DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 6/16/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ehrensperger.
Regarding claim 1, Ehrensperger teaches an article comprising a glass or ceramic substrate comprising a surface with a textured region comprising a plurality of topographical features defining voids opening towards the surface; and a coating (e.g., glazing) comprising a cured silicon oxide (SiOx) (e.g., 100% silica material based on mixed precursors which are organosilanes RnSiX(4-n), wherein group X is chosen from alkoxy groups --O--R', with hydrolyzable functions which give rise to a silica network or matrix comprising organic functions which remain attached to the silica backbone) positioned in a pattern on at least a portion of the textured region to at least partially fill the voids (para 20, 54, 87, 100, 115, 202-203; figs 1, 2).
With regard to “wherein the cured SiOx material comprises silsesquioxane,” Ehrensperger teaches the product results from the hydrolysis and condensation of a sol-gel comprising at least one organosilane of general formula RnSiX(4-n) in which n is equal to 1, 2, 3, preferably n is equal to 1 or 2 and better still n is equal to 1, and group X is chosen from alkoxy groups --O--R'; which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a trialkoxysilane (para 105-107, 115); wherein the organosilane is mixed with solvents such as alcohols and ketones and applied through inkjet coating or printing (para 146-150, 172); and crosslinked (para 205).
A trialkoxysilane undergoing hydrolysis, condensation, and crosslinking would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at once envisage the formation of a silsesquioxane; or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the formation of a silsesquioxane (i.e., wherein the cured SiOx material comprises silsesquioxane).
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6, Ehrensperger teaches wherein the coating completely fills at least some of the voids within the pattern; wherein the coating completely fills all the voids within the pattern; and, wherein a volume of the coating is approximately equal to a volume of the voids within the pattern (e.g., the sol-gel layer may have a thickness of 100% of the peak-to-valley height) (para 177).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Ehrensperger teaches wherein a volume of the coating is less than a volume of the voids within the pattern; and wherein the pattern is discontinuous across the surface such that the coating forms a plurality of discrete coating regions spaced-apart from one another (e.g., the sol-gel layer may have a thickness of 10 to 90% of the peak-to-valley height) (para 177).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ehrensperger teaches wherein a volume of the coating is greater than a volume of the voids within the pattern; and, wherein the pattern is continuous across the surface such that the coating forms a single, interconnected coating region (e.g., the sol-gel layer may have a thickness greater than the peak-to-valley height of the textured surface of the substrate) (para 176).
Regarding claim 11, Ehrensperger teaches wherein the coating comprises n layers of the cured SiOx material, where n is a positive integer and 1 < n < 15, e.g., one or more application operations (or passes), so n > 1, (i.e., 2 or more); so, Ehrensperger would have suggested a range that lies within the range of the instant claims (para 183).
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are directed to properties or functional language concerning the article of the instant claims. With specific regard to transmission haze, Ehrensperger teaches the glazing of the invention comprises on the part of the textured surface of the substrate comprising the sol-gel layer a transmission haze measured according to standard ASTM D 1003 of less than 5% and the glazing of the invention comprises on the part of the textured surface of the substrate not comprising a sol-gel layer a transmission haze of greater than 15% (para 185-189); so Ehrensperger teaches wherein a transmission haze of the substrate through the portion of the textured region with the coating is less than the transmission haze through a reference portion of the textured region without the coating; and, wherein the transmission haze through the coated portion is at least 20% less than the transmission haze through the reference portion (e.g., 15% - 5% = 10% so ~66% less than 15%).
Ehrensperger would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at once envisage or would have rendered to obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the composition(s) and application method(s) that result in the article embodiments and structure having the properties of the instant claims (see instant specification para 93-94, 113-115).
Therefore, the article of Ehrensperger is deemed to possess the properties of the instant claims. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 21, Ehrensperger teaches the product results from the hydrolysis and condensation of at least one organosilane of general formula RnSiX(4-n) in which n is equal to 1, 2, 3, preferably n is equal to 1 or 2 and better still n is equal to 1, and group X is chosen from alkoxy groups --O--R' (para 106-107, 115); so Ehrensperger teaches ranges that lie within the range of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that Ehrensperger fails to teach, "the cured SiOx material comprises silsesquioxane" as recited in claim 1. This is not persuasive.
Ehrensperger teaches the product results from the hydrolysis and condensation of a sol-gel comprising at least one organosilane of general formula RnSiX(4-n) in which n is equal to 1, 2, 3, preferably n is equal to 1 or 2 and better still n is equal to 1, and group X is chosen from alkoxy groups --O--R'; which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a trialkoxysilane (para 105-107, 115); wherein the organosilane is mixed with solvents such as alcohols and ketones and applied through inkjet coating or printing (para 146-150, 172); and crosslinked (para 205).
A trialkoxysilane undergoing hydrolysis, condensation, and crosslinking would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to at once envisage the formation of a silsesquioxane; or would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the formation of a silsesquioxane (i.e., wherein the cured SiOx material comprises silsesquioxane).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Walters et al (2000) teaches it was known in the art at the time of invention that various polymeric silsesquioxanes may be prepared from the corresponding trialkoxyorganosilanes by hydrolysis–condensation reactions at moderate temperatures (abstract).
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights