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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies.
Claim 18 recites “printing a sinking agent to determine a relief in the surface covering”. It is unclear if the claim is requiring a relief achieved by printing and if so what kind of relief OR if the claim is requiring a relief already present which is somehow detected by printing and if so what kind of relief. For the purpose of examination and based on applicant’s arguments submitted 12/03/2025, the claim limitation will be treated as “printing a sinking agent to form a relief in the surface covering”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (CN110746203). A machine translation of Ye is provided as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3-5, Ye teaches a method for manufacturing a ceramic tile (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.), the method comprising: providing a green tile having at least a green body with an upper surface (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.); providing at least a first surface covering on the upper surface of the green body (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.); and firing the green tile to obtain a ceramic tile having a surface structure on its upper surface (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.); and applying at least one sinking agent on the upper surface of the green tile before providing the first surface covering, the sinking agent determining the surface structure (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para., Example 1 step 7, Background last para.).
Ye teaches wherein the sinking agent comprises a physical sinking agent (ink) and/or a chemical sinking agent (bismuth trioxide) (Example 3 first para.). Ye teaches wherein the sinking agents are provided together according to a respective pattern (i.e. corresponding, Example 3 third para.). Ye teaches spraying and printing the ink, i.e. portions of the ink are applied before other portions such that chemical sinking agent is provided before physical sinking agent(The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.).
Regarding Claim 6, Ye teaches wherein the sinking agent is applied by inkjet printing (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.).
Regarding Claim 7, Ye teaches wherein the sinking agent is applied directly onto the upper surface of the green body ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ye teaches wherein the first surface covering comprises a glaze or an engobe (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para., [0004]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ye teaches further comprising providing a decor on the upper surface of the green tile (color pattern, The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.).
Regarding Claim 11, Ye teaches wherein the sinking agent is provided according to a pattern, that at least partially corresponds to the décor (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 2nd para.).
Regarding Claim 12, Ye teaches the process including applying a selected sinking agent pattern with a selected décor, i.e. wherein the decor is selected on the basis of the pattern of the sinking agent (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.).
Regarding Claim 16, Ye teaches providing at least a sinking agent according to a pattern on the green tile (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.); and providing at least a decor on the first surface covering (color pattern, The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.); wherein the decor is selected on the basis of the pattern of the sinking agent (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN 110746203A).
Regarding Claim 9, Ye is silent as to the dry weight of the glaze; however, Ye teaches glaze is protective (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st para.). Ye does not explicitly teach a dry weight between 600 and 900 g/m2; however, 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 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the glaze concentration of Ye as suggested by the reference, in order to achieve the desired protection, and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed concentration.
Regarding Claim 18, Ye providing a decor on the upper surface of the green tile (color pattern, The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.); providing a surface covering above the décor (protective glaze, The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.); firing the green tile to obtain a ceramic tile having a surface structure on its upper surface (The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.); and printing a substance (ink, The technical means adopted by the invention are as follows 1st and 2nd para.). Ye teaches the substance and décor both are printed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the same device for printing the substance and décor of Ye for the benefit of reduced equipment cost.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN 110746203A) as applied to claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 16 above, and further in view of Denis (FR2468566). A machine translation of Denis is provided as an English equivalent and is used in the citations below.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Ye does not explicitly teach the sinking agent applied before drying the green tile; however, Denis teaches a method for manufacturing a ceramic tile (claim 1) wherein the sinking agent is applied before a step of drying the green tile (abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Ye to include drying the green tile after applying the sinking agent, as suggested by Denis, because Denis teaches surface treatment before drying is known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the tile of Ye with drying after surface treatment, as in Denis. The combined references do not teach degradation of the applied sinking agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the previous Section 112 rejections and prior art rejections in view of Denis as the primary reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn. The Section 112 rejection of Claim 18 is maintained as discussed below. Regarding Claims 13-14, upon further consideration and as necessitated by the amendment, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Applicant's other arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 18, the sinking agent is printed to form a relief therein. In response to applicant’s argument, forming a relief is not the same as determining a relief. As discussed in the rejection above, the claim limitation will be treated as “printing a sinking agent to form a relief in the surface covering”.
Applicant argues the claims have been amended to require two sinking agents which are separate and distinct. Applicant argues Ye discloses only a single sinking ink. In response to applicant’s argument, Ye teaches wherein the sinking agent comprises a physical sinking agent (ink) and a chemical sinking agent (bismuth trioxide) (Example 3 first para.). Ye teaches wherein the sinking agents are provided together according to a respective pattern (i.e. corresponding, Example 3 third para.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712