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(s) Status
Claims 23-38 are pending as presented in the preliminary amendment filed 01/16/2025.
Priority
This application is a divisional of 17/519,899, filed 11/05/2021, now US 12,246,985 B2.
This application also claims benefit of IT 102020000026557, filed 11/06/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Primary Examiner has considered the IDS filed 03/26/2025.
Drawings
The drawings filed 01/16/2025 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Specification
The replacement abstract of the disclosure, filed 01/16/2025, is objected to because: (i) it recites phrases that can be implied (“are describe herein”); and (ii) fails to recite any process steps. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS should be updated to reflect that parent application 17/519,899 has issued as US 12,246,985 B2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 23, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323 A1).
Claim 23
Bockmeyer teaches a process for making a coated glass-ceramic substrate (10) [abstract], the process comprising:
providing glass-ceramic substrate (10) which can be used as a cooktop and which is provided with decorative layers (11) for identifying cooking zones (13) (i.e., “a substrate defining a cooking surface”) [0085];
preparing a sol coating for deposition on the cooking surface as layer (22) [0059, 0085]; and
depositing the sol coating on the cooking surface to form layer (22) [0085].
Claim 30
Bockmeyer teaches that the sol coating can be applied by, e.g., roll coating, pad printing, spray coating, or screen printing [0059].
Claim 31
Bockmeyer teaches that the sol coating layer (22) provides scratch resistance [0039], but does not specify that the scratch resistance is at least 10 N as based on pencil hardness.
Nevertheless, Bockmeyer otherwise teaches all of the process and compositional limitations of claim 31. “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.” MPEP § 2112.01(I) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[a] chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses are necessarily present.” Id. at § 2112.01(II). Consequently, the scratch-resistant coating (22) of Bockmeyer necessarily has a scratch resistance of at least 10 N as based on pencil hardness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 24 and 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323 A1), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Boy et al. (US 2014/0302231 A1).
Claims 24 and 29
Bockmeyer teaches preparing the sol by solubilizing a metal precursor, e.g., Y2O3:ZrO2 = 0.08:0.92, in a solvent (water) to form a solubilized precursor [0075].
Bockmeyer does not teach that the solubilized Y2O3 – ZrO2 precursor is mixed with a nitrogen carrier and that a molar ratio between the nitrogen carrier and the one or more metal precursors is 0.5 to 5.
Boy teaches a sol gel precursor solution [0174]. The precursor solution contains Y2O3:ZrO2 = 0.08:0.92 derived from a ZrOCl2 as a metal precursor. 20 g of urea is added to the solution to favor the precipitation of particles of YSZ, in the following proportions with respect to the zirconium salt: [urea]/[ZrOCl2∙8H2O] = 1.4 (i.e., between 0.5 and 5, as required by claim 24, and between 0.5 and 2, as required by claim 29). Boy teaches that a sol formed from zirconia doped with yttrium (YSZ) results in dense, homogeneous layer [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Bockmeyer so as to add, to the yttria-doped zirconia-based sol gel coating solution, urea so as to favor deposition of the YSZ dopant and result in a dense, homogeneous layer, which would be advantageous for the Bockmeyer’ s scratch resistance. See MPEP § 2144(II) (“the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references”).
Claim 26
The combined teaching of Bockmeyer and Boy is detailed above. Neither reference teaches adding (3-glycidyloxypropyl)trimethoxysilane to the sol coating.
Nevertheless, Bockmeyer teaches that classical sol gel precursors [0064] as well as polysiloxanes and silicone resins [0070] may be added.
It is the Primary Examiner’s position that GPTMS is a well-known, classical polysiloxane sol gel precursor. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add it to the composition of Bockmeyer in view of Boy in order to achieve a sol gel composition having desired properties.
Claims 27 and 28
Bockmeyer further teaches adjusting viscosity by adding cellulose-containing compounds and/or PVA [0069].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323 A1) in view of Boy et al., as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Schutt (US 2001/0032568 A1).
Claim 25
The combined teaching of Bockmeyer and Boy is detailed above. Neither reference teaches taking the sol coating under nitrogen flux.
Schutt teaches a process wherein a sol gel coating, formed by hydrolysis and condensation of a precursor, is applied using dry N2 as a propellant [0145]. The nitrogen removes adsorbed oxygen and water, as well as retarding solvent evaporation, which would result in increased gloss and hardness, id., which would be aesthetically and functionally advantageous for the glass-ceramic cooktop of Bockmeyer.
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bockmeyer in view of Boy so as to treat the sol gel coating under nitrogen flux to achieve these properties.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323 A1), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Schutt (US 2001/0032568 A1).
Claim 32
The teaching of Bockmeyer is detailed above. This reference does not teach treating the sol coating under gaseous nitrogen.
Schutt teaches a process wherein a sol gel coating, formed by hydrolysis and condensation of a precursor, is applied using dry N2 as a propellant [0145]. The nitrogen removes adsorbed oxygen and water, as well as retarding solvent evaporation, which would result in increased gloss and hardness, id., which would be aesthetically and functionally advantageous for the glass-ceramic cooktop of Bockmeyer.
Consequently it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bockmeyer so as to treat the sol gel coating under nitrogen flux to achieve these properties.
Claim(s) 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockmeyer et al. (US 2014/0004323 A1) in view of Boy et al. (US 2014/0302231 A1).
Claims 33, 37, and 38
The teaching of Bockmeyer is detailed above, including preparing the sol by solubilizing a metal precursor, e.g., Y2O3:ZrO2 = 0.08:0.92 (8:92), in a solvent (water) to form a solubilized precursor [0075].
Bockmeyer does not teach that the solubilized precursor has an overall concentration of 0.05 – 0.5 M or that the solubilized Y2O3 – ZrO2 precursor is mixed with a nitrogen carrier and that a molar ratio between the nitrogen carrier and the one or more metal precursors is 0.5 to 5.
Boy teaches a sol gel precursor solution [0174]. Boy further teaches octahydrated zirconium oxychloride (75 g) and hexahydrated yttrium chloride (11.2 g) are dissolved in water (140 mL), while respecting a [YCl3∙6H2O]/[ZrOCl2∙8H2O] ratio = 8/92, so as to form ZrO2-8 mol. % Y2O3. Urea (20 g) is added to the solution to favor the precipitation of the particles of YSZ, in the following proportions with respect to the zirconium salt: [urea]/[ZrOCl2∙8H2O] = 1.4 (i.e., between 0.5 and 5). The ratio of the octahydrated zirconium oxychloride and hexahydrated yttrium chloride to water is about 0.253 M (i.e., between 0.05 and 0.5 M). The molar ratio between the urea and the octahydrated zirconium oxychloride and hexahydrated yttrium chloride is about 1.3. Boy teaches that a sol formed from zirconia doped with yttrium (YSZ) results in dense, homogeneous layer [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Bockmeyer so as to add, to the yttria-doped zirconia-based sol gel coating solution, urea so as to favor deposition of the YSZ dopant and result in a dense, homogeneous layer, which would be advantageous for the Bockmeyer’ s scratch resistance. See MPEP § 2144(II) (“the expectation of some advantage is the strongest rationale for combining references”).
Claims 34 and 35
Bockmeyer teaches that the metal precursor can include a metal salts of Ca, Gd, Li, Y, Zr, Hf, Ce, Mg, K, Ti, Al, or La may be used, for example, as chlorides [0063].
Claim 36
Neither Bockmeyer nor Boy specify the claimed alkoxides, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any known sol gel component in order to provide a coating of a desired thickness, scratch-resistance, etc., motivated by the desire and expectation of forming a strong, wear-resistant coating.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 23 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25 and 34 of copending Application No. 19/545,142 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference claims 25 and 34 anticipate instant claim 23. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2). Below is a table in which the Primary Examiner construes the claimed as required by MPEP § 804(II)(B)(1) demonstrating that, in practicing the invention of reference claims 25 and 34, one of ordinary skill in the art necessarily practices the invention of instant claim 23.
19/024,525
(instant application)
19/545,142
(reference application)
23. A method of forming a coated cooking surface, the method comprising: providing a substrate defining a cooking surface; preparing a sol coating for deposition on the cooking surface1; and depositing the sol coating on the cooking surface.
23. A method of forming a coated cooking surface, the method comprising: providing a substrate defining a cooking surface; preparing a sol coating for deposition on the cooking surface; and depositing the sol coating on the cooking surface.
25. A method for forming a cooking appliance, comprising: providing a glass-ceramic substrate having a top surface for supporting cookware for heating thereon2; roughening first portions of the top surface to increase a surface roughness of the first portions of the top surface as compared with adjacent second portions of the top surface; applying a sol-gel coating on the first portions; and curing the sol-gel coating to form a matte surface at the first portions, the matte surface having a lower gloss finish and a greater opacity as compared to the adjacent second portions.
34. A method of forming a cooking appliance comprising: providing a glass-ceramic substrate having a top surface for supporting cookware for heating thereon; masking portions of the top surface to define uncoated portions adjacent to coating portions; processing at least the coating portions to increase a surface roughness of the coating portions; applying a sol-gel coating including one or more metal alkoxide or polymer precursors on the coating portions; and curing the col-gel coating to form a matte surface at the coating portions, the matte surface having a greater opacity and a lower gloss finish than the uncoated portions of the top surface.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,584,636 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 1 and 10 anticipate instant claim 23. See MPEP § 804(II)(B)(2). Below is a table in which the Primary Examiner construes the claimed as required by MPEP § 804(II)(B)(1) demonstrating that, in practicing the invention of patented claims 1 and 10, one of ordinary skill in the art necessarily practices the invention of instant claim 23.
19/024,525
(reference application)
US 12,584,636 B2
(patented claims)
23. A method of forming a coated cooking surface, the method comprising: providing a substrate defining a cooking surface; preparing a sol coating for deposition on the cooking surface3; and depositing the sol coating on the cooking surface.
23. A method of forming a coated cooking surface, the method comprising: providing a substrate defining a cooking surface; preparing a sol coating for deposition on the cooking surface; and depositing the sol coating on the cooking surface.
1. A method of forming a cooking appliance, comprising: providing a glass-ceramic substrate having a top surface for supporting cookware for heating thereon4; processing at least portions of the top surface to increase a surface roughness of the portions of the top surface as compared with adjacent non-roughened portions of the top surface, and form a roughened portion of the top surface; applying a sol-gel coating on at least the roughened top surface; and curing the sol-gel coating to form a matte surface at the roughened portion of the top surface, the matte surface having a lower gloss finish and a greater opacity as compared to the adjacent non-roughened portions of the top surface.
10. A method of forming a cooking appliance comprising: providing a glass-ceramic substrate having a top surface for supporting cookware for heating thereon; masking portions of the top surface to define uncoated portions adjacent to processing portions; processing the processing portions of the top surface to increase a surface roughness of the top surface and form a roughened top surface; applying a sol-gel coating including one or more metal alkoxide or polymer precursors on the roughened top surface; and curing the sol-gel coating to form a matte surface having a greater opacity and a lower gloss finish than the uncoated portions of the top surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CA 2 398 016 A1; US 2001/0032568 A1; US 2005/0084705 A1; US 2009/0233082 A1; US 2010/0101429 A1; US 2010/0313971 A1; US 2011/0180546 A1; US 2013/0020335 A1; US 2015/0144613 A1; US 2015/0152558 A1; and US 2017/0020331 A1; all describe the state of the art of cooktops having sol gel coating thereon, or cookware having sol gel coating thereon (the interiors of such cookware “defining a cooking surface), or smooth, sol gel-coated glass-ceramic surfaces in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
6 August 2026
1 In order to apply the sol-gel coating, the reference application must, necessarily, prepare it for deposition.
2 Such a surface defines a “cooking surface.”
3 In order to apply the sol-gel coating, the patented application must, necessarily, prepare it for deposition.
4 Such a surface defines a “cooking surface.”
Prosecution Insights