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
The amendment filed 18 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 17-19 and 22-34 remain pending in the application wherein claims 17, 22-28, 30, and 34 have been amended, claim 19 is withdrawn, and claims 20-21 are newly canceled.
Support for the amendments are found on p. 10 of the instant specification. Accordingly, no new matter is introduced by these amendments.
Response to Arguments
The cancellation of claim 20 has rendered the claim interpretation of claim 20 as being moot.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues, see p. 1-3, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include an impurity because it should be avoided to the extent possible. However, the means by which the silicon is present (i.e. as an impurity or deliberately added) is not patentably distinguishable because the process (i.e. adding silicon) is not a claimed limitation. See MPEP § 2145(VI). Furthermore, even if the silicon being present by addition was recited, such limitation would be considered a product-by-process limitation which is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure (i.e. including the composition) implied by the steps.
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 17-18, 22-28, 30-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippe et al. (US 2005/0084705, previously cited) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2007/0228369, previously cited).
Claim 17: Klippe teaches a protective layer (i.e. a coating) for glass-ceramic plates (i.e. a substrate) preferably used as cooking plates in cooking hobs (i.e. a coated substrate for a hob) (paragraph 0002). Layers formed from zirconium oxide are especially suitable for transparent, highly thermally stable protective layers with attractive visual appearance, and the zirconium oxide layers can be stabilized by addition of other metal oxides particularly by addition of 0.5-50 mol% Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide) (paragraph 0028) (i.e. comprising yttrium and zirconium). Since the amount of Y2O3 is 0.5-50 mol%, then the amount of zirconium oxide is not more than 50-99.5% because the zirconium oxide is not more than the balance of the layer, and this amount of zirconium (i.e. from the zirconium oxide) overlaps the instantly claimed range after converting mol% to weight-% and accounting for the oxygen content. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. However, Klippe does not teach inclusion of silicon.
In a related field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches a foundation film containing zirconium oxide with 0.1 to 55 mol% Y2O3 (paragraph 0010). Suzuki teaches that the foundation film may contain Hf, Si, etc. as impurities, preferably in a total amount of at most 5% (paragraph 0024) (i.e. the composition contains Si).
As Klippe and Suzuki both teach a coating containing zirconium oxide and overlapping amounts of Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide), they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composition of the protective layer of Klippe (i.e. the coating containing zirconium oxide and yttrium oxide) to include the conventionally known impurities, such as Si, in the conventionally known amount as taught by Suzuki and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Klippe teaches the coating as being a protective layer of at least one hard-material layer (paragraph 0020-0021) in such a manner that they do not experience any temperature-dependent structural changes in the temperature range relevant to cooking systems (paragraph 0028) but does not quantify these attributes (i.e. hardness and color distance). However, these features are considered to be present because Suzuki-modified Klippe teaches a substantially identical material (e.g. the composition recited in instant claim 1 as outlined above) made in a substantially identical manner (e.g. the method recited in instant claim 19; Klippe discloses forming the coating by a reactive physical vapor deposition process in paragraph 0033), and a substantially identical material formed in a substantially identical manner have substantially identical properties and features. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 18: Klippe does not teach the XRD analysis peaks of the coating but does teach that application of layers by ion beam-assisted ion beam sputtering offers the optimum way of defining the morphology or crystal structure of the layer by controlled setting of the ion energy and intensity of the ion beam (paragraph 0034), and preferably crystalline dense column structures are formed (paragraph 0033). Furthermore, the XRD peaks are an indication of crystal structure (i.e. a material property) and therefore these peaks are considered to be present because Suzuki-modified Klippe teaches a substantially identical material (e.g. the composition recited in instant claim 1 as outlined above) made in a substantially identical manner (e.g. the method recited in instant claim 19; Klippe discloses forming the coating by a reactive physical vapor deposition process in paragraph 0033), and a substantially identical material formed in a substantially identical manner have substantially identical properties and features. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 22: Klippe teaches that the zirconium oxide layers can be stabilized by addition of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide, titanium oxide, etc. and combinations thereof (i.e. the above outlined composition A may also include titanium) (paragraph 0028), and prior art coatings for a cooking plate include aluminum oxide with zirconium oxide and yttrium oxide, etc. (paragraph 0012) (i.e. it would be obvious to include aluminum oxide in composition A). Additionally, Suzuki teaches a foundation film containing zirconium oxide with 0.1 to 55 mol% Y2O3 (paragraph 0010). Suzuki teaches that the foundation film may contain Hf, Si, etc. as impurities, preferably in a total amount of at most 5% (paragraph 0024) (i.e. the composition contains Si and Hf).
Claim 23: Klippe teaches that the zirconium oxide layers can be stabilized by addition of other metal oxides particularly by addition of 0.5-50 mol% Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide) (paragraph 0028). This content of yttrium oxide overlaps the instantly claimed range for content of yttrium (i.e. after converting to weight percent and accounting for the oxygen) in composition A. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 24: Klippe teaches the zirconium oxide layers as having 0.5-50 mol% Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide) (paragraph 0028). This range (i.e. converted to weight percent and after accounting for the content of oxygen) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges for Zr fraction and Y fraction when considering only Zr and Y. See MPEP § 2144.05. The instantly claimed hardness and color distance are considered to be present because Suzuki-modified Klippe teaches a substantially identical material (e.g. the composition recited in instant claim 1 and 24 as outlined above) made in a substantially identical manner (e.g. the method recited in instant claim 19; Klippe discloses forming the coating by a reactive physical vapor deposition process in paragraph 0033), and a substantially identical material formed in a substantially identical manner have substantially identical properties and features. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 25: Suzuki teaches that the foundation film may contain Hf, Si, etc. as impurities, preferably in a total amount of at most 5% (paragraph 0024) (i.e. the coated substrate of Suzuki-modified Klippe contains not more than 5% Si), which overlaps the instantly claimed proportion. See MPEP § 2144.05. The instantly claimed hardness and color distance are considered to be present because Suzuki-modified Klippe teaches a substantially identical material (e.g. the composition recited in instant claim 1 and 24 as outlined above) made in a substantially identical manner (e.g. the method recited in instant claim 19; Klippe discloses forming the coating by a reactive physical vapor deposition process in paragraph 0033), and a substantially identical material formed in a substantially identical manner have substantially identical properties and features. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 26: Klippe teaches that the zirconium oxide layers can be stabilized by addition of other metal oxides such as yttrium oxide, titanium oxide, etc. and combinations thereof (i.e. the above outlined composition A may also include titanium) (paragraph 0028), and prior art coatings for a cooking plate include aluminum oxide with zirconium oxide and yttrium oxide, etc. (paragraph 0012) (i.e. it would be obvious to include aluminum oxide in composition A). The amount of aluminum is not specified, but since the protective layer is advantageously zirconium oxide layers stabilized advantageously with 0.5 to 50 mol% Y2O3 (paragraph 0028), then one would expect a significant fraction to be zirconium oxide as well as up to 50 mol% yttrium oxide, and therefore one would reasonably consider the amount of aluminum to be much less than the content of zirconium oxide or yttrium oxide. It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine an amount that may be included while still obtaining a transparent, highly thermally stable protective layer with attractive visual appearance that is the subject matter of the coating of Klippe (i.e. of Suzuki-modified Klippe) (paragraph 0028).
Claim 27: Suzuki teaches that the foundation film may contain Hf, Si, etc. as impurities, preferably in a total amount of at most 5% (paragraph 0024) (i.e. not more than 5% Hf), which overlaps the instantly claimed proportion. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 28: The limitations of instant claim 28 overlap the composition of instant claim 25, outlined above, and the resulting proportions of Zr and of Y when considering the contents of Zr, Y, and Si taught by Suzuki-modified Klippe overlap the instantly claimed ratios. See MPEP § 2144.05. The instantly claimed hardness and color distance are considered to be present because Klippe in view of Suzuki teaches a substantially identical material (e.g. the composition recited in instant claim 25 as outlined above) made in a substantially identical manner (e.g. the method recited in instant claim 19; Klippe discloses forming the coating by a reactive physical vapor deposition process in paragraph 0033), and a substantially identical material formed in a substantially identical manner have substantially identical properties and features. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 30: Klippe teaches that hard-material layers can include not only metal oxide (e.g. the above outlined zirconium oxide and yttrium oxide) but may be formed from metal oxide and/or metal carbide and/or metal oxycarbonitride, etc. (paragraph 0023), which renders as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that carbon may be included.
Claim 31: Klippe teaches that the protective layers are suitable for coating glass, glass-ceramic, etc. (paragraph 0030) (i.e. a substrate of a glass ceramic).
Claim 34: The limitations of claim 34 are recited in instant claim 1 (which is outlined above) but with a more expansive list of applications (i.e. instead of reciting “for a hob”, the article of claim 34 may be any one of a longer list of articles).
Claims 17 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippe et al. (US 2005/0084705, previously cited) in view of Moelle et al. (US 2006/0127699, previously cited).
Claims 17 and 28-29: Klippe teaches a protective layer (i.e. a coating) for glass-ceramic plates (i.e. a substrate) preferably used as cooking plates in cooking hobs (i.e. a coated substrate for a hob) (paragraph 0002). Layers formed from zirconium oxide are especially suitable for transparent, highly thermally stable protective layers with attractive visual appearance, and the zirconium oxide layers can be stabilized by addition of other metal oxides particularly by addition of 0.5-50 mol% Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide) (paragraph 0028) (i.e. comprising yttrium and zirconium). Since the amount of Y2O3 is 0.5-50 mol%, then the amount of zirconium oxide is not more than 50-99.5% because the zirconium oxide is not more than the balance of the layer, and this amount of zirconium (i.e. from the zirconium oxide) overlaps the instantly claimed range after converting mol% to weight-% and accounting for the oxygen content. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. However, Klippe does not teach inclusion of silicon.
In a related field of endeavor, Moelle teaches a protective layer for glass-ceramic plates preferably being used as cooking plates in cooking hobs (paragraph 0002) or for coating a body made from glass, glass-ceramic, or other crystalline material requiring high resistance to scratching and a high thermal stability (paragraph 0037). Moelle teaches the protective layer includes at least one hard-material layer that is also referred to as functional layers along with at least one interlayer that is different than the hard-material layer (paragraph 0021). The functional layers may be zirconium oxide with a stabilizing component comprising 0.5 to 50 mol% Y2O3, (paragraph 0029), which overlaps the instantly claimed range for proportion of Y and is substantially identical to the range disclosed by Klippe. The interlayers are formed from metal oxide and/or metal nitride and/or metal carbide, etc. (paragraph 0021) with example interlayers being silicon oxide (paragraph 0082). The interlayers are typically much thinner than the functional layers (paragraphs 0025 and 0036). However, Moelle also teaches that zirconium can also be replaced by other metals (i.e. partial replacement would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art) (paragraph 0031) and that functional layers having silicon nitride or metal oxides (i.e. silicon oxide would be obvious) are suitable (paragraph 0028). Taken together, these teachings render as obvious that the functional layer may include both silicon and stabilized zirconium oxide (i.e. containing Y). It would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to vary the proportions of these materials while maintaining the proportion of yttrium oxide to zirconium oxide to obtain the transparent protective layer suitable for a cooking plate.
As Klippe and Moelle both teach a coating containing zirconium oxide and Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide), they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composition of the protective layer of Klippe (i.e. the coating containing zirconium oxide and yttrium oxide) to include silicon nitride or oxide in the functional layer and to include interlayers of silicon oxide as taught by Moelle as this is considered to be conventionally known features used for a protective layer for a cooking plate, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The instantly claimed hardness and color distance are considered to be present because Klippe in view of Moelle teaches a substantially identical material (e.g. the composition recited in instant claim 28 as outlined above) made in a substantially identical manner (e.g. the method recited in instant claim 19; Klippe discloses forming the coating by a reactive physical vapor deposition process in paragraph 0033), and a substantially identical material formed in a substantially identical manner have substantially identical properties and features. See MPEP § 2112.01. Further in this regard, Klippe and Moelle both teach the protective coating as being made of hard-material layers (Klippe, paragraph 0029; Moelle, paragraph 0021) and is scratch- and wear-resistant and remains structurally stable without changing visually in the event of thermal loading (Klippe, paragraph 0019; Moelle, paragraph 0019).
It is noted that due to the substantial overlap of the disclosures, the teachings of Klippe and of Moelle may be largely interchangeable for each of the instant claims except for instant claim 25, which recites a proportion of silicon equating to about 0.1-4 wt%.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippe et al. (US 2005/0084705, previously cited) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2007/0228369, previously cited) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Bellman et al. (US 2018/0339938, previously cited).
Claims 32 and 33: The teachings of Klippe in view of Suzuki regarding claim 31 are outlined above. Klippe teaches a protective layer for glass-ceramic plates preferably used as cooking plates in cooking hobs (i.e. a coated substrate for a hob) (paragraph 0002) and is suitable for glass, glass-ceramic, or other materials (paragraph 0030). Layers formed from zirconium oxide are especially suitable for transparent, highly thermally stable protective layers with attractive visual appearance, and the zirconium oxide layers can be stabilized by addition of other metal oxides particularly by addition of 0.5-50 mol% Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide) (paragraph 0028). However, Klippe and Suzuki do not teach specific types of glass to be coated.
In a field of endeavor related to coating glass, glass-ceramic, etc., Bellman teaches a glass, glass-ceramic, etc. article with a transparent protective coating (paragraph 0002) that is scratch-resistant (paragraph 0005) and has a high hardness (paragraphs 0006-0007), wherein the article may be an appliance device article, etc. (paragraph 0087). Bellman teaches the protective film can include a yttria-stabilized zirconia material having 1-8 mol% yttria and greater than 1 mol% of tetragonal zirconia and may also include other materials such as alumina (paragraph 0072). The protective film may further include one or more energy-absorbing compositions of another material (paragraph 0074). The protective film may be deposited using a variety of methods including PVD, sputtering, etc. (paragraph 0076). Bellman teaches that the article substrate may be glass, such as borosilicate glass, aluminosilicate glass, soda-lime glass, chemically strengthened borosilicate glass, chemically strengthened aluminosilicate glass, chemically strengthened soda-lime glass (paragraph 0061) or may be a glass-ceramic such as Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2 system (i.e. a lithiumaluminosilicate glass-ceramic) which may be chemically strengthened (i.e. the teaching of “may” is also considered where one may choose a not strengthened substrate) (paragraph 0064).
As Klippe and Bellmen both teach a protective coating for glass, glass-ceramic, etc. where the coating includes yttrium and zirconia, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate of Klippe, which teaches generally a glass or glass-ceramic, to include a specific type of glass (e.g. a chemically strengthened glass) or specific type of glass-ceramic (e.g. a lithiumaluminosilicate glass-ceramic that is not necessarily strengthened) as taught by Bellman, as these are considered to be conventionally known materials for a substrate to be coated with a hard, scratch-resistant protective coating that includes yttrium and zirconium oxides as taught by Bellman, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights