DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination. Claims 1-16 are elected for examination on merits, and claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 but references “said one or more minerals belonging to the smectite group”. Said claim 1 does not contain any limitations involving “one or more minerals,” and as such there is not proper antecedent basis for the limitation of claim 3, and it is not clear which minerals are being referred to in the dependent claim.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 but references “said one or more minerals belonging to the smectite group”. Said claim 1 does not contain any limitations involving “one or more minerals,” and as such there is not proper antecedent basis for the limitation of claim 4, and it is not clear which minerals are being referred to in the dependent claim.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 but references “said one or more minerals belonging to the smectite group”. Said claim 1 does not contain any limitations involving “one or more minerals,” and as such there is not proper antecedent basis for the limitation of claim 5, and it is not clear which minerals are being referred to in the dependent claim.
Claim 6 contains a limitation stating that the claim 1 mix “wherein one or more minerals present in a concentration by weight […] comprised between 0% and 30%. It is unclear to which minerals this limitation refers, and the wording of the claims makes it difficult to understand if the dependent claim limitation is adding a limitation to an additional mineral element, or if one of the components recited in claim 1 is present in the range of the claim.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it recites that the minerals are selected from the list of the claim, and the list includes such compounds as iron oxides, aluminum oxides, and zirconium oxides. However, claim 1 is drawn to a mix comprising a frit, a tectosilicate flux, and a phyllosilicate binding material. None of these components are minerals that could be iron oxides, aluminum oxides, or zirconium oxides because they would then not constitute frit, tectosilicates, or phyllosilicates. The dependent claims of the application seem to indicate that the “minerals” referred to therein are the phyllosilicates (i.e. claims 2-3). It is thus further shown that the list of claim 7 is incompatible with the minerals being chosen therefrom. The metes and bound of claim 7 are therefore unclear, and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 8 is indefinite as depending from claim 7 and containing the indefinite limitations therein without clarifying the claim scope. It is not clear if the further specificity given to cyclosilicate and inosilicate compounds means that these are separate compounds added to the mix in addition to the tectosilicate and phyllosilicate, and if the mix may also or alternatively contain the other non-silicate compounds of claim 7 and still meet the intended limitations of claim 8.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 but contains a limitation to “said sodium oxide or potassium oxide.” Claim 1 does not reference sodium oxide or potassium oxide, and as such there is not proper antecedent basis for the claim 14 limitations.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 but contains a limitation to “said lithium oxide.” Claim 1 does not reference lithium oxide, and as such there is not proper antecedent basis for the claim 15 limitations.
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 but contains a limitation to “said zirconium oxide.” Claim 1 does not reference zirconium oxide, and as such there is not proper antecedent basis for the claim 16 limitations.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golitz et al (US 5583079) in view of O’Conor et al (US 4340645).
Regarding claim 1, Golitz et al teaches a ceramic product produced from a mixture of glass frit, fly ash, and clay. An embodiment is taught wherein a glaze composition is used in the manufacture of the ceramic product (see Abstract). The glaze is formed from a mixture (mix) that comprises 70-75 wt% frit, 2-4 wt% feldspar, and 2-3 wt% bentonite (see column 6, lines 56-62). Said feldspar is a tectosilicate and said bentonite is phyllosilicate. This mix meets each compositional limitation of the instant claim, and is for the manufacture of ceramic articles.
The Golitz et al document does not disclose a composition therein for the frit component. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Golitz et al in view of O’Conor et al in order to use a frit composition taught therein, because O’Conor et al teaches a glaze composition that can be applied to tiles, and provides a detailed teaching as to the components in said frit composition. The O’Conor et al frit component comprises 55.89 wt% SiO2, 7.33 wt% Al2O3, and 9.43 wt% CaO, and as such each component falls within the corresponding range of the instant claim (see column 4, lines 37-47). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use the O’Conor frit composition as the frit in the Golitz et al glaze because the lack of specific teaching in Golitz et al would cause one to look to other teachings for an appropriate frit. O’Conor et al provides such a teaching, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Golitz et al and O’Conor et al are each drawn to glazes used on tiles, thus used for the manufacture of ceramic articles.
The compositionally equivalent mix taught by Golitz et al in view of O’Conor et al would necessarily have equivalent properties to that of the instant claims, and would thus not form crystalline free silica at an amount of greater than 1 wt% when heated to a temperature of above 600 °C . Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, the Golitz et al bentonite component belongs to the smectite group.
Regarding claim 3, the Golitz et al component of bentonite is essentially comprised of montmorillonite mineral.
Regarding claim 5, the bentonite component of the Golitz et al composition can be considered the only component of the binding components, and thus constitutes greater than 65% of said binding components.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the mineral components of the Golitz et al glaze mix are present in an amount that is less than 30 wt%.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, the binding components in the Golitz mix comprise less than 21 wt% of the mixture.
Regarding claim 12, the O’Conor et al frit comprises 2.49 wt% BaO.
Regarding claim 13-14, the O’Conor et al frit comprises Na2O in an amount of less than 30 wt%.
Regarding claim 15, O’Conor et al teaches that the Li2O content of the frit can be 0 wt%. As claim 13, from which the instant claim 15 should presumably depend, states that the frit comprises lithium oxide or alternatively an oxide of sodium, potassium, or zirconium, a frit comprising 0 wt% lithium oxide and a non-zero content of one of the other of said oxides would fall within the scope of the claim 15. Such is the case for the O’Conor et al frit, which meets the instant claim 13 limitations and contains less than 10 wt% Li2O. The instant claim 15 is therefore patentably indistinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 16, O’Conor et al teaches frit compositions comprising ZrO2 in amounts of less than 30 wt%.
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridharan et al (US 2018/0186687 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sridharan et al teaches a sintered glass-ceramic produced from a mixture of glass frit and phyllosilicate (see Abstract). The frit component of the mixture comprises SiO2, CaO, and , Al2O3 in compositional ranges overlapping the corresponding ranges of the instant claim (see Tables 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Sridharan et al teaches that the inventive mixture comprises 40-60 wt% frit and remainder phyllosilicate (see claim 3). Thus, the Sridharan et al mixture comprises a frit meeting the instant compositional limitations, and that comprises a phyllosilicate component that constitutes a binder component meeting the limitation of instant claim 1. The mixture thus comprises two of the components called for by the instant claim, in the amounts recited therein.
The compositionally equivalent mix taught by Sridharan et al would necessarily have equivalent properties to that of the instant claims, and would thus not form crystalline free silica at an amount of greater than 1 wt% when heated to a temperature of above 600 °C. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, Sridharan et al teaches that the phyllosilicate component is present in an amount of greater than 5 wt%. Sridharan et al further teaches that said phyllosilicate component can be montmorillonite (see paragraph 0050). This is a smectite. As such, routine optimization and experimentation with the Sridharan et al teachings in choosing this smectite from the small and finite list presented would lead one of ordinary skill to a mixture meeting the further limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Sridharan et al teaches that the inventive mixture can contain additives such as thickeners (rheology modifiers) in amounts of 0.2-2.0 wt% (see paragraphs 0054 and 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, the Sridharan et al mixture does not contain kaolinitic clay.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW16 February 2026