DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Acknowledgement is made of amendments filed 06/26/2026. Upon entering the amendments, claim 2 is canceled and claims 1, 6-8, and 14-16 are amended. Claims 17-20 remain withdrawn from consideration as non-elected. The claims 1 and 3-16 are examined on merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s remarks have shown that the IDS filed 02/07/2023 should be properly considered for references 16 and 17, and the dates for said references are present on the form even though formatted over two separate rows. Attached is an annotated copy of said IDS showing consideration of all references.
Rejections Over USC 112 Withdrawn
Claim 1 has been amended such that there is proper antecedent basis for the limitations of claims 3-5, and the indefiniteness rejections of claims 3-5 are thus withdrawn. Claim 6 has been amended to overcome the indefiniteness rejections set forth in the previous office action. Claim 7 has been amended to depend from claim 6 and claim 8 has been amended to depend from claim 7, and the references in said claims 7 and 8 are now claim; the indefiniteness rejections of claims 7-8 are therefore withdrawn. Claims 14-16 been amended to depend from claim 13, and there is thus now proper antecedent basis for the claim limitations of said claims. Therefore, these grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 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. The Golitz et al bentonite component belongs to the smectite group. 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 3, the Golitz et al component of bentonite is essentially comprised of montmorillonite mineral.
Regarding claim 6, the Golitz et al mixture comprises a further flint mineral component. This mineral component is present in an amount of 1-2 wt% (see column 6, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned Golitz et al flint component is a silicon dioxide (silicon oxide).
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%.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections over Gorlitz et al in view of O’Conor et al, applicant argues that the Gorlitz et al document teaches away from a core objective of the instant application because the Gorlitz et a mixture comprises a kaolin component, whereas this is not desirable in the applicant’s intended formulations. This argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The rejected claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, and 12-16 do not preclude the inclusion of kaolin components. Thus, the contentions by applicant that such kaolin components are detrimental to the safety objective of the instant application do not show any patentable distinctness over Gorlitz et al. One of ordinary skill would not have had to make any modification to Gorlitz et al in terms of kaolin content in order to arrive at the instantly claimed mixture because the mixture of the claims themselves allow for its presence. As such, whether or not this component is detrimental or environmentally hazardous would have no barring on the ability of a skilled artisan to use the Gorlitz et al teachings to form mixtures that read on the coverage of the actual claims in this application.
Applicant further argues that the rejections are based on a supposed “proposed substitution of Gorlitz’s kaolin clay with a smectite-group mineral”. However, no such proposal was made in the previous Office Action and no substitution of kaolin for smectite-group mineral was the basis for any rejection. Instead, as can be ascertained from the previous Office Action and the rejections above, it is shown that Gorlitz et al teaches a mixture comprising both a phyllosilicate mineral and a smectite-group mineral (bentonite). Because the prior art relied upon for the rejections comprises the smectite-group component of the instant claims, it on its own teaches a mixture containing the claim components, and no “substitution” was or has been used as a rejection basis. Applicant’s arguments in this regard are therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a glaze-forming mixture has bene improperly conflated with a ceramic-forming mixture. However, the claims are drawn not to a ceramic, but instead to a mix for manufacture of ceramic articles. Thus, the claims are to a combination of ingredients, and not the resultant ceramic. As such, any prior art mixture that comprises the same components as the mix of the instant claims and would be capable of ceramic formation would read on the instant claim coverage. It is not a requirement that the prior art teach that the mix is used to form what applicant considers a ceramic (seemingly, specifically a dry-pressed, self-supporting structural ceramic article). The mixture of Gorlitz et al would be capable of producing a ceramic given the proper firing conditions, and thus the mix, which is compositionally equivalent to that claimed, also meets the preamble limitation.
Further, because the claim is drawn to a mix for manufacture of ceramic articles, it covers any mixture that meets the instant compositional limitations and that is capable of use in any step of ceramic article manufacture. Thus, a prior art mix that is compositionally equivalent would read on the instant claim coverage even if it were not usable for manufacture of self-supporting structural ceramic articles per se (and these further designations are not commensurate in scope with the “ceramic” of the preamble limitation). Thus, glazing a ceramic can be a part of manufacture of ceramic articles, and therefore a glazing mixture would also constitute a mix for manufacture of ceramic articles. Applicant’s arguments in this regard are therefore also not persuasive for these reasons.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive at showing that the kaolin component of the Gorlitz et al mix necessarily constitutes a binder component, and the further binder content imitations of claims 4-5 are therefore not present in the mixture of the prior art of record.
The previously applied grounds of rejection over Sridharan are withdrawn due to the amendment placing the limitations of dependent claim 2, which was not rejected on this ground, into independent claim 1.
The rejection of claim 6 over the previously applied prior art to Gorlitz et al in view of O’Conor et al is now focused on the flint component because the amendments to said claim now positively recite that the mix comprises a further mineral than those of independent claim 1. This change of scope for the claim necessitates a differing claim explanation given above.
The ground of rejection now applied to claim 7 over Gorlitz et al in view of O’Conor et al is necessitated by the amendments. The claim 7 limitations, depending as they now do from claim 6, now positively recite that there is an additional mineral component in a non-zero range and having the further compositional characteristics of said claim 7. These amount and compositional limitations are also found in the Gorlitz et al mixture, and therefore the previously applied grounds to Gorlitz et al in view of O’Conor et al are applicable to amended claim 7.
For the reasons discussed above, the grounds of rejection previously issued are maintained for claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, and 12-16.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a mix according to instant claim 1, and wherein smectite group mineral is present in amounts meeting the further limitations of claims 4-5. The prior art also does not teach or suggest a mix meeting each limitation of instant claim 1 and wherein the further compositional limitations of claim 8 are present, or wherein the mix comprises the further components of instant claim 9. Finally, the prior art does not teach or suggest a mix according to instant claim 1 and wherein the mix is free of kaolinitic clay.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10, and 12-16 are rejected. Claims 4-5, 8-9, and 11 are objected to. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
NSW2 September 2026
Prosecution Insights