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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 – 19, 21, 26 – 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (WO 2019/015237 A1 – US 2021/0147307 is used as the English-language equivalent, citations below).
With respect to claim 1, Li teaches a method for making a ceramic tile, comprising the steps of providing a raw tile having a body (item 1 – figure 1; paragraph 0055 – 0056); with an upper surface, said body being formed from a ceramic mixture (paragraph 0056 – 0057); providing surface coating on said upper surface of the body (see figure 1, examiner notes that the overglaze and decorative layer comprise the said surface coating as claimed), said surface coating comprising refractory particles (paragraph 0059, examiner notes that the particles which comprise the layer are refractory as claimed – refractory particles being chemical and heat resistant, of which oxides are known to be), and firing said raw tile to produce a ceramic tile (see paragraph 0108 – 0110); wherein it comprises a step of brushing the upper surface of the ceramic tile (paragraph 0129); wherein the surface coating comprises a base layer (overglaze layer 2, figure 1); and a decorative layer (decorative layer 3, figure 1); placed on said base layer, wherein said [refractory] particles are added into said base layer (see paragraph 0061); and wherein the surface coating comprises a protective layer above said decorative layer (protective layer 5, figure 1; examiner notes that the claim does not require the protective layer to contact or directly contact said decorative layer, it need ONLY be above said decorative layer).
With respect to claim 17, Li teaches wherein said brushing is carried out by means of brushes made of polymer material or metallic material (paragraph 0129).
With respect to claim 18, Li teaches wherein said brushes may comprise abrasive material (paragraph 0129).
With respect to claim 19, reference teaches wherein the brushing is carried out after the firing of the tile (paragraph 0129; step (g) is carried out after firing the raw tile).
With respect to claim 21, Li teaches wherein said particles are added to the surface coating in the quantity between 1% - 5% by weight of the surface coating (ranges of any of the particles identified fall within the range as claimed, see paragraph 0061, for example zinc oxide falls within range as recited).
With respect to claim 26, Li teaches a ceramic tile having a body with an upper surface and a surface coating of said upper surface (figure 1), in which said surface coating comprises refractory particles (paragraph 0061), wherein said surface coating comprises a base layer (overglaze 2, figure 1) and a decorative layer (decorative layer 3, figure 1) placed on said base layer and in which particles are placed in said base layer (paragraph 0061).
With respect to claim 27, Li teaches wherein said surface coating comprises a protective layer above said decorative layer (protective layer 5, figure 1; examiner notes that the claim does not require the protective layer to contact or directly contact said decorative layer, it need ONLY be above said decorative layer).
With respect to claim 30, Li teaches wherein said particles are added to the surface coating in the quantity between 1% - 5% by weight of the surface coating (ranges of any of the particles identified fall within the range as claimed, see paragraph 0061, for example zinc oxide falls within range as recited).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Li teaches the features as noted above, but does not specifically teach that the protective layer is free of said particles. Examiner notes that “said particles” refer to the refractory particles in the base layer and thus, examiner contends that the protective layer may have particles that differ from those in said base layer. In other words, claims 25 and 28 do not require that the protective layer be particle-free, ONLY that the particles in said base layer should not be in the protective layer.
The protective layer of Li may include particles wherein the species may not be the same as that which are in the base layer (see paragraph 0085). Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed such that the protective layer is free of said “refractory” particles [which are in the base layer].
Claims 20 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mushovic (US 2002/0098362 A1). Li teaches the features as recited above; however, does not teach wherein said particles comprise aluminum trihydrate.
Mushovic teaches a polymer-surfaced composite wherein filler and/or a polymer coat is applied to cement-based or ceramic tile structures (see background).
Typical filler may include aluminum trihydate (ATH) which is a UV-curable product (paragraph 0022). In addition, ATH, like other inorganic fillers, ensure that the tile or paver maintains key properties such as wear resistance, UV stability, stain and/or impact resistance (paragraph 0028).
Therefore, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include ATH as particles in said base layer since ATH is a typical filler and ensures that the tile or paver maintains key structural properties per the teachings of Mushovic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 -7, filed June 10, 2026, with respect to the previous rejection and the combination of Mushovic and Li have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously-applied combination and its order has been withdrawn. However, the reference(s) are re-applied but in a clearer order.
To applicant’s first argument that the office action erred in terms of the named layers and the positional arrangement, examiner concurs. The order implied by the claim(s) is such that the tile has a surface coating comprised of a base layer and a decorative layer and a protective layer from the bottom up to the surface. The examiner has examined the claims with this order; however, notes (see rejection above), that the protective layer need ONLY be above the decorative layer. It does not need to contact it directly. In addition, the examiner also notes that while applicant claims that the protective layer be free of “said particles” – this limitation is interpreted such that the protective layer need only be free of the refractory particles which are in the base layer; however, the protective layer may include other particles. The claim does not recite that the protective layer BE particle-free.
With respect to Li, applicant argues that Li’s particle containing layer is disposed above the decoration layer and thus, the base position layer is particle-free. To this point, examiner disagrees. The base layer is the overglaze layer and includes particles (see paragraph 0061). While the protective layer also includes particles, such particles need NOT be the same as in the base layer and thus, Li is still pertinent and has been applied as the primary reference. Li, however, does not teach the inclusion of aluminum trihydrate particles. To address this deficiency, the examiner does once again cite Mushovic. Mushovic teaches filler particles such as ATH as appropriate in a glaze (resin/binder mixture) as it does well to ensure the tile maintains its structural properties of wear resistance, rigidity, and UV stability (see Mushovic paragraph 0028).
The order of the reference(s) in this office action has been switched so that Li is relied on as the primary reference for teaching the named layers and Mushovic is simply introduced as teaching the ATH particles for inclusion in Li’s said base layer (overglaze). Based on this re-ordering, examiner has made this rejection non-final.
Reference of Interest
Solmi (US 3,628,989) is cited of interest. Solmi teaches a ceramic tile with a glaze coating thereon. The glaze coating is divided into three distinct layers (see figure 5) with an optional top layer of thin glaze which imparts a brilliant sheen to the tile (column 4, lines 60 – 65). In addition, the top layer may include colorant such as coloring clays or metallic oxides (column 5, lines 30 – 36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights