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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 3-17 in the reply filed on 19 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner did not adequately demonstrate indications of distinctness as no examples are supported nor has the examiner met that the two inventions do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants. This is not found persuasive because Group I requires the enamel coating to have B4Si3O12 present whereas Group II specifically recites where the enamel is free of B4Si3O12 and therefore the Groups themselves mutually exclude the other. Group I may be used as a vehicle windshield with the enamel as a color border whereas Group II may be used with architectural glass. The Groups are not obvious variants as they are delineated from one another as to not technologically overlap due to the exclusion from the enamel coating recitations and are not capable of use together either due to said exclusion.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9-10 redundantly recite the comprising of B4Si3O12 as this is already set forth in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “wherein functional layer” and is missing articles of either “the” or “a” and it is unclear to what functional layer the claims are referencing. Clarification is required.
Claims 16 and 17 recite where the dielectric layer material “is selected from the group comprising Sn, Al…” and the term “comprising” for the grouping renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what materials are required. This may be overcome by amending to recite Markush grouping language of “selected from the group consisting of…”.
Claims 16 and 17 also recite “such as silver, gold, platinum, or mixtures thereof” for the 1st – 3rd infra-red reflecting layers and it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). This rejection may be overcome by amending to remove “such as”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites where the enameled glazing “comprising B4Si3O12” and this is not further limiting than claim 1 which positively recites the presence of B4Si3O12 in the enamel. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art to the instant claims is that of Sakoske et al. (US 2002/0004443) and Medeiros et al. (WO2019/030469 – cited by applicant). Sakoske teaches a frit composition comprising bismuth silicate (Paragraphs 28-29) as well as CuCr2O4 as a pigment (Paragraph 38) for an enamel (Paragraph 41) on glass, etc. (Paragraph 47). Sakoske teaches where the composition is resistant to crystallization (Paragraph 48), but is silent as to where or how the composition would have a crystallinity ratio of less than 5. Medeiros similarly teaches enamel coatings on glass (abstract) comprising an ink of glass frit and crystalline oxide (p.2 lines 26-32) and the frit may comprise Bi2O3 (p.7 lines 33-34) and SiO2 (p.8, lines 8-20), and pigment of CuCr2O4 (p.12 lines 12-13). However, Medeiros teaches where the crystalline oxide has a minimum degree of crystallinity of 30% (p.10 lines 23-29) and is silent as to where or how the composition would have a crystallinity ratio of less than 5 and this crystallinity ratio does not appear to be predictable based upon the composition disclosed by Medeiros. As such, the instant claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12-13 and 16-17 may be placed in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection set forth above.
Claim 2 is ineligible for rejoinder and it is suggested the claim be canceled to place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakoske et al. (US 5,714,420 and US 2003/0108723), Prunchak (US 2009/0053534), Barker et al. (US 2010/0004110), Boguslavsky et al. (US 2013/0017388), and Axtell et al. (US 2018/0009700) teach enamel coatings demonstrating the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights