DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 4/22/2026. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 7, 8, and 12 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henze et al. (US 20120295081) in view of Dobrowolski (Handbook of Optics).
Henze discloses a composite material for glazings and methods for producing the same. Concerning claims 1 and 5-8, Henze discloses a method comprising depositing a sol-gel that is silane-based, resulting in a silicon oxide after curing, and forming patterns by an etched roller or the etched roller having a sol-gel layer disposed and subsequently deposited onto a glass substrate, wherein the pattern can be any pattern with the pattern depth going from 100 nm to 1 mm, and subsequently heat treated under the claimed time and temperature to form a mineral coating (para. 0012-0036 and Examples). However, Henze is silent to the thickness of the resulting patterned coating having locally controlled variable heights. With respect to claims 4 and 16, the thickness of the resulting coating is from 0.01 to 1 mm (para. 0033). Regarding claim 12, the coated glass substrate is used in methods for applying the glass substrate in the claimed applications (para. 0001). However, Henze is silent to the thickness of the resulting patterned coating having locally controlled variable heights. With respect to claim 4, the thickness of the resulting coating is from 0.01 to 1 mm (para. 0033).
Dobrowolski discloses that an optical film designer may be required to provide a coating with a color, wherein some of the parameters for producing such a coating include layer thickness, number of layers, refractive indices, and extinction coefficients (section 42.3, p. 42.9). Since Henze discloses the pattern can be any pattern with a pattern depth from 100 nm to 1mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed different thicknesses for each patterned portion, in order to provide different colors.
Claims 2-3, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henze et al. (US 20120295081) in view of Dobrowolski (Handbook of Optics) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Carter et al. (US 5030503).
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to the claimed laminate.
Carter discloses a reflective patterned glass product. Concerning claims 2-3 and 10, Carter discloses a similar structure wherein the coating can be applied to an outer surface of the glass substrate in order to provide a more pronounced patterned appearance, wherein the glass substrate is part of laminated glazing structure for use in architectural products (cols. 2-5). With respect to claims 14 and 15, it would be obvious to have the surfaces as claimed, in order to provide a more pronounced patterned appearance. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed structure for a more pronounced patterned appearance for use in architectural products.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henze et al. (US 20120295081) in view of Dobrowolski (Handbook of Optics) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Blazy (US 20130280487).
The prior art discloses the above including at least a partially transparent substrate but is silent to a colored glass substrate and a textured substrate.
Blazy discloses a textured decorative glass, wherein the glass can be colored and the texturing allows for a decorative aesthetic (para. 0008-0010 and 0045-0046; Abstract). As such, for aesthetic and decorative purposes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a colored and textured glass.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henze et al. (US 20120295081) in view of Dobrowolski (Handbook of Optics) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guardian Technical Guidelines.
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to the claimed heat strengthening treatment.
The Guardian Technical Guidelines discloses that heat strengthening glass provides a glass substrate with additional strength to handle different environmental conditions such as increased wind load and thermal stress (p. 4). As such, in order to withstand increased wind load and thermal stress, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a heat strengthened glass sheet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 4/22/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the instant amendments as overcoming the previous rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 regarding the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the Henze reference differs from the instant claims since Henze is directed to having a metallic appearance versus the instant invention being a transparent glazed unit. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that while metallic appearance is an option, the glazed unit of Henze can also be colored and can be at least partially transparent (para. 0066). Applicant further asserts that Henze is silent to the claimed polychromic effect. While it is noted that Henze is silent to the polychromatic effect, it is noted that Henze teaches a mineral coating that is patterned such to simulate any surface profile wherein the depth can vary (para. 0034-0035). As such, since a sol-gel coating results in a mineral coating after curing (para. 0036), the resulting coating is a mineral coating that is patterned. Further, as disclosed by Dobrowolski, at least the thickness of the coating results in different interference effects such as color because of the refractive index difference between the substrate and the coating. To that end, Henze teaches that any surface profile can be formed, including the claimed pattern to form a polychromatic feature.
Applicant further asserts that that Henze is silent to the limitation “the method comprising depositing, in discrete patterns….of a liquid precursor of the mineral coating by means of an etched roller”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “deposited” as defined by Merriam-Webster is to lay down something. To that end, the instantly claimed method states the following “the method comprising depositing, in discrete patterns…of a liquid precursor…by means of an etched roller”. Broadly, Henze discloses the pattern of a liquid precursor is laid down (i.e. discrete portions formed) by an etched roller having a desired surface profile. Examiner notes that the instant claims and the specification are silent to the specific steps as implied by Applicant with respect to the roller containing a liquid precursor and subsequently contacting the substrate with the roller to transfer the liquid precursor onto the substrate. Specifically, the last step is not recited in the instant specification which is what Applicant is implying the term “deposited” entails. As such, the method is met by the disclosure of Henze because the method as claimed does not recite the specific process as implied by Applicant.
Applicant further asserts Henze is silent to the coating remaining transparent. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the coating itself is transparent, wherein a further coating can render a color adjustment. Examiner notes that the term “transparent” is not defined in the specification as having a specific transmittance value or in which wavelength range the specific coating is to be “transparent”; as such, 20% transmittance in the visible and 80% transmittance in IR, for example, would meet the limitations as claimed. With respect to Applicant’s assertions on pp. 9-10, the references are still applicable as shown above. As such, the instant references are still applicable as shown above.
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 PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights