass enamel, abstract), comprising:
providing materials for the enamel composition (where glass frit compositions are mixed and melted, indicating that they are provided, 0019), consisting of:
15 to 50 percent by weight (wt%) of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (where the enamel composition includes a glass frit containing by weight 0.1-28% of SiO2, Table 1);
1 to 10 wt% of boron oxide (B2O3) (0.1-9 weight %, Table 1);
10 to 20 wt% of at least one of lithium oxide (Li2O), sodium oxide (Na2O), or potassium oxide (K2O) (0-10% K2O, 0-5% Li2O, 0-15% Na2O, where percentages are by weight, 0017);
1 to 10 wt% of zinc oxide (ZnO) (0.1-11 weight %, Table 1);
10 to 30 wt% of at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), manganese dioxide (MnO2), or Iron oxide (Fe2O3) (0-10% TiO2, 0-25% oxides of manganese, 0-20% oxides of iron, where percentages are by weight, 0017), and
10 to 20 wt% of bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), molybdenum oxide (MoO3), and cerium dioxide (CeO2) in total, the materials for the enamel composition including more than 0 wt% of each of molybdenum oxide and cerium dioxide, the materials for the enamel composition including 6.71 wt% or more of bismuth oxide (9-75 weight % Bi2O3, Table 1, 0-4% oxides of molybdenum, and 0-4% CeO2, where percentages are by weight, 0017), wherein the enamel composition is a silicate-based glass composition (where the composition is considered to be silicate-based since it includes ranges in which silica is in the majority so as to provide borosilicate frits, 0015);
melting the materials; and quenching the melted materials to form the enamel composition (where the glass frit material is melted and quenched, 0019).
They teach including 0-7% F by weight (0017).
They teach that the glass composition includes silica, boron oxide, bismuth trioxide, and zinc oxide (Table 1), where the glasses can also optionally include additional oxides such as titania, K2O, Li2O, Na2O, CeO2, oxides of manganese, oxides of iron, oxides of molybdenum, and other oxides, where the percentage range for the listed oxides include 0%, indicating that they are optional (0017). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the enamel composition to consist of SiO2, B2O3, TiO2, ZnO, Li2O, K2O, Na2O, CeO2, oxides of iron, oxides of molybdenum, oxides of manganese, Bi2O3, and F2 in amounts overlapping the claimed range because Brown teaches that such materials are desirable in the glass composition. Therefore, the glass composition is suggested to consist of the claimed materials, F, and broadly oxides of iron, molybdenum, and manganese.
They do not teach including NaF.
Fechner teaches a substrate made of aluminosilicate glass with has SiO2, Al2O3, as well as Na2O (abstract). They teach that the glass includes 49-69 wt% silica, 0-2 wt% B2O3, 0-4 wt% Li2O, 10-16 wt% Na2O, >0-8 wt% K2O, where the sum of Li2O+Na2O+K2O is <12-19 wt%, 0-3 wt% F, 0-6 wt% TiO2, 0-0.5 wt% Fe2O3, 0-5 wt% ZnO, 0-2 wt% CeO2, 0-3 wt% Bi2O3, and 0-3 wt% MoO3 (0021-0036). They teach adding fluorine to the glass in the form of fluoride salts such as NaF in an amount of 0-3 wt% to improve the fusibility (0075).
From the teachings of Fechner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Brown to have included NaF in the glass composition in an amount of 0-7 wt% because Fechner teaches that adding NaF in a glass composition similar to that of Brown (containing silica, boron oxide, lithium oxide, sodium oxide, potassium oxide, titanium oxide, zinc oxide, bismuth oxide, oxides of iron, oxides of molybdenum, and cerium oxide) provides fluorine to the composition, as desired by Brown. Therefore, the composition of Brown in view of Fechner will consist of the claimed materials in amounts overlapping the claimed range. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Fe2O3 and MoO3 as the oxides of iron and molybdenum because Fechner teaches that such oxides are desirable in a similar glass composition such that it will be expected to provide desirable oxides of iron and molybdenum. Therefore, Brown in view of Fechner provide the claimed components in amounts overlapping the claimed ranges, where the enamel composition can consist of the claimed components. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Brown in view of Fechner suggest the process of claim 1. Brown further teaches melting the materials together at about 1000-1300°C for about 40 minutes (0019), such that the temperature range overlaps the claimed range.
Fechner teaches melting the raw components at approximately 1580°C over 3 hours and held and stirring for 4 hours at that temperature (0092).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the melting time to be within the range of claims 3 and 4 because Brown teaches that the materials can be mixed for 40 minutes and Fechner indicates that raw glass materials can be melted over 3 hours, indicating that longer times can be desired such that by optimizing the time for melting it will be expected to provide the molten glass as desired. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Fechner as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi, US 2002/0022133 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Brown in view of Fechner suggest the process of claim 1. Brown teaches blending the starting materials and melting them together (0019).
They do not teach mixing the materials for about 3 hours before melting.
Hayashi teaches a decorative porcelain (abstract). They teach that the glass flux used for forming the coloring material layer from preset oxides of a predetermined composition to give a desired glass composition (0037). They teach that industrial products such as oxides, carbonates, nitrates, or complex oxides of preset chemical components and materials are selected and formulated as starting materials (0037). They teach mixing the ingredients for several to tens of hours in a mixer to give a sufficiently homogeneous mixture followed by melting and quenching (0037).
From the teachings of Hayashi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mixed the glass components for several hours to tens of hours before mixing because Hayashi teaches that such a time frame is used to mix glass components before melting such that it will be expected to provide a desirably mixed material. Therefore, the mixing time is considered to overlap the claimed range, where several is understood to be more than 2, such that the time will be more than 2 hours to tens of hours. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the mixing time to be within the claimed range to provide a homogenous mixture because Hayashi teaches that such feature is desirable before melting a glass mixture. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Fechner as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Eckmann, US 2003/0064874 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Fechner suggest the process of claim 1. Brown teaches that the molten glass formed is suddenly cooled in a known manner, e.g., water quenched, to form a frit (0019).
They do not teach quenching using a quenching roller.
Eckmann teaches a method for preparing an enamel composition (abstract and 0009-0010), comprising:
providing materials for the enamel composition, comprising:
15 to 50 percent by weight (wt%) of silicon dioxide (SiO2) (where the glass component comprises one or more glass frits comprising by weight, from about 45-55% SiO2, 0009);
1 to 10 wt% of boron oxide (B2O3) (about 8-17% B2O3, 0009);
10 to 20 wt% of at least one of lithium oxide (Li2O), sodium oxide (Na2O), or potassium oxide (K2O) (about 1.5-6% K2O, about 0.3-13% Na2O, about 1.9-10% Li2O, 0009);
10 to 30 wt% of at least one of titanium dioxide (TiO2), manganese dioxide (MnO2), or Iron oxide (Fe2O3) (about 2-11% TiO2, 0009), and
1-4 wt% of MoO3 (about 1-4% MoO3, 0009), wherein the enamel composition is a silicate-based glass composition (where the composition includes 45-55% by weight silica, 0009, so as to be considered silicate-based);
melting the materials; and quenching the melted materials to form the enamel composition (where the glass component is melted and quenched, 0010).
Therefore, Eckmann provides a glass enamel composition similar to that of Brown. Eckmann further teaches converting a molten glass to frit by quenching using water cooled rollers (0010 and 0025).
From the teachings of Eckmann, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Brown in view of Fechner to have used a water-cooled roller for quenching the molten glass because Eckmann teaches that such a process is suitable for converting a molten glass to frit such that it will be expected to quench the molten glass as desired.
Claims 7-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Fechner as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Eckmann, US 2003/0064874 A1 and Lee, US 2013/0299484 A1 (provided on the IDS of 4/30/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Brown in view of Fechner suggest the process of claim 1. Brown teaches that the invention includes a method of fusing the enamel with glass substrates such as those used in the automotive, architectural/construction, home appliance, and beverage industries, e.g., ceramic cooktops and beverage bottles (0011).
They do not teach applying the enamel composition to at least one of an inner surface of a cavity of a cooking appliance or an inner surface of a door of the cooking appliance.
As discussed above, Eckmann teaches a silicate-based enamel composition that includes SiO2, B2O3, K2O, Na2O, Li2O, TiO2, and MoO3. They teach that the enamel composition is particularly well-suited for application on the interior surfaces of oven cavities, dripping pans, cookware, and other articles that are exposed to the risk of baked-on food soiling (0023).
Lee teaches an enamel composition and cooking appliance using the composition (abstract). They teach that the composition includes by weight about 10-25% silica, about 5-20% titania, about 5-15% Na2O, about 0.1-10% K2O, about 0.1-5% Li2O, about 0.1-10% ZnO, about 0.1-5% B2O3, about 3-10% Bi2O3, and about 0.1-1% CeO, understood to be CeO2 as the standard stoichiometry (0008, 0030-0031, 0038-0039, 0047, and 0050-0052). They teach using the coating composition to coat the cavity of a cooking chamber (0020). They teach including ZnO to adjust a surface tension of the coating film formed of the enamel and improve surface characteristics (0046). They teach including bismuth oxide and cerium oxide to improve chemical and heat resistance of the coating (0051 and 0052).
From the teachings of Eckmann and Lee, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Brown in view of Fechner to have used the glass enamel composition as a coating on an inner surface of a cavity of a cooking appliance because Eckmann teaches that a similar composition to that of Brown in view of Fechner (having SiO2, B2O3, K2O, Na2O, Li2O, TiO2, and MoO3) is desirable for application on the interior surfaces of oven cavities, dripping pans, and cookware, suggesting that glasses for cookware can be used for oven coatings, Lee teaches that compositions similar to that of Eckmann and Brown (having silica, titania, Na2O, K2O, Li2O, ZnO, B2O3, Bi2O3, and CeO2) are desirable for coating the interior of ovens, and Brown teaches that the composition is desirable for home appliance glass for cooktops and beverage bottles such that it will be expected to provide a desirable glass coating for the interior of the oven. Specifically, since the glass composition is similar in composition to the enamels of Eckmann and Lee and is indicated as being compatible with cooktops, it is expected to be a suitable glass for oven coatings.
Regarding claim 8, Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee suggest the process of claim 7. Brown teaches that he enamel compositions comprise, prior to firing a reactive glass frit, an oxidizer component, a pigment, and an organic vehicle (0010).
Eckmann teaches that the composition can be applied by wet or dry techniques (0011). They teach that when applied by a dry application technique, the frit(s), an organopolysiloxane, and optional pigments are milled together to a desired fineness and then applied by dry electrostatic spraying (0011).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the enamel composition by the dry process of Eckmann because they indicate that such a process is desirable for the application of glass frits. Therefore, the enamel will be applied by a dry electrostatic spraying process that includes dispersing the quenched materials in an organopolysiloxane (organic binder) followed by milling to a desired fineness, which is understood to provide a frit, and then the material will be applied onto the inner surface of the cavity of the cooking appliance.
Regarding claim 9, Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee suggest the process of claim 7. Brown teaches that the enamel compositions comprise, prior to firing a reactive glass frit, an oxidizer component, a pigment, and an organic vehicle (0010).They also teach that the organic vehicle comprises a binder and a solvent (0028), indicating that the frit can be applied wet. They teach that the viscosity of the paste is adjusted so that it can be sprayed (0027). They teach mixing the frits, pigments, and organic vehicle, adding oxidizer, and milling the materials (0038). They teach that the vehicle should adequately suspend the particulates (0028), indicating they should be dispersed.
Eckmann teaches that the composition can be applied by wet or dry techniques (0011). They further teach that when the composition is applied using a wet application technique, the frit or frits comprising the glass component are preferably milled together with optional mill additions and vehicles to a suitable fineness, where mill additions include pigments (0013 and 0015). They teach applying using wet methods such as spraying (0013). They teach that the preferred vehicle for use in the invention is water (0015).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the enamel composition by a wet process by suspending or dispersing the quenched materials for the composition in water and a pigment, milling the material, and applying the frit to the inner surface of the cavity because Brown teaches milling the materials with the organic vehicle which includes solvent, where the materials can be applied by spraying, and that the particulates should be suspended and Eckmann teaches that a coating of a glass frit and a pigment is desirably milled together with water as a desirable vehicle such that it will be expected to provide a desirable mixture for applying the coating by spraying.
Regarding claim 10, Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee suggest the process of claim 7. As noted above for claims 8 and 9, it is suggested to apply the coating by an electrostatic spraying process or a wet process, such that the quenched materials will be sprayed. Brown further teaches firing the substrate and coating after application to cause the enamel composition to bond to the substrate (0035).
Eckmann further teach firing after application (0017).
Lee also teaches that after quenching the glass frit may be dispersed by a solvent and coated onto the object by spray coating followed by firing (0065 and 0067).
Therefore, the frit comprising the quenched materials will be sprayed onto the inner surface of the cavity of the cooking appliance followed by firing.
Regarding claim 13, Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee suggest the process of claim 10. Brown teaches that the frits can be effectively fired at about 570-680°C (0026). They teach firing the composition of a time of 6 or 8 minutes (360-480 seconds) at 593°C, 604°C, or 616°C (0042).
Eckmann teaches applying the enamel to a thickness in the range of about 70-200 microns (0012). They further teach that the compositions are typically fired at a temperature of from about 760°C to about 880°C for about 3 minutes to about 8 minutes (0017), i.e., about 180-480 seconds. They provide an example of firing at about 815°C for about 4 minutes or 240 seconds (0026).
Lee further teaches firing the composition at a temperature of about 850°C for about 300 seconds to form a coating film or in a range of about 700-900°C for about 100-400 seconds (0067 and 0085).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fired the compositions at a temperature of about 570-680°C for a time of about 360-480 seconds because Brown teaches that such a firing temperature is suitable and Eckmann and Lee suggest firing times overlapping the range of Brown are suitable for firing compositions similar to those of Brown such that it will be expected to provide a suitable time for firing the compositions.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the coating to have a thickness in the range of about 70-200 microns because Eckmann teaches that such a thickness is suitable for an enamel composition, which as noted above can be applied to oven cavities, such that it will be expected to provide a desirable thickness for the oven coating.
Therefore, the coating layer will have a thickness overlapping the claimed range and will be fired at a temperature and time overlapping the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee as applied to claims 7 and 10 above, and further in view of Baker, US 6,201,222 B1.
Regarding claim 11, Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee suggest the process of claim 10, where it is suggested to spray the material by a dry electrostatic process. Eckmann further teaches that application rate of the composition by dry electrostatic processes will vary depending on the desired thickness, but that the typical application rate is from about 175 g/m2 to about 500 g/m2 (0012).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the composition using such an application rate because Eckmann teaches that it is suitable for applying an enamel coating similar to that of Brown. Therefore, the application rate will overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Lee teaches that the target may be a metal plate, where the cavity and the door may be provided as metal plates that are coated (0065 and 0076).
They do not teach that the cavity and door plates are formed from steel.
Eckmann teaches applying the coating onto substrate such as steel, where the steel is in a form of a plate (abstract and 0020).
Baker teaches a method for controlling the operation of an oven (abstract). They teach that oven cavities are generally constructed out of steel with a porcelain coating finish (Col. 1, lines 11-24).
From the teachings of Baker, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a steel sheet or plate as the oven cavity substrate for coating because Lee teaches that the cavity and the door are provided as metal plates, Eckmann teaches using a steel substrate, and Baker teaches that oven cavities are generally formed from steel such that it will be expected to provide a desirable substrate for the oven cavity.
Regarding claim 12, Brown in view of Fechner, Eckmann, and Lee suggest the process of claim 10. There is no indication in Brown that a primer or buffer layer is required. Eckmann teaches that the composition is suitable as a one-coat-one-fire coating as a ground coat (0016). They teach that the composition can also be used as a cover coat over fired or unfired ground coated substrate, but that this is not preferred (0016).
Lee further teaches providing the cavity and the door as metal plate and applying the coating layers directly on the metal plates without providing an additional buffer layer (0076).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the coating as a single layer of the frit to the steel substrate without an additional buffer layer because Eckmann teaches that a similar composition is suitable as a one-coat-one fire coating and both Eckmann and Lee indicate that similar compositions are applied to substrates without an additional buffer layer, where Brown does not indicate that a buffer or primer layer is required, such that it will be expected to provide the coating as desired.
They do not teach applying the single layer to a steel sheet substrate.
As discussed above for claim 11, from the teachings of Baker, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a steel sheet or plate as the oven cavity substrate for coating because Lee teaches that the cavity and the door are provided as metal plates, Eckmann teaches using a steel substrate, and Baker teaches that oven cavities are generally formed from steel such that it will be expected to provide a desirable substrate for the oven cavity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 3/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument over unexpected results associated with the range of MoO3, Bi2O3, and CeO2, the data provided shows that comparative examples 1 and 2 also have a total of MoO3, Bi2O3, and CeO2 within the claimed range, where comparative example 1 has an amount of Bi2O3 within the claimed range, where these examples do not show desirables results from Table 5. Further, from the data, it is not clear that the claimed ranges provide the improved cleaning results. Note MPEP 716.02(d): Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. Also note MPEP 716.02(d)(II): To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). For example, it is noted that comparative example 1 has a SiO2 just outside of the claimed range, where none of the inventive examples show a SiO2 range on the low end of the claimed range of 15 wt.%, making it unclear whether unexpected results would also be expected when having a silica content towards the lower end of the claimed range.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the current case, the reference of Brown provides the claimed components in ranges overlapping the claimed ranges, where they also indicate that components that are not claimed can optionally be included. Therefore, the reference is considered to provide the suggestion of forming the claimed enamel composition. Note MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, while Brown has various components that can optionally be included in the composition and provides ranges overlapping the claimed range, the reference is considered to render the claimed composition obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed ranges are critical. As discussed above, while Applicant argues that the range of MoO3, Bi2O3, and CeO2 in the claimed composition provides unexpected results for improving cleaning, this is not clear from the data provided in the example. While Brown states that the exact composition is not critical, in the absence of a showing that the claimed ranges are critical, the reference is considered to render the claimed ranges obvious.
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 CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights