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
The reply filed on March 16, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-8 and 14-15 are pending. Claims 9-13 and 16 are withdrawn. Claims 3 and 14 have been amended.
The previous objection to claim 14 is withdrawn as moot in view of the amendment to that claim.
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 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) 1-5, 8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 103319154 A to Hou et al. (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Hou”).
Regarding claim 1, Hou discloses a set of chemicals comprising: a ceramic material comprising a silicate ceramic material (5–60 mass% purple clay, a silicate ceramic material comprising kaolin, quartz, and mica; 10–60 mass% feldspar; see ¶ 0009, Abstract); and a binder comprising a gelling agent, wherein the gelling agent is a cross-linked polymer (see ¶ 0012, teaching a solvent that includes cross-linking agents and organic monomers to form a cross-linked polymer; ¶ 0015, teaching that the solvent and silicate ceramic material form a gel). Hou teaches wherein the silicate ceramic material includes feldspar (see ¶ 0009, Abstract) and wherein the proportion by weight of the ceramic material in the weight of the set of chemicals is at least 50 wt.% (see ¶ 0009, teaching 10–60 mass% feldspar and 5–60 mass% purple clay; the upper end of the combined taught range thus substantially overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, Hou teaches wherein the cross-linked polymer of the gelling agent comprises one or more repeating units, wherein at least one of the one or more repeating units has a chelating functional group (¶ 0018, teaching the formation of a cross-linked polymer from acrylamide monomer repeating units and N,N'-methylenebisacrylamide as a cross-linking agent; acrylamide repeating units include -NH2 and =O chelating functional groups).
Regarding claim 3, Hou teaches wherein the cross-linked polymer is a superabsorbent cross-linked polymer (see ¶ 0018, teaching a cross-linked polymer formed from monomers of N,N-dimethylacrylamide, a known superabsorbent polymer).
Regarding claim 4, Hou teaches wherein the set of chemicals comprises a solvent selected from the group consisting of water and alcohols (¶ 0017, teaching a solvent that is, in some embodiments, water, tert-butanol, or 1,2-propanediol).
Regarding claim 5, Hou teaches wherein the set of chemicals contains, as an additional component, a base selected from the group consisting of alkali metal and alkaline earth metal hydroxides and alkali metal and alkaline earth metal carbonates (¶ 0022, teaching a base that is, in some embodiments, potassium carbonate, sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, or potassium hydroxide).
Regarding claim 8, Hou teaches wherein the proportion by weight of the ceramic material in the weight of the set of chemicals is in the range of 50 to 90 wt.% (see ¶ 0009, teaching 10–60 mass% feldspar and 5–60 mass% purple clay).
Regarding claim 14, Hou teaches wherein the cross-linked polymer is a copolymer with a (meth)acrylic acid and/or sodium (meth)acrylate repeating unit (¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 15, Hou teaches wherein the proportion by weight of the ceramic material in the weight of the set of chemicals is in the range of 60 to 80 wt.% (see ¶ 0009, teaching 10–60 mass% feldspar and 5–60 mass% purple clay).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2016/182444 A1 to Hermann et al. (hereinafter “Hermann”).
Regarding claim 6, Hou teaches the set of chemicals according to claim 1, as set forth above.
However, Hou does not explicitly teach wherein the set contains, as an additional component, a biocidal preservative.
Hermann, in a closely related field of endeavor (3D-printable polymerizable composite resins that have antimicrobial properties; see Abstract), teaches a resin composition that includes a polymer matrix comprising at least one biocompatible polymerizable acrylic compound (Abstract); Hermann teaches that the composition comprises a methacrylate-based antimicrobial additive, i.e., a biocidal preservative (p. 8, lines 19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hou by adding a biocidal preservative as taught by Hermann. Known design incentives, such as the need to ensure the storage stability of the set of chemicals, would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to add a biocidal preservative to the set of chemicals in order to reduce the risk of spoliation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to add a biocidal preservative as taught by Hermann to the set of chemicals taught by Zhang as modified by Moszner, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0172444 to Bonderer et al. (hereinafter “Bonderer”).
Regarding claim 7, Hou teaches the set of chemicals according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Hou does not explicitly teach wherein the set contains a coloring component selected from Er2O3, Fe2O3,Co3O4, MnO2, NiO2, Cr2O3, Pr2O3, Tb2O3, Bi2O3 and mixtures of the foregoing.
Bonderer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a set of chemicals for a ceramic shaped part, the set of chemicals comprising ceramic particles, a binder, and at least one dispersant (Abstract). Bonderer teaches wherein the set also contains inorganic pigments and/or chromomorphic components (i.e., coloring component), which in some embodiments include Er2O3 (¶ 0082), Fe2O3 (¶¶ 0080, 0083-0084), or, more generally, oxides of Pr, Tb, Co, Ni, Bi, Fe, Mn, Cr, Er (¶ 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Bonderer to modify Hou by adding a coloring component as taught by Bonderer. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to adjust the color of a resulting ceramic product (such as a ceramic veneer) and in particular for a desire for a coloring component sufficiently stable to survive a sintering process (see Bonderer at ¶ 0077).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 13-19 of the Remarks filed March 16, 2026, hereinafter “Remarks”) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 8, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., “3D gel printing of porous calcium silicate scaffold for bone tissue engineering,” J. Material Science 54 (2019), pp. 10430–10436 (hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of CA 2371357 A1 to Moszner et al. (hereinafter “Moszner”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of those claims in view of Zhang as modified by Moszner has been withdrawn. Likewise, the rejection of claim 6 under Zhang as modified by Moszner and further modified by Hermann is withdrawn. The rejection of claim 7 under Zhang as modified by Moszner and further modified by Bonderer is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 8, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Hou have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Hou does not anticipate or render obvious the pending claims because the ceramic material of Hou includes materials other than feldspar. This entire line of argument rests on a flawed reading of the claim terms. Claim 1 recites, in line 2, “a ceramic material comprising or consisting of a silicate ceramic material.” The first noun in the limitation (“ceramic material”) is distinct from and broader than the second noun in the limitation (“silicate ceramic material”). In the broadest construction of claim 1, “ceramic material” comprises “silicate ceramic material”; however, due to the open nature of the transitional phrase “comprising,” “ceramic material” may also include other components. Thus, for example, a “ceramic material” comprising feldspar (a silicate ceramic material), purple clay, and quartz would fall within the scope of the limitation in line 2 of claim 1. The “closed Markush group recited in the claims” (Remarks at p. 8, line 8) defines the permitted constituent components of the silicate ceramic material; but the silicate ceramic material itself is only a component of the broader ceramic material. Applicant argues that “of the materials disclosed in Hou’s powder, only feldspar qualifies as a ceramic material within the meaning of claim 1” (Remarks at p. 8, lines 9-10). It would be more accurate to say that, of the materials disclosed in Hou’s powder, only feldspar qualifies as a silicate ceramic material; the powder does, however, include other ceramic components (e.g., purple clay; see Hou at ¶ 0009). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the rejection of the claim 1 does not equate feldspar and purple clay (see Remarks at p. 8, lines 3-5). Feldspar and purple clay are both ceramic materials; of the two, only feldspar is a silicate ceramic material. As set forth above, claim 1, as currently worded, does not limit “ceramic material” to “silicate ceramic material.”
All of Applicant’s further arguments with regards to the Hou reference stem from this flawed premise. Lines 8-9 of claim 1 recite that “the proportion by weight of the ceramic material in the weight of the set of chemicals is at least 50 wt.%.” Applicant argues that Hou does not read on this limitation because the feldspar in Hou (i.e., the silicate ceramic material) is less than 50 wt.% of the entire composition in Hou (see Remarks at pp. 8-10). However, a set of chemicals will read on the limitation in lines 8-9 of claim 1 so long as “the ceramic material” is at least 50 wt.% of the entire set of chemicals, and the ranges taught by Hou (i.e., 10–60 mass% feldspar and 5–60 mass% purple clay; see Hou at ¶ 0009) clearly contemplate total amounts of ceramic materials that amount to much more than 50 wt.% of the entire set of chemicals (see above, p. 3).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive for reasons detailed in the rejections under Sections 102 and 103 set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0249305 to Laubersheimer et al. (“Laubersheimer”) discloses a slip for use in a hot-melt inkjet printing process, wherein the slip comprises (A) ceramic particles, (B) wax and (C) at least one radically polymerizable monomer (Abstract). In some embodiments, the ceramic particles comprise leucite (¶ 0028).
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 PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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, AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights