DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2-20-2026 has been entered.
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 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shohei et al., EP3511631, in view of Takashi et al., JP6510651 B2.
Regarding claims 1, 4-9, and 11, Shohei teaches a heat-resistant glass for use in a cooker ([0015]) comprising, in order, a glass substrate (2 of Fig. 1), an inorganic layer (3 of Fig. 1) comprising inorganic pigments and a glass ([0030]) and a heat-resistant resin layer (4 of Fig. 1) that comprises titanium dioxide particles ([0041]) and a silicone resin ([0034]). Note that although Shohei does not explicitly refer to a “decorated layer,” the inorganic layer, titanium oxide particles, and heat-resistant resin layer of Shohei are considered to collectively constitute a “decorated layer.” Shohei teaches that the heat-resistant resin layer may have a thickness of 1-15 microns ([0051]) and that the inorganic layer may have a thickness of 3-10 microns ([0033]). Note that when a claimed range overlaps with or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The teachings of Shohei differs from the present invention because although Shohei teaches the presence of titanium dioxide particles, Shohei does not teach that the particles are rutile or that they are surface-coated. Takashi, however, teaches a similar glass for a cooktop and teaches that the titanium dioxide in such a cooktop coating layer may be rutile titanium dioxide that is coated with a layer of silica, alumina, or zirconia in order to suppress unwanted catalytic activity of the titanium dioxide and improve heat resistance ([0016]-[0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use rutile titanium dioxide with a coating of silica, alumina, or zirconia as the titanium dioxide in the product of Shohei because doing so would suppress unwanted catalytic activity and improve heat resistance, and because Takashi explicitly teaches rutile titanium dioxide with a coating of silica, alumina, or zirconia to be appropriate for use in coating layers on such glass cooktop products.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Shohei differ from the present invention in that although Shohei teaches that the inorganic layer is to contain inorganic pigment particles ([0030]), Shohei does not specifically teach that the inorganic pigment particles in the inorganic layer may be coated titanium dioxide particles. As discussed above, however, Takashi teaches that coated rutile titanium dioxide particles may be used as pigments for such cooktops and teaches that coating such particles results in improved heat resistance. It would have been obvious to use coated rutile titanium dioxide particles as the inorganic pigment particles in the inorganic layer of Shohei because Takashi explicitly teaches coated rutile titanium dioxide particles to be appropriate for use in such cooktops and because doing so would result in improved heat resistance.
Regarding claim 10, Takashi teaches that the coated titanium dioxide may be present in an amount of 5-80% by mass ([0019]).
Regarding claim 12, the teachings of Shohei differ from the present invention in that Shohei does not teach any specific L*a*b* values for the product of his invention. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate color and appearance (i.e., an appropriate L*a*b* value) for the product of Shohei because Shohei explicitly teaches that the color of the product may be adjusted through the use of pigments. Additionally, claims to specific L*a*b* values cannot distinguish the claimed invention because they appear to relate only to the aesthetics of the product, and matters that relate to ornamentation only and that have no mechanical function cannot distinguish a claimed invention from that of the prior art (MPEP 2144.04 I).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Shohei teaches that the decoration may be provided on a side closer to the heating device of the cooker, with utensils placed on the side opposite the decoration layer ([0026]). Additionally, the limitation in claim 13 stating that the decorated layer is on the side of the glass close to the heating device cannot distinguish the claimed invention because the claim is to the decorated glass per se, and the limitation is thus a statement of intended use. As the glass product of Shohei is capable of being used in the claimed manner, the limitation cannot distinguish the claimed invention. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install the decorated glass article of Shohei on the side closer to the heating device because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that doing so would represent one of only two possible choices, as the decorated portion of the glass would necessarily have to be installed on either the side that was closer or farther from the heating device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2-20-2026 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights