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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/26/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims 1 and 5-6. Claims 1-7 remain pending the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements and amendments that are fully addressed in the rejections that follow.
Applicant arguments and amendment regarding “Ulan tea-quartz” and the specific claim requirement illustrating the composition of such in percentage by mass and therefore limit the scope to that specific composition. As such, the 35 USC 112 2nd paragraph rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the “loss on ignition” is clear and it relates to the composition of the clause, as such the examiner withdraws this rejection over this phrase.
The remaining arguments are directed to the individual references as they apply to the amended claims. Please note that the test of obviousness is not an express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references, but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them (In re Rosselet, 146 USPQ 183).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires “the zinc oxide, barium carbonate, calcined talc and dolomite form a Ca-Mg-Ba-Zn flux mineral which is used to adjust a high-temperature viscosity, glossiness, and flatness of the surface on which the antibacterial protective glaze is applied” appears to be new matter for the following reasons:
There is no disclosure that the zinc oxide, barium carbonate, calcined talc and dolomite form a Ca-Mg-Ba-Zn flux mineral to function as claim.
There is no disclosure that the viscosity, glossiness and flatness is “of the surface on which the antibacterial protective glaze is applied” but rather would appear that the properties are attributed to the glaze itself and not the surface on which the glaze is applied (see Specification 0007, The Ca-Mg-Ba-Zn flux mineral refers to flux (type) mineral with a high content of calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, barium oxide and zinc oxide, which can be used to adjust the high-temperature viscosity, glossiness, and flatness of the glaze surface).
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend are therefore similarly rejected.
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 1-7 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 1 requires “the clay refers to kaolin being an aluminum silicate”; however it is unclear the metes and bounds of this claim requirement, specifically, whether the clay is kaolin or aluminum silicate, as the terms are not interchangeable (i.e. Kaolin may be an aluminum silicate, but aluminum silicate may not be kaolin). If the applicant’s require the clay to be kaolin (i.e. the clay is kaolin) the examiner will withdraw this requirement.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend are therefore similarly rejected.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112062470, hereinafter CN 470 taken collectively with TW 201534574, hereinafter TW 574 or visa versa taken collectively with CN 110342818, hereinafter CN 818.
Claim 1: CN 470 discloses a preparation method for an antibacterial ceramic tile, comprising: applying an protective glaze containing Ulan citrine (reasonably reads on the ulan tea quartz as claimed) on a surface of a green body; and firing to obtain an antibacterial ceramic tile (examples, see e.g. green body, sintering), wherein the mineral composition of the protective glaze includes Kaolin (reads on clay, aluminum silicate as claimed), barium, ulan citrine (reads on claimed ulan tea quartz), dolomite, albite, zinc oxide, alumina and discloses the Ulan citrine includes variety of rare earth elements (“Ulan Citrine also contains a variety of rare earth elements”).
As for the composition of Ulan tea quartz (applicant notes such is ulan citrine in Remarks dated 12/16/2025) and prior art discloses ulan citrine. The examiner notes a full review of the applicant’s specification appears to illustrate that those components are present in the Ulan-Tea quartz as supplied and the prior art, as noted by CN 470, discloses ulan citrine (citrine is a colored quartz) that includes rare earth and other materials (see CN 470) as discussed above. As such, while the prior art fails to describe with specificity the inclusions into the citrine, the prior art discloses ulan quartz (ulan yellow quartz) and a fair review of the applicant’s specification illustrates that the ulan quartz inclusions have the addition of the various materials as claimed and therefore the prior art disclosure of ulan quartz meet the chemical composition as claimed.
As for the loss on ignition; such is a property (i.e. result) and therefore the prior art that disclose and makes obvious the claimed glaze composition would have the same results unless the applicant is using different materials or process steps that are not disclosed or required to achieve the claimed results.
CN 470 discloses a protective glaze; however, fails to discloses the Ca—Mg—Ba—Zn flux mineral is flux mineral containing calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, barium oxide and zinc oxide. However, TW 574, also in the art of forming a glaze disclose an antibacterial glaze for ceramic tiles includes Kaolin, dolomite, zinc oxide, barium carbonate, talc, etc. (page 3) and discloses including in the glaze an CaO, ZnO, BaO and MgO (reads on Ca—Mg—Ba—Zn flux mineral) and including alkali metal oxides (potassium and sodium oxide) and rare earth oxide (see La2O3, Nd2O3). TW 574 discloses the antibacterial rate as claimed (see all embodiments, e.g. “Escherichia coli antibacterial rate is 95.38 %, staphylococcus aureus antibacterial rate is 98.52 %” which meets the claimed requirements, see embodiment 2).
Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified CN 470 to include the known additives to the protective glaze, including Ca—Mg—Ba—Zn flux mineral is flux mineral containing calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, barium oxide and zinc oxide, talc, rare earth oxides, etc. as TW 574 discloses a similar glaze and including these components therein to achieve the antibacterial glaze.
Alternatively, TW 574 discloses the components as claimed and discloses using feldspar; however, fails to disclose the Ulan-tea quartz. However, CN 470 discloses including ulan citrine in the glaze as “Compared with conventional feldspar, it has a certain degree of plasticity, which is obvious for improving the performance of glaze slurry” and therefore modifying the TW 574 to include ulan citrine to improve the performance of the glaze slurry would have been obvious as predictable.
Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
CN 470 with TW 574 discloses an antibacterial glaze, see e.g. TW 574 discloses the antibacterial rate as claimed (see all embodiments); however, fails to disclose the zinc oxide, barium carbonate, calcined talc and dolomite in the glaze with the claimed amounts. However, CN 818, also in the art of forming an antibacterial glaze with feldspar and disclose including “1-5 pts. wt. zinc oxide, 10-20 pts. wt. calcined talc, 3-10 pts. wt. dolomite, 10-20 pts. wt. barium carbonate” in addition to e.g. feldspar, kaolin (see e.g. abstract, entire reference). Therefore using these components in the antibacterial glaze, in the amounts as taught by the prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ranges of the materials overlap the range as claimed (for zinc oxide, dolomite and barium carbonate) or abut the claimed range (for calcined talc) and therefore makes obvious a glaze with the claimed ranges.
As for the requirement of the mineral composition and chemical composition, the combination of CN 470 with TW 574 discloses component amounts that overlap and/or abut the claimed ranges and thus make obvious such (see e.g. TW stating “SiO2: 46.0 ~ 52.0 %, Al2O3: 18.0 ~ 22.0 %, CaO: 6.0 ~ 8.4 %, K2O: 3.0 ~ 5.0 %, ZnO: 5.5 ~ 10.0 % (preferably 6.0 ~ 10.0 %), Na2O: 2.0 ~ 3.0 %, MgO: 0.3 ~ 0.6 %, BaO: 5.0 ~ 7.0 %, Bi2O3: 1.0 ~ 2.0 %, CeO2: 0.2 ~ 0.5 %, P2O5: 0.6 ~ 1.5 %, ZrO2: 0.4 ~ 1.3 %, Ag: 0.1 to 0.3 %”). Additionally, compare Applicant’s disclosed composition (see Examples) with that of TW 574 (see feldspar, kaolin, dolomite, zinc oxide, talc, etc) and ranges of components that overlap the ranges as disclosed by the applicant and thus make obvious the glaze composition both in mineral and chemical composition.
Ulan-Tea quartz as supplied and the prior art, as noted by CN 470, discloses ulan citrine (citrine is a colored quartz) that includes rare earth and other materials (see CN 470) as discussed above. As such, while the prior art fails to describe with specificity the inclusions into the citrine, the prior art discloses ulan quartz (ulan yellow quartz) and a fair review of the applicant’s specification illustrates that the ulan quartz inclusions have the addition of the various materials as claimed and therefore the prior art disclosure of ulan quartz meet the chemical composition as claimed.
At the very least, the concentration of each of the components is well recognized to be a result effective variable, directly affecting the glaze properties and therefore determination of the amount of each component would have been obvious to provide a glaze with the desired and optimum properties.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
As for the requirement “used to adjust a high-temperature viscosity, glossiness, and flatness of the surface on which the antibacterial protective glaze is applied” and “the clay refers to kaolin being aluminum silicate with bonding and plasticity”, these appear to be mere recognition of intended use of the materials and the prior art discloses the same materials taught by the instant application to achieve these properties and thus the prior art would meet the instant claims as drafted.
Claim 2: The concentration of the components are specifically addressed above. As for the various components not specifically disclosed by the prior art, the examiner notes a full review of the applicant’s specification appears to illustrate that those components are present in the Ulan-Tea quartz as supplied and the prior art, as noted by CN 470, discloses ulan citrine (citrine is a colored quartz) that includes rare earth and other materials (see CN 470) as discussed above. As such, while the prior art fails to describe with specificity the inclusions into the citrine, the prior art discloses ulan quartz (ulan yellow quartz) and a fair review of the applicant’s specification illustrates that the ulan quartz inclusions have the addition of the various materials as claimed and therefore the prior art disclosure of ulan quartz meet the chemical composition as claimed.
As for the loss on ignition; such is a property (i.e. result) and therefore the prior art that disclose and makes obvious the claimed glaze composition would have the same results unless the applicant is using different materials or process steps that are not disclosed or required to achieve the claimed results.
Claim 3: CN 470 discloses spraying the glaze (examples); however, fails to disclose the amount and specific gravity. However, the amount would be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the benefits of the glaze and completely coating the ceramic versus providing too thick a glaze and thus determination of the optimum coating amount would have been obvious through routine experimentation. Additionally, the specific gravity for spraying would have been recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the spraying process and thus it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum specific gravity to properly spray and deposit the glaze using routine experimentation.
Claim 4: CN 470 discloses firing for temperature of 1170-1220C for a duration of 40-60 minutes, each of the ranges overlap/abut the ranges claimed and thus make obvious such (page 2).
Claim 5: TW 574 discloses a cover glaze on the green body before applying the protective glaze (see e.g. embodiment 1, related to ink).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 470 taken collectively with TW 574 or visa versa and further with CN 818 as applied above and further with CN 105198217A, hereinafter CN 217.
CN 470 taken collectively with TW 574 or visa versa and further with CN 818 discloses all that is taught above and discloses a surface glaze and the examiner cites here CN 217, which discloses a green ceramic with a cover glaze and a bottom glaze (description) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified CN 470 taken collectively with TW 574 or visa versa and further with CN 818 to provide a cover glaze and bottom glaze as CN 217 discloses depositing multiple glazes on a green ceramic is known and suitable in the art. Here, the order of the glaze application would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as a selection of a finite number of predictable solutions.
Claim 6: CN 217 discloses a glaze including zirconium oxide and alkali metal oxide that overlap the ranges as claimed (see Description) and thus make obvious the claimed ranges. The amount of silica and alumina are outside the claimed range; however, the concentration of each of the component, including the base silica and alumina, is well recognized to be a result effective variable, directly affecting the glaze properties and therefore determination of the amount of each component would have been obvious to provide a glaze with the desired and optimum properties. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim 7: CN 470 discloses spraying the glaze (examples) and thus spraying both glazes would have been obvious; however, fails to disclose the amount and specific gravity. However, the amount would be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the benefits of the glaze and completely coating the ceramic versus providing too thick a glaze and thus determination of the optimum coating amount would have been obvious through routine experimentation. Additionally, the specific gravity for spraying would have been recognized as a result effective variable, directly affecting the spraying process and thus it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum specific gravity to properly spray and deposit the glaze using routine experimentation.
Conclusion
See PTO 892 for pertinent prior art.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718