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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 at line 2 recites “claim 1 and internal elements comprising…” where the word “and” appears to be a potential typographical error which should instead recite “claim 1, further comprising internal elements…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is directed towards the plate according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is a glass-ceramic substrate having a chemical composition comprising the following constituents within the limits defined below, expressed as percentages by weight: SiO2 52-75% Al2O3 18-27% Li2O 2.5-5.5% K2O 0-3% Na2O 0-3% ZnO 0-3.5% MgO 0-3% CaO 0-2.5% BaO 0-3.5% SrO 0-2% TiO2 1.2-5.5% ZrO2 0-3%.
Claim 13 is directed towards the plate according to claim 12, wherein the substrate is a borosilicate-type glass substrate having a chemical composition comprising the following constituents within the limits defined below expressed as weight percentages: SiO2 70-85% B2O3 8-16% Al2O3 0-5% RO 0-10% K2O 0-2% Na2O 1-8%.
The closest prior art is Ehrensperger et al. (US2015210586, hereinafter referred to as Ehrensperger). Ehrensperger does not disclose or make obvious the specific glass formulation of claims 11 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, at line 1 the recitation of “it” is unclear. It is unclear if “it” is referring to “the plate” or “the coating”.
Regarding claim 4, at line 2 the recitation of “it” is unclear. It is unclear if “it” is referring to “the plate” or “the coating”.
Regarding claim 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “a light transmission of less than 65%”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 5%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “a lightness L* of less than 50”, and the claim also recites “preferably less than 40, more preferentially less than 30” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 appears to end in a comma, while MPEP 608.01(m) requires all claims to end in a period punctuation mark.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrensperger et al. (US2015210586, hereinafter referred to as Ehrensperger).
Regarding claim 1, Ehrensperger discloses a plate comprising a glass or glass-ceramic substrate (See Ehrensperger at [0004], disclosing glass substrates) coated with a metal oxide-based coating (see Ehrensperger at [0014], disclosing the surface of the substrate is coated with a sol-gel layer consisting of a dielectric material.), wherein said coating has a coverage rate of 25% to 90% (see Ehrensperger at Figure 1, showing a coverage 4 and 4A of approximately 50%) and the plate has a roughness RSm less than or equal to 300 µm (See Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing the RSm may thus range from 10 μm to 100 μm, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, Ehrensperger discloses the coating is obtained by thermal spraying (see Ehrensperger at [0165], disclosing spray-coating).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrensperger discloses it has a roughness Ra such that the ratio Ra/RSm is greater than or equal to 0.0030 (see Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing a roughness parameter Ra of at least 0.5 µm. Examiner notes taking the highest range of RSm from [0021] as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above would provide a Ra/RSm ratio with a minimum content of 0.005, and therefore the Ra/RSm ratio range disclosed by Ehrensperger is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Ehrensperger discloses it has a roughness Ra of less than or equal to 2.5 µm (see Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing a roughness parameter Ra of at least 0.5 µm).
Regarding claim 5, Ehrensperger discloses said coating has a covering rate is from 30 to 70% (see Ehrensperger at Figure 1, showing a coverage 4 and 4A of approximately 50%).
Regarding claim 6, Ehrensperger discloses said coating is based on aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, niobium oxide, zirconium oxide or mixed oxides thereof (see Ehrensperger at [0090], disclosing the sol-gel layer comprises ... at least one metal oxide or of at least one chalcogenide such as an organic/inorganic matrix of silica and of zirconium oxide in which are dispersed titanium dioxide particles.).
Regarding claim 7, Ehrensperger discloses said coating is based on mixed aluminum oxide (see Ehrensperger at [0130], disclosing the particles are particles of a metal oxide comprising ... aluminum).
Regarding claim 8, Ehrensperger discloses said coating is based on aluminum oxide, mixed oxide of aluminum and titanium, mixed oxide of aluminum and zirconium or mixed oxide of aluminum, titanium, and silicon (see Ehrensperger at [0090], disclosing the sol-gel layer comprises ... at least one metal oxide or of at least one chalcogenide such as an organic/inorganic matrix of silica and of zirconium oxide in which are dispersed titanium dioxide particles, and see Ehrensperger at [0130], disclosing the particles are particles of a metal oxide comprising ... aluminum).
Regarding claim 9, Ehrensperger discloses the substrate exhibits a light transmission of less than 65%, preferably less than 5% (see Ehrensperger at [0186], disclosing a transmission haze measured according to standard ASTM D 1003 of less than 5%, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 15, Ehrensperger discloses internal elements comprising heating means, a display device and/or a control device (see Ehrensperger at [0076], disclosing the main rough surface is generally connected to the heating elements and also to operating indicators or displays.).
Regarding claim 16, Ehrensperger discloses the plate has a roughness RSm less than or equal to 250 µm (See Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing the RSm may thus range from 10 μm to 100 μm, which is within the claimed range).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrensperger.
Regarding claim 10, while Ehrensperger does not explicitly disclose the substrate has a lightness L* of less than 50, preferably less than 40, more preferentially less than 30, this is a design choice and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Ehrensperger to select an L* as desired. Examiner notes aesthetic design changes are obvious per MPEP 2144.04(I). Ehrensperger discloses the choice of the intrinsic reflection and transmission properties of the substrate or of the sol-gel layer depend on the expectations between good transparency of the glazing and the obtention of other properties such as color (See Ehrensperger at [0188]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select any L* as desired in order to achieve good transparency and other properties such as color as taught by Ehrensperger.
Regarding claim 12, Ehrensperger discloses the substrate is a glass substrate, the composition of which is of the lithium aluminosilicate, borosilicate or alumino-borosilicate type (see Ehrensperger at [0214], disclosing all types of standard glass substrates used. Therefore, it would be obvious to select common glass substrates such as the lithium aluminosilicate, borosilicate or alumino-borosilicate type glasses).
Regarding claim 14, Ehrensperger discloses depositing a metal oxide-based coating by thermal spraying on the surface of a glass or glass-ceramic substrate (see Ehrensperger at [0165], disclosing spray-coating), wherein the surface of the substrate is at a temperature greater than 300°C during the deposition of the coating (see Ehrensperger at [0216], disclosing the solutions were then applied by spraying onto a support and crosslinked for a time of 20 minutes to a few hours at a temperature of 150° C. or 200° C. so as to form sol-gel layers, which is close to touching the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, while Ehrensperger does not explicitly disclose the substrate has a lightness L* of less than 50, this is a design choice and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Ehrensperger to select an L* as desired. Examiner notes aesthetic design changes are obvious per MPEP 2144.04(I). Ehrensperger discloses the choice of the intrinsic reflection and transmission properties of the substrate or of the sol-gel layer depend on the expectations between good transparency of the glazing and the obtention of other properties such as color (See Ehrensperger at [0188]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to select any L* as desired in order to achieve good transparency and other properties such as color as taught by Ehrensperger.
Further regarding claim 17, Ehrensperger discloses the metal oxide-based coating is discontinuous (see Ehrensperger at Figure 1, showing a coverage 4 and 4A which is discontinuous); the coating has a coverage rate of 30 to 70% (see Ehrensperger at Figure 1, showing a coverage 4 and 4A of approximately 50%); and the plate has a roughness RSm less than or equal to 250 µm (See Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing the RSm may thus range from 10 μm to 100 μm, which is within the claimed range), a roughness Ra less than 1.5 µm (see Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing a roughness parameter Ra of at least 0.5 µm), and a ratio Ra/RSm of 0.003 to 0.01 (see Ehrensperger at [0021], disclosing a roughness parameter Ra of at least 0.5 µm. Examiner notes taking the highest range of RSm from [0021] as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above would provide a Ra/RSm ratio with a minimum content of 0.005, which is within the claimed range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Etienne et al. (US20180095330).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights