Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/551,045

DEVICE AND METHOD FOR COMPACTING CERAMIC MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 18, 2023
Examiner
NGUON, VIRAK
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
System Ceramics S.p.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
327 granted / 394 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
419
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
45.9%
+5.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 394 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/18/20203 has been 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 6-8 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 6 recites the limitation "arranging a first layer of ceramic material on the active portion of a first movable belt" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No active portion has been established to warrant the use of the active portion. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to read as “arranging a first layer of ceramic material on an active portion of a first movable belt”. Claims 7-8 are rejected for dependence on claim 6. Claim 8 recites the limitation "one layer can be positioned between the pads and the downstream layer can simultaneously be positioned between the pressers" in lines 2-4. However, claim 6 has established the pads are downstream of the pressers (reference lines 9-10 of claim 6); hence, it is unclear how said layer can be downstream if positioned between the pressers, which are upstream from the pads. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “one layer can be positioned between the pads and the upstream layer can simultaneously be positioned between the pressers”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 1389927A (of record, herein referred to as 'Wasagchemie'). Regarding claim 1, Wasagchemie (GB 1389927A; of record) teaches a pressing device (Figure 1) for pressing a layer of material (page 1, lines 73-74, apparatus for consolidating black powder), comprising: a first movable belt (lower belt 3), comprising an active portion substantially horizontal and movable along an advancement direction (Figure 1, section of belt between rollers 13, 14); a press (final press 7), provided with: a lower pad (Figures 1-5, bottom portion of final press 7), provided with a pressing surface facing upwards and arranged below the active portion of the first movable belt (as shown in Figures 1-5, bottom portion of final press 7 has an upwards facing pressing surface below active portion of belt 3); an upper pad (Figures 1-5, upper portion of final press 7), provided with a pressing surface facing downwards and arranged above the active portion of the first movable belt (as shown in Figures 1-5, upper portion of final press 7 has a downwards facing pressing surface below above portion of belt 3); wherein the two pads (11,12) can be activated to move towards each other so as to carry out the pressing of a layer of material by applying a predetermined pressing load (Figure 4; page 2, lines 109-115, hydraulic fluid is then instead delivered to final press 7…so that the initially compressed (preconsolidated) section 16 is further pressed by the second press); the pressing device comprises a compactor (initial press 5), arranged upstream of the press (as show in Figures 1-5, initial press 5 is upstream of final press 7), which comprises: a lower presser (Figures 1-5, bottom portion of initial press 5), provided with a pressing surface facing upwards and arranged below the active portion of the first movable belt (as shown in Figures 1-5, bottom portion of initial press 5 has an upwards facing pressing surface below active portion of belt 3); an upper presser (Figures 1-5, top portion of initial press 5), provided with a pressing surface facing downwards and arranged above the active portion of the first movable belt (as shown in Figures 1-5, top portion of initial press 5 has a downwards facing pressing surface above active portion of belt 3); wherein the two pressers can be activated to move towards each other so as to carry out the compacting of a layer of material by applying a compacting load (page 2, lines 70-77) which is lower than the pressing load (page 2, lines 95-97, the final press exerts a greater pressure than the initial press); wherein the pressers of the compactor can be activated independently of the pads of the press (page 2, lines 69-77, 97-118, section 16 is further processed by the second press). Wasagchemie does not disclose the material is ceramic material. However, this relates to the material being worked upon by the pressing device. It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault, 164 U.S.P .Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. In the instant case, Wasagchemie discloses all the structural limitations of the apparatus; i.e., the pressing device. Regarding claim 2, Wasagchemie further discloses an oil-hydraulic unit arranged to activate the two pressers of the compactor (page 2, lines 98-101, providing the presses with actuating pistons of different sizes supplied from a common source of hydraulic fluid). Regarding claim 3, Wasagchemie teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses said oil-hydraulic unit comprises two or more pistons associated with the lower presser and/or the upper presser (page 2, lines 98-101, providing the presses with actuating pistons of different sizes supplied from a common source of hydraulic fluid). Regarding claim 4, Wasagchemie further discloses a second movable belt (upper belt 4 in Figure 1), comprising an active portion movable along the advancement direction (Figure 1, section of belt between rollers 13, 14)) and substantially parallel to and superimposed on the active portion of the first movable belt (as shown in Figures 1-5, active portions of belts 3, 4 are parallel and superimposed to each other), wherein the upper presser and the upper pad are arranged above the active portion of the second movable belt (as shown in Figures 1-5, top portion of initial press 5 and top portion of final press 7 are arranged above active portion of belt 4). Regarding claim 5, Wasagchemie further discloses the active portion of the first movable belt (3) is arranged, at least for a part of the extension thereof, both between the pressers and between the pads (as shown Figures 1-5, active portion of belt 3 extends between pressers of initial press 5 and pads of final press 7). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 6-8 are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN2604298Y; of record, further translation provided), in view of Francisco (WO 2010/146189 A1; of record, further translation provided). Regarding claim 6, Xu teaches a pressing method for pressing a layer of ceramic material (paragraphs 0047-0050, ceramic powder), comprising following steps: arranging a first layer of ceramic material on [an] active portion of a first movable belt (Figure 1, layer of ceramic powder is arranged on portion of belt (4) between wheels 3 (i.e., active portion of belt); paragraph 0050); activating the first movable belt (4) to make the active portion advance along an advancement direction and position the first layer between two pressers (12, 9 in Figure 3) of a compactor (pre-pressing device 11; paragraph 0050, ceramic semi-dry powder…is transported to the lower belt 4 through the hopper 5…and then it is transported by the lower belt 4 to the bottom of the metal cover 12); activating the two pressers (12, 9) to move towards one another to compact the first layer by applying thereon a predetermined compacting load (Figures 1, 3; paragraph 0050); activating the two pressers (12, 9) to move away from one another to release the first layer (Figures 1, 3; paragraph 0050); activating the first movable belt (4) again in order to position the first layer between a pressure wheel (6) an pad (9) of a press (paragraph 0048, The ceramic powder is then conveyed by the lower belt 4 to between the upper pressing wheel 6 and the base), arranged downstream of the compactor (as shown in Figure 1, pre-pressing device 11 is upstream thereof) along the advancement direction, and to position a second layer of ceramic material, previously deposited on the active portion, between the pressers (12, 9) of the compactor (11; Figure 1); activating the pressure wheel (6) and pad (9) to move towards one another in order to press the first layer (paragraph 0048, the upper pressing wheel 6 and the upper belt 8 press down and the base 9 pushes up) by applying a predetermined pressing load; activating the pressers (12, 9) to move towards one another to compact the second layer (Figure 1) by applying the compacting load, in a substantially simultaneous way with the pressure wheel and pad (6, 9); activating the pressure wheel (6) and pad (9) and the pressers (12, 9) to move away from one another in a substantially simultaneous way in order to release the first and second layer of ceramic material (Figure 1); activating the first movable belt (4) again to move the first layer away from the pressure wheel (6) and the pads (9) and to position the second layer between the pressure wheel (6) and pad (9) (Figure 1; paragraph 0048); activating the pressure wheel (6) and pad (9) to move towards one another in order to press the second layer by applying said pressing load (Figure 1; paragraph 0048). Xu teaches all the elements of claim 6, but does not disclose the predetermined pressing load is greater than the compacting load; nor the press comprises two pads. However, considering the compacting load is a pre-compacting step, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have applied a greater load, or pressure, thereafter to complete/ensure the compaction of the material. Francisco teaches an apparatus, and corresponding method, for compacting ceramic material (Figure 1), comprising: a compactor (400) for pre-compacting a layer of ceramic material; and a press (500) for further compacting the layer of ceramic material. Further, each of the compactor and press comprises an upper and lower pad configured to compact the layer of ceramic material (Figure 1). Hence, compactors and presses having the structure as claimed is known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the press as disclosed by Francisco, specifically, having an upper and lower pad for the press of Xu, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. Further, as Xu already discloses the press comprises two pads, one skilled would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the substitution. One would have been motivated to use upper and lower pads for the compactor for easier regulating of the amount of load applied to the layer of ceramic material. Regarding claim 7, Xu, as modified by Francisco, further discloses arranging a third layer on the active portion of the first belt (4 in Figure 1 of Xu), upstream of the second layer, in a position such that the third layer is positioned between the pressers (12, 9 in Figure 1 of Xu) when the second layer is positioned between the pads (6, 9 of Xu as substituted for pads disclosed by Francisco). Regarding claim 8, Xu, as modified by Francisco, teaches all the elements of claim 7 and further discloses arranging further layers of ceramic material, consecutively to one another, so that, considering two consecutive layers, one layer can be positioned between the pads (, 9 of Xu as substituted for pads disclosed by Francisco) and the [upstream*] layer can simultaneously be positioned between the pressers (12, 9 in Figure 1 of Xu). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stefani (US 2019/0061197 A1) discloses a pressing device for compacting a ceramic material comprising an upper and lower presser (11, 10) positioned above and below a first and second belt (2, 4). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00. 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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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. /VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 10/09/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 18, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595208
NOVEL MASONRY MATERIAL UTILIZING RECYCLED CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION WASTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589537
MOLD CLAMPING DEVICE AND INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589536
DIE CASTING DEVICE AND MOLDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583158
ROTATION DEVICE FOR INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583990
FOOTWEAR COMPONENT MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+19.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 394 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month