DETAILED ACTION
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, 3-9, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokohama et al., EP3511631, in view of Takashi et al., JP6510651 B2.
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 11, and 15, Yokohama 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 Yokohama does not explicitly refer to a “decorated layer,” the inorganic layer, titanium oxide particles, and heat-resistant resin layer of Yokohama are considered to collectively constitute a “decorated layer.” Yokohama 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 Yokohama differ from the present invention in that although Yokohama teaches that the inorganic layer may comprise an inorganic pigment that has a low light transmittance for the purpose of blocking light ([0030]), Yokohama does not specifically teach that the light-blocking inorganic pigment is a surface-coated titanium dioxide, nor does Yokohama teach any specific amount of pigment. Takashi, however, teaches a similar glass for a cooktop and teaches that an opaque layer may be created from 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]), and that such particles may be present in an amount of 5-80% by mass ([0019]). 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 in an amount of 5-80% by mass as the light-blocking pigment in the inorganic layer of Yokohama because Takashi teaches such titanium dioxide particles to be opaque 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 4, the teachings of Yokohama differ from the present invention in that although Yokohama teaches the presence of titanium dioxide particles in the resin layer, Yokohama does not teach that the particles are surface-coated. As discussed above, however, Takashi teaches surface-coating such titanium dioxide particles to suppress unwanted catalytic activity and improve heat resistance ([0016]-[0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to surface-coat the titanium dioxide particles in the resin layer of Yokohama because doing so would suppress unwanted catalytic activity and improve heat resistance, and because Takashi explicitly teaches particles of 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 12, the teachings of Yokohama differ from the present invention in that Yokohama 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 Yokohama because Yokohama 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, Yokohama 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 Yokohama 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 Yokohama 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 7-01-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Yokohama only discloses inorganic black pigments such as Cu-Cr-Mn in the inorganic light shielding layer, and does not teach titanium dioxide. Applicant further argues that Takashi does not teach that titanium dioxide may be used instead of Cu-Cr-Mn pigment and that there is no logical reason why one would substitute the titanium dioxide of Takashi for the Cu-Cr-Mn pigment of Yokohama. This is unpersuasive because Yokohama teaches that the inorganic pigment has no particular limitation other than having a low visible light transmittance and, as discussed above, Takashi teaches the use of titanium dioxide as an opaque inorganic pigment for use on such glass cooktop products. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have understood, based on the teachings of Takashi, that titanium dioxide was an appropriate pigment for the inorganic light blocking layer of Yokohama due to its opacity.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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