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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, previously claims 17-18 and 34, amended claims 17-18, 20-34, drawn to a coated substrate and an article, in the reply filed on 16 February 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 February 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 has been amended to recite “further comprising a target deposited on the substrate”. It is noted that the instant specification defines depositing a target as referring to “a transfer of target material from the target onto a surface of the substrate in course of the sputtering process.” In view of the definition, claim 20 is considered to recite the coating comprising a layer of a composition A (i.e. as recited in base claim 1) and further has material transferred from a target comprising a composition B (i.e. as recited in claim 20). This would appear to result in at least two layers.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 17-18, 20-24, 30-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippe et al. (US 2005/0084705, 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. 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. However, these features are considered to be present because 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.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed coated substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as 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), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
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 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 20: Klippe teaches the coating uses a coating installation and a production installation that includes a vacuum chamber containing a target comprising the coating starting material, etc. (paragraph 0044). Since the target comprises the coating starting material (paragraph 0044) and the coating includes zirconium oxide stabilized by addition of other metal oxides particularly by addition of 0.5-50 mol% Y2O3 (i.e. yttrium oxide) (paragraph 0028) (i.e. not more than 50-99.5% Zr), then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a common practice to deposit from a target having a substantially identical ratio of zirconium and yttrium, which overlaps the instantly claimed range for zirconium in composition B. Furthermore, Klippe teaches a first coating chamber used for coating with a first starting material and may have further coating chambers (paragraph 0064) and describes the coating process as layer substances being produced in atomic dimensions and forming by layer growth (paragraph 0033). This is considered to include a point during the process where an initial layer is formed on the substrate (i.e. a layer of composition A) followed with depositing a target on the substrate for continued growth wherein the target has a composition B.
Claim 21: Klippe does not specify the target as being planar or rotatable. However, since deposition on the substrate is of vaporized material from the target and not the entire target itself (i.e. the coated substrate does not include the target deposited thereon as an entire block and the resulting coating does not have the shape of the original target), the shape of the target is considered to be a product-by-process limitation which is limited only by the structure implied by the steps (i.e. the resulting structure rather than processing parameters).
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).
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 and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a common practice to deposit from a target having a substantially identical ratio of zirconium and yttrium, which overlaps the instantly claimed range for zirconium in composition B.
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 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 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 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippe et al. (US 2005/0084705, previously cited) as applied to claims 20 and 24 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2007/0228369).
Claim 25: The teachings of Klippe regarding claim 24 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). 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) or including titanium oxide, etc. and combinations thereof (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). However, Klippe does not teach inclusion of silicon and does not disclose a content of additives other than the amount of yttrium oxide.
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. not more than 5% Si), which overlaps the instantly claimed proportion. See MPEP § 2144.05.
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. 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 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 (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 teachings of Klippe regarding claim 20 are outlined above. 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). However, Klippe does not teach inclusion of silicon and does not disclose a content of additives other than the amount of yttrium oxide.
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. not more than 5% Si), which overlaps the instantly claimed proportion. See MPEP § 2144.05.
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. The resulting proportions of Zr and of Y when considering the contents of Zr, Y, and Si 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.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klippe et al. (US 2005/0084705, previously cited) as applied to claim 20, and further in view of Moelle et al. (US 2006/0127699).
Claims 28-29: The teachings of Klippe regarding claim 20 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). 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). The protective layer may also contain one or more further hard-material layers (paragraph 0029) whereby one may exchange the target in the coating chamber or may provide a corresponding number of further coating chambers (paragraph 0047). However, Klippe does not teach inclusion of silicon in the protective coating.
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 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. 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) 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 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 does 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dzick (US 2005/0100721) discloses a transparent hard-material layer with high resistance to scratching and a high thermal stability as a protective layer such as for use as cooking plates in cooking hobs. The hard-material layers may be a zirconium oxide stabilized by addition of other metal oxides, particularly of 0.5 to 50 mol% Y2O3. The hard-material layers are interrupted by amorphous interlayers, which may be a thermally stable mixed oxide having at least two metallic components selected from Si, Al, Ti, Hf, etc.
Clavero et al. (US 2018/0258524) discloses a coated glass substrate having at least one layer of Y inclusive high index nitrided dielectric layer which is heat stable. The metal content of the layer may have 20-70% Y, 0-30% Zr, 30-80% Si, and 0-30% Al.
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