DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/26/2026 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 8-22 have been cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation modulus rupture that is smaller than about 10 N/mm2, and the claim also recites in particular smaller than about 8 N/mm2, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation from about 0 (excluded) g/l (in particular, from about 0.3 g/l) to about 10 g/l, and the claim also recites (in particular, to about 5 g/l; even more in particular, to about 2 g/l) of solid particles which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation said solid particles of said jet (G) of water under pressure having an equivalent diameter, which is smaller than about 10 pm, and the claim also recites in particular, smaller than about 1 pm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation jet (G) of water under pressure comprises (in particular, is made up of) pure water and from about 0 (excluded) g/l (in particular, from about 0.3 g/l) to about 10 g/l, and the claim also recites (in particular, to about 5 g/l; even more in particular, to about 2 g/l) of solid particles, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation said solid particles of said jet (G) of water under pressure having an equivalent diameter, which is smaller than about 10 pm, and the claim also recites in particular, smaller than about 1 pm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" in line 7 renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3-7 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 2.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0209934), hereinafter MAKINO, and Erickson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0092364), hereinafter ERICKSON.
Regarding claim 1, MAKINO teaches: A cutting method of a layer (S) of ceramic powder material having a modulus of rupture that is smaller than about 10 N/mm2, in particular smaller than about 8 N/mm2 (MAKINO teaches a cutting method of a layer of ceramic powder [0031].); the cutting method comprises: a moving step, during which said layer (S) of ceramic powder material is moved by a conveyor assembly (7) along a given path (P) in a moving direction (A) through at least one cutting station (MAKINO teaches a moving step during which layer of ceramic powder material (10) is moved by a conveyor assembly (60) [Fig. 1; 0094; 0099; 0162].); and a cutting step, during which at least one first water-jet cutting device (21) cuts said layer (S) of ceramic powder material along a first direction (D1), which is orthogonal (in particular, transverse) to the moving direction (A), in order to cut said layer (S) of ceramic powder material and obtain a plurality of articles of ceramic powder material (MCP) (MAKINO teaches a cutting step using a water jet cutting device (30) cuts the layer (10) along a first direction which is orthogonal to the moving direction to cut the layer (10) and obtain a plurality of articles [Fig. 1; 0099; 0094; 0195; 0163].); said at least one first water-jet cutting device comprising a respective nozzle configured to dispense a jet (G) of water under pressure which, during said cutting step, intercepts and cuts said layer (S) of ceramic powder material (MAKINO teaches at least one water jet cutting apparatus (30) with a nozzle configured to dispense water under pressure and to cut the layer of ceramic powder material [0195; 0198; 0075-0076; 0090; Figs. 1, 6].); said jet (G) of water under pressure comprising (in particular, being made up of) pure water and from about 0 (excluded) g/l (in particular, from about 0.3 g/1) to about 10 g/l (in particular, to about 5 g/l; even more in particular, to about 2 g/1) of solid particles (MAKINO teaches air or an abrasive may be introduced from the inlet, indicating that 0 may be used, therefore being pure water [0155], meeting the claimed limitation.); said solid particles of said jet (G) of water under pressure having an equivalent diameter, which is smaller than about 10 µm (in particular, smaller than about 1 µm) (The claimed limitation indicates “pure water” therefore indicating that solid particles would be optional and not required.).
MAKINO does not teach explicitly the limitation “said solid particles of said jet (G) of water under pressure having an equivalent diameter, which is smaller than about 10 µm (in particular, smaller than about 1 µm)”; however, the limitation of the water jet beforehand indicates the jet may use “pure water” indicating that solid particles are not required, thus this limitation is optional and not required. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, water jet cutters, ERICKSON teaches said solid particles of said jet (G) of water under pressure having an equivalent diameter, which is smaller than about 10 µm (in particular, smaller than about 1 µm) (ERICKSON teaches the abrasive particles in the water jet cutting fluid is 8-64 microns, overlapping the claimed range [0011]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MAKINO, by having abrasive particles in the range of 8-64 microns, as suggested by ERICKSON, in order to provide a chemical/mechanical cut and polish action that permits improvement in cycle times, costs and/or quality [0011].
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0209934), hereinafter MAKINO, and Erickson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0092364), hereinafter ERICKSON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivola (U.S. 6,607,691), hereinafter RIVOLA.
Regarding claim 2, MAKINO and ERICKSON teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: said at least a second water-jet cutting device comprises a respective nozzle configured to dispense a jet (G) of water under pressure which, during said cutting step, intercepts and cuts said layer (S) of ceramic powder material (MAKINO teaches at least two water jet cutters (30a, 30b) [Fig. 6; 0198-0202].); and said jet (G) of water under pressure comprises (in particular, is made up of) pure water and from about 0 (excluded) g/l (in particular, from about 0.3 g/l) to about 10 g/l (in particular, to about 5 g/l (MAKINO teaches air or an abrasive may be introduced from the inlet, indicating that 0 may be used, therefore being pure water [0155], meeting the claimed limitation.); even more in particular, to about 2 g/l) of solid particles; in particular, said solid particles of said jet (G) of water under pressure have an equivalent diameter which is smaller than about 10 pm (in particular, smaller than about 1 pm) (ERICKSON teaches the abrasive particles in the water jet cutting fluid is 8-64 microns, overlapping the claimed range [0011]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.), but are silent as to: wherein: during said cutting step, said at least a second water-jet cutting device cuts said layer (S) of ceramic powder material along a second direction (D2) which is parallel to the moving direction (A) in order to obtain a plurality of articles of ceramic powder material (MCP). In the same field of endeavor, cutting, RIVOLA teaches at least a second water-jet cutting device (102/103) cuts a layer of ceramic powder material (140) along a second direction which is parallel to the moving direction in order to obtain a plurality of articles of ceramic powder material [Figs. 7, 10; Col. 6, lines 22-47; Col. 7, lines 10-30; Col. 7, lines 48-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MAKINO and ERICKSON, by having a second cutting device in a second direction parallel to the moving direction, as suggested by RIOVLA, in order to consume less power and decrease wear [Col. 1, lines 44-65].
Regarding claim 3, RIVOLA further teaches: wherein said cutting step comprises: a first cutting sub-step, during which said at least one second water-jet cutting device, which is arranged at a first cutting site of said cutting station, cuts said layer (S) of ceramic powder material along said second direction (D2) while said layer (S) of ceramic powder material is moved along said given path (P) through said first cutting site (RIVOLA teaches a first cutting sub-step during which said at least one second water-jet cutting device (100/103/102), which is arranged at a first cutting site of said cutting station (1), cuts said layer (140) of ceramic powder along said direction (D2), while the layer is moved along the given path of the cutting site [Figs. 7, 10].); and a second cutting sub-step, which is at least partially subsequent to said first cutting sub-step and during which said at least one first water-jet cutting device, which is arranged at a second cutting site of said cutting station, cuts said layer (S) of ceramic powder material along said first direction (D1) (RIVOLA further teaches a second cutting sub-step, which is at least partially subsequent to said first cutting sub-step and during which said at least one first water jet-cutting device (100/103/102), which is arranged at a second cutting site of said cutting station (1), cuts said layer (140) of ceramic powder along said first direction (D1) [Figs. 7, 10].).
Regarding claim 5, MAKINO teaches: wherein during said cutting sub-step, said conveyor assembly stops said layer (S) of ceramic powder material at said second cutting site, and said at least one first water-jet cutting device dispenses said jet (G) of water under pressure while it moves along a cutting path (PT), which develops along said first direction (D1), so as to intercept said layer (S) of ceramic powder material and cut the layer (S) of ceramic powder material (MAKINO teaches the conveyor may be stopped immediately before the water jet cutting step, and the jet nozzle of the water jet cutter is moved in a direction perpendicular to the driving direction of the conveyor so that the body will have a cut surface perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the honeycomb dried body [0163].).
Regarding claim 6, RIVOLA further teaches: wherein: during said moving step, said layer (S) of ceramic powder material is moved along a first segment (T1) of the moving path (P) and at least along a second segment (T2) of the moving path (P), which is arranged downstream of said first segment (T1) (RIVOLA teaches the layer of ceramic material (140) is moved along a first segment (7) of the moving path and at least along a second segment (79) is arranged downstream of the first segment [Fig. 10; Col. 7, lines 10-30].);during said first cutting sub-step, said layer (S) of ceramic powder material is moved along the first segment (T1) of the moving path (P) and is cut by said at least one second water-jet cutting device so as to obtain at least one portion (P1) of said layer (S) of ceramic powder material having a first orientation (O1) (RIVOLA teaches the layer (140) is moved along the first segment (7) and is cut by the water-jet cutting device so as to obtain at least one portion of said layer (14) of ceramic powder material having a first orientation [Fig. 10; Col. 7, lines 10-30].); and during said second cutting sub-step, said portion (P1) of said layer (S) of ceramic powder material is moved along said second segment (T2) with a second orientation (02) (RIOVLA teaches during the second cutting sub-step, the portion of said layer (140) of ceramic powder is moved along the second segment (79) with a second orientation [Fig. 10; Col. 7, lines 10-30].), which is rotated by about 90° relative to the first orientation (O1) (RIVOLA shows the orientation is rotated by about 90° relative to the first orientation [Fig. 10; Col. 7, lines 10-30].), and said at least one first water-jet cutting device, which is arranged at said second cutting site, cuts said portion (P1) of said layer (S) of ceramic powder material moving along said second segment (T2) with said second orientation (O2) (RIOVLA teaches at least another water-jet cutting device arranged at the second segment (79) cuts the layer (140) at its second orientation [Fig. 10; Col. 7, lines 10-30].).
Regarding claim 7, RIVOLA further teaches: a deflection step, which is at least partially subsequent to said first cutting sub- step and is at least partially prior to said second cutting sub-step, during which a deflection assembly rotates said at least one portion (P1) of said layer (S) of ceramic powder material by about 90° so as to pass from said first orientation (O1) to said second orientation (O2) (RIVOLA teaches a pusher (78) feeds the tiles (14) obtained from the panel to the next conveyor (79), inserting them between two aligning guides (333) of adjustable distance apart, which changes the orientation of the layer to be fed to the second water-jet cutter from the first orientation to the second orientation by about 90° [Col. 7, lines 20-30; Fig. 10].).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0209934), hereinafter MAKINO, Erickson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2003/0092364), hereinafter ERICKSON, and Rivola (U.S. 6,607,691), hereinafter RIVOLA, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (U.S. 5,670,104), hereinafter MIURA.
Regarding claim 4, MAKINO teaches: wherein, during said second cutting sub-step, said layer (S) of ceramic powder material is moved along said given path (P) through said second cutting site and said at least one first water-jet cutting device dispenses said jet (G) of water under pressure (MAKINO teaches the second cutting sub-step, the layer of ceramic powder (10/20a) is moved along path through said second cutting site and said at least one first water-jet cutting device (30a) dispenses said jet of water under pressure while it translates along a third direction [Fig. 6; 0198-0200].), but is silent as to: while it translates along a third direction (D3), which is oblique relative to said moving direction (A) and to said first direction (D1), so as to cut said layer (S) of ceramic powder material along said first direction (D1); in particular, said at least one first water-jet cutting device moves along said third direction (D3) at a translation speed (VT), which is a function of the inclination of said third direction (D3) relative to said moving direction (A).
In the same field of endeavor, cutting, MIURA teaches a movable nozzle holding device 5 which is positioned at a predetermined angle for water injection to make a straight cut [Col. 2, lines 48-55]. MIURA teaches the nozzle (4a) is movable in track in holder 5 running in the direction of arrows 4d [Fig. 1B; Col. 2, lines 50-53]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify MAKINO, ERICKSON and RIVOLA, by having the nozzle holder be movable and running in the direction of the arrows, as suggested by MIURA, in order to make a straight cut across the structure [Col. 2, lines 52-53].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights