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 .
Status of Application
Claims 37-51 and 53-56 are pending. Claim 56 is withdrawn. Claims 37-51 and 53-55 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Caselli and Van Der Zwan do not provide any guidance or motivation to combine their teachings to arrive at the claimed invention as the references do not teach or suggest the use of a sealant to alter the porosity of the tile. Applicant further argues that Wang fails to cure the deficiencies. In particular, Applicant contends that Wang does not provide any guidance or motivation to use an epoxy material lacking silica on a bullnose tile. However, the Examiner notes that the combination of references does not require the exclusion of silica. Rather, the combination relied upon is including Wang’s silica containing epoxy coating in place of Caselli’s tie coat. Further, the claims do not exclude silica from being included with the epoxy-based polymer. Additionally, the inclusion of Wang’s sealant composition would alter the porosity of the tile. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the combination of references teach the claimed features.
Applicant argues that the claimed sealant is applied to improve printing of the bullnose tile not to alter the abilities of the ceramic coating to improve protection of the metal surface underneath the coating. In response to Applicant's argument that Wang’s sealant is not being used to improve printability, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues that Kummoonin would motivate one to modify the composition of the mixture forming the bullnose tile to alter the porosity and not provide guidance or motivation to apply a sealant. However, Kummoonin is not being relied upon to teach or suggest application of a sealant. Kummoonin is being relied upon to teach the selection of a particular type of ceramic tile having a specific porosity. Furthermore, there is nothing in Kummoonin that teaches away from then altering whatever porosity of tile is reached with the addition of sealants and top coatings. Therefore, the rejections over the prior art are maintained as presented below.
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.
1. Claim(s) 37-49, 51 and 53-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caselli et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0291624) in view of Van Der Zwan (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0100207) and Wang et al. (“Preparation of silica/epoxy hybrid polymers as sealing layers on ceramic coatings and their stability study upon thermal treatment”) and Kummoonin et al. (“Fabrication of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Industrial Wastes”).
Regarding claims 37-49, 51 and 53-55, Caselli teaches a process for manufacturing a bullnose tile (claim 1) comprising: providing a ceramic tile comprising a base body made of a ceramic material (claim 1), wherein the base body has a main surface (Figure 1); wet cutting the tile to form the bullnose edge that exposes the ceramic material (0038, 0051-0052, Figure 2) and then drying (0052); printing a decorative layer directly on the ceramic material on the cut bullnose edge (0053) using an acrylate-based radiation curable ink set (0057) comprising cyan, magenta, yellow and black inks (0014) to form a décor that matches the decoration provided on the main surface of the tile (claim 5); curing the radiation curable ink using a UV lamp (0059); coating a curable protective coating on the décor using rollers (claims 16 and 17); and curing the protective coating (claim 16). Caselli additionally teaches that the base body of the ceramic tile may have a glaze which after the cutting step will be removed from the bullnose edge exposing the ceramic material (0038). Caselli also teaches that the step of printing can comprise first printing a base coat of white (comparable to a background color, see claims 11 and 12) and then printing the décor with the same printer (0062) and curing both the background color and the décor in a single step (0060). Caselli also teaches that printing step can provide passes through multiple printers (0062). Caselli teaches first printing a white background color and then printing a multi-color image matching the decoration on the tile while the tile is transported on a conveyor (0044 and Figure 6). Additionally, Caselli teaches that a curable (claim 14) tie-coat can be applied to the ceramic tile and cured (claim 14) before printing the decorative layer (0068) and that any of the layers of the print media (which includes the tie-coat) can be heat-cured (0061). Caselli fails to explicitly teach that the tie-coat is a sealant that fills the pores and fails to teach a specific embodiment in which the tie-coat is heat-curable and then cured by heating, and that the heat curable substance is an epoxy-based polymer. Caselli also fails to explicitly teach the printing being a single pass printing operation where the printer comprises a plurality of printing units aligned along the advancing direction wherein each of the plurality of printing units is configured to print one color and the first printing unit the tile meets is configured to print white ink. Finally, Caselli fails to teach the ceramic material has a water absorption above 0.3 or belongs to class B1b or B2.
First, Van Der Zwan teaches a printer for single pass printing (abstract) which comprises a plurality of printing units aligned along the advancing direction of an item to be printed (0001) wherein each of the units is configured to print one color (0002) that can be used for printing on ceramic tiles (0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Caselli’s process by performing the printing using Van Der Zwan’s single pass printer wherein the first ink that is printed is the white base ink to provide the background color as desired by Caselli. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Van Der Zwan teaches that the use of this type of printer allows for simple exchange of print-head modules limiting down time (abstract) and allows for more rapid printing than conventional inkjet printers (0002).
Second, Wang teaches application (Sealing and Curing Process section) of an epoxy based polymer as a sealant coating (abstract and Preparation of Hybrid Precursor section) to fill pores on a ceramic (abstract) followed by curing with heat (Sealing and Curing Process section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Caselli’s process by substituting Wang’s heat-curable epoxy polymer sealant which will act as a sealant to fill the porosity of the ceramic material for Caselli’s generic tie-coat and then heat curing. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Wang teaches that the heat curing epoxy-based polymer sealant yields good sealing properties, low viscosity, and high stability (see Conclusions section).
Finally, Kummoonin teaches a ceramic tile having a water absorption of 2.64% (see Conclusions section and note that a tile with an absorption of 2.64% is, as defined by Applicant, a class B1b or B2 tile, see Applicant’s specification at page 5, lines 10-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Caselli in view of Van Der Zwan and Wang’s process by substituting Kummoonin’s ceramic tile for the generic tile of Caselli in view of Van Der Zwan and Wang’s process. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would provide tiles that are environmentally friendly by utilizing recycled industrial waste (see Kummoonin at abstract).
2. Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caselli in view of Van Der Zwan and Wang and Kummoonin as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Zemel et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0156106).
Regarding claim 50, Caselli in view of Van Der Zwan and Wang and Kummoonin teach all the limitations of claim 49, but fail to explicitly teach that the UV lamps are gallium or mercury lamps. However, Zemel teaches curing acrylate-based UV curable inkjet printable inks (0029) with a mercury lamp or gallium lamp (0033) after printing on a substrate, such as a ceramic tile (0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Caselli in view of Van Der Zwan and Wang and Kummoonin’s process by substituting either a mercury lamp or gallium lamp for Caselli’s generic UV lamp. One would have been motivated to make this substitution as one having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly as Zemel teaches the mercury or gallium lamp for use in curing a similar acrylate-based ink for use on tiles), and the predictable result of providing a cured ink coating on the bullnose edge of the tile.
Conclusion
Claims 37-51 and 53-56 are pending.
Claim 56 is withdrawn.
Claims 37-51 and 53-55 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
October 10, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717