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 .
The amendment dated 02/18/2026 has been considered and entered. The response was considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 21, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Rittler (US 3,989,496), or, alternatively, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittler (US 3,989,496)
In regards to claim 1, Rittler teaches glass-ceramic comprising a barium and/or strontium iron silicate crystal (title). The material comprises phases containing BaFeSi4O10 which is a gillespite crystalline phase of the claim and which may represent the only crystalline phase, and/or in combination with SrO-Fe2O3-SiO2 (column 2 lines 44 – 52; column 3 lines 40 – 64). Rittler teaches the ceramic wherein the gillespite can be the principal crystalline phase provides crystallinity of much higher than 50%, and have diameters of 1 micron or smaller (column 6 line 36 – 41, Fig 2). Therefore, the claimed limitation is anticipated or is at least obvious.
In regards to claim 2, Rittler teaches the ceramic which can comprise barium and/or strontium iron silicate crystals as previously stated, thus allowing for the presence of an iron silicate phase.
In regards to claim 3, Rittler teaches the ceramic which is prepared in a platinum container and thus it is unclear if the composition would contain platinum in the very low claimed amounts (column 4 lines 7 – 29). A prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except for a property or function and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties that anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has a basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant, as per In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 4, Rittler teaches the ceramic which comprises SiO2 at 40-70%, BaO at 8-20% and Fe2O3 at 20-40% (Table 1, claim 1).
In regards to claim 5, Rittler teaches the ceramic and does not teach the presence of an alkali.
In regards to claims 6, 7, Rittler teaches the ceramic. While Rittler recites a coefficient of thermal expansion, they are not in the same units of ppm/℃ as claimed. However, since the ceramic contains similar composition at amounts similar to the claims, the properties would be expected to be similar.
In regards to claims 8 – 20, Rittler teaches the ceramic wherein the gillespite can be the principal crystalline phase provides crystallinity of much higher than 50%, and have diameters of 1 micron or smaller (column 6 line 36 – 41, Fig 2). Ritter recites SiO2 at 40-70%, BaO at 8-20% and Fe2O3 at 20-40% and thus other materials such as MgO, ZnO, CaO, SrO or their sum divided by BaO can be present at the claimed ratio and/or amounts. The crystallization is in situ as claimed (abstract).
In regards to claim 21, Rittler teaches the ceramic having the claimed limitations and thus appears to provide the claimed pigment.
In regards to claim 25, Rittler teaches the process wherein sufficient time is allowed for crystallization, as crystallization occurs at about 650 to 850℃ (column 7 lines 26 – 40). While Rittler recites times of at least 2 mins, process parameters such as amount of time and temperature are variables that are routinely optimized which makes the claimed limitation obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 – 24, 26 – 28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Rittler fails to recite the [Fe2+]/[total Fe] ratio of the claimed methods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ritter does not recite the presence of BaFeSi4O10 at greater than 50% of the crystalline phase or that BaFeSi4O10 comprises all crystals with sizes of below 30 microns. The argument is not persuasive.
Ritter teaches the crystalline phase can be the BaFeSi4O10 and/or SrO-Fe2O3-SiO2 and thus allows for the entirety of the crystals to be BaFeSi4O10. Also, Ritter teaches at least 50% of the crystals has a size of about 1 micron and thus allows for the entirety of the crystals to have the recited sizes. The scope of the teachings of Ritter are not limited to the exemplified embodiments.
Conclusion
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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771