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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to EP23382114.9, with a filing date of 02/08/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Where only a single view is used in the application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation “FIG.” must not appear. MPEP 37 CFR 1.84 (u).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5 line 23 – it is suggested the phrase “Figure 1” be replaced by “the sole figure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12 – the claimed ranges for respective attributes are inclusive. Example: Claim 1 – the mixture of ceramic raw materials comprising 25-45% of clay materials, includes 25%, 45% values.
Regarding Claim(s) 8 – recites “clay materials comprise 5-20 wt% of ball clay based on the weight of the mixture of ceramic raw materials”. It is understood by the Examiner that ball clay is not one single mineral but a combination of minerals that includes, but limited to, kaolinite (within the kaolin group) , illite (within the mica group) montmorillonite (within the smectite group), and quartz, in a variety of different quantities of each.
General Note: The art does not recognize any distinction between coating and impregnating. In re Marra et al., 141 USPQ 221.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11 and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 – for the manufacture of a tile or slab / for the manufacture of a tile or a slab
Regarding Claim 3 – the shaped material has the form of a continuous layer / the shaped material has a form of a continuous layer; layer with a width of 0.6-1.9m / layer with a width of 0.6m-1.9m.
Regarding Claim 11 – providing a layer, deposit or a precursor thereof / providing a layer, a deposit or a precursor thereof; of a glaze, pigment, engobe, grit, frit, ink or a combination / of a glaze, a pigment, an engobe, a grit, a frit, an ink or a combination.
Regarding Claim 12 – in that the tile or slab / in that the tile or the slab.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
20180290918A1 by Lopez (herein “Lopez”) and in further view of (as submitted in the IDS dated
06/09/2025) (English language translation of the Description and provided herewith and referenced
herein) IT201800009672 by Bagatti (herein “Bagatti”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Lopez teaches a method for the manufacture of a tile or slab comprising;
a fired ceramic material that has a length of at least 1.2 m and a width of at least 0.6 m,
[0067], [0068], [0066], “the method of manufacturing the ceramic material”, “it can be manufactured in large sized pieces, even exceeding 3 meters in length and 1.5 meters in width…”, “…the firing cycle to which the material is subjected…”
wherein the method comprises;
a) preparing discrete agglomerates from a mixture of ceramic raw materials; [0035], “These particles are preferably obtained by wet grinding the start raw materials and spray drying”. Spray drying is a method to agglomerate ceramic particles/materials.
the mixture of ceramic raw materials comprising 25-45 wt% of clay materials, and 55-75 wt% of non-clay materials, based on the weight of the mixture of ceramic raw materials; [0039]-[0042], “…the starting materials comprise the following materials in the indicates ranges…”,
“Clays, 20-35% by weight, Kaolins 5-15% by weight, Feldspars 50-70% by weight”. Here, Kaolins are known to PHOSITA to be clay. Therefore, clays are 25-50% by weight and there are 50-70% non-clay materials (Feldspars).
b) dispensing the agglomerates onto a first conveyor and shaping them to provide a shaped material with a length of at least 1.2 m and a width of at least 0.6 m and
c) compacting the shaped material to provide a compacted material; [0022], [0060], “b) Shaping and compacting the raw materials…”, “After preparing the mixture of particles forming the raw material, the method includes a compacting step using a continuous pressing station, comprising compacting means in the form of a compacting roller and belt. If required, the product is cut after compacting, for example in the form of a rectangular slab”. While Lopez does not teach the exact size of the rectangular slab, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut a slab to at least 1.2m in length and at least 0.6mm wide. One would have been motivated to do so for purpose of cutting the compacted article to the desired shape, as noted by Lopez [0060].
d) firing the compacted material with a temperature profile having a maximum between 1,100°C and 1,200°C; [0022], [0023], “b) Shaping and compacting the raw materials obtained in step a) at pressures exceeding 400 kg/cm 2; c) Firing the product obtained in step b) at a maximum temperature comprised between 1,000° C. and 1,200° C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Lopez’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
And (ii) compacting step c) comprises sequentially,
c1) compacting the shaped material at a pressure of 50-100 kg/cm2 directly on the first conveyor to provide a pre-compacted shaped material , as it moves at a speed of 3-9 m/min between opposed rollers of a continuous press; [0060], “…the method includes a compacting step using a continuous pressing station...comprising compacting means in the form of a compacting roller and belt. … the mixture of particles of raw materials are compacted at a pressure of between 30 and 110 kg/cm2 …”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Lopez’s pressure that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. Also, Lopez discloses a continuous pressing station on a belt where the belt must be moving at pace. While Lopez does not disclose moving at a speed of 3-9m/min, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pressing operation and the belt speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to optimize the belt speed for the purpose of integrating the speed with the size of tile slab and production requirements. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
and c2) compacting the pre-compacted shaped material with a uniaxial hydraulic press at a pressure of 350-500 kg/cm2; [0061], “After compacting, the method includes a pressing step carried out at high pressures…the pressure is comprised between 400 and 450 kg/cm2..” Uniaxial pressing is common in the ceramic pressing industry. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Wherein Lopez is silent regarding,
(i) the non-clay materials comprise 2-12 wt% of a calcium silicate material based on the weight of the mixture of ceramic raw materials, the calcium silicate material selected from wollastonite, diopside, tremolite, garnet, and mixtures thereof;
In a similar endeavor of manufacturing large ceramic tiles (lines 83, 173-174) containing clays and feldspars (line 79) that are atomized (spray dried) and that are unidirectionally pressed (line 195) where the material is fired at less than 1220°C (line 206), Bagatti discloses an embodiment of a ceramic mixture to manufacture tiles that contains 9-22% wollastonite (line 76) (as PHOSITA would know the chemical formula for wollastonite is CaSiO3 ). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the portion of Bagatti’s wt% of calcium silicate material range that corresponds to the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. One would have been motivated to include wollastonite in the ceramic mixture to produce tile with low water absorption, low linear shrinkage, and increased plant productivity, as noted by Bagatti (lines 119-122).
Regarding Claim 2 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the shaped material in b) has a thickness 25-80 mm; [0068], “…even exceeding 3 meters in length and 1.5 meters in width, and with a thickness that can reach up to 3 cm or more if required”. 3cm or more = 30mm or more.
Regarding Claim 3 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the shaped material has the form of a continuous layer with a width of 0.6 -1.9 m.
[0060], “After preparing the mixture of particles forming the raw material, the method includes a compacting step using a continuous pressing station, comprising compacting means in the form of a compacting roller and belt. If required, the product is cut after compacting, for example in the form of a rectangular slab”. While Lopez does not teach the exact size of the rectangular slab, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cut a slab to at least 1.2m in length and at least 0.6mm wide. One would have been motivated to do so for purpose of cutting the compacted article to the desired shape, as noted by Lopez [0060].
Regarding Claim 4 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
the speed in step ci) is 3-7 m/min; [0060], “…the method includes a compacting step using a
continuous pressing station...comprising compacting means in the form of a compacting roller
and belt…”. Lopez discloses a continuous pressing station on a belt where the belt must be
moving at pace. While Lopez does not disclose moving at a speed of 3-7m/min, it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to optimize the pressing operation and the belt speed, since it has been held
that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been
motivated to optimize the belt speed for the purpose of integrating the speed with the size of
tile slab and production requirements. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the
optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the
absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 5 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the calcium silicate material is selected from wollastonite, diopside and mixtures thereof.
Bagatti discloses an embodiment of a ceramic mixture to manufacture tiles that contains wollastonite (line 76) (as PHOSITA would know the chemical formula for wollastonite is CaSiO3 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen wollastonite as a source of calcium silicate material per Bagatti and use in the method of Lopez, one being motivated to include wollastonite in the ceramic mixture to produce tile with low water absorption, low linear shrinkage, and increased plant productivity, as noted by Bagatti (lines 119-122).
Regarding Claim 7 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the clay materials comprise 5-35 wt% of kaolin, based on the weight of the weight of the
mixture of ceramic raw materials; ; [0039],[0041], “…the starting materials comprise the following materials in the indicates ranges…”, “Kaolins 5-15% by weight.”
Regarding Claim 8 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
clay materials comprise 5-20 wt% of ball clay based on the weight of the mixture of ceramic raw
materials; [0046],[0040], “…the clays comprise montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite…
clays comprise at least 60% by weight of montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite based on the total
weight of the clays.” Montmorillonite, illite and kaolinite are the main minerals of ball clays. As
clays are 20-35% by weight [0040], 60% of 20-35% by weight = 12-21% by weight of ball clay in
the clays. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have selected the portion of Lopez’s weight % ball clay range that corresponds to
the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the non-clay materials comprise alkali feldspar in an amount of 35-65 wt%, based on the weight
of the mixture of ceramic raw materials; Example 2, [103], [104] – in the embodiment of
Example 2, “38% sodium feldspar… 15% potassium feldspar…”. Hence, a total of 53% alkaline
feldspar.
Regarding Claim 10 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the non-clay materials comprise a zirconium containing material comprising 45- 100 wt% of
ZrO2, in an amount of 0-10 wt% based on the weight of the mixture of ceramic raw materials;
Example 2, [105] – in the embodiment of Example 2, “10% by weight of alumina and zircon
pigment…”. Lopez discloses the claimed invention except for the amount of wt% ZrO2 . It would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of
the claimed invention was made to optimize the amount of ZrO2 as one would be motivated to
do so to, as a PHOSITA would know regarding the use of zirconia in tile, to alter the opacity of
the tile to meet product requirements. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed In
the prior art it is not inventive to discover optimum working ranges by routine experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the
optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the
absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding Claim 11 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations
of claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the method comprises a step of providing a layer, deposit or a precursor thereof, of a glaze,
pigment, engobe, grit, frit, ink or a combination thereof on the compacted material obtained
after step c1) or after step c2) or after step d); Example 2, [0105],[0117] “…10% by weight of an
alumina and zircon pigment…”, “..the wet material is subjected to shaping and ultra-pressing at
450kg/cm2…”. Here, the ultra-pressing is c2. Here, the pigment is already in the ultra-pressed
material. While the material can be considered impregnated with the pigment and not coated,
or on the compacted material, the art does not recognize any distinction between coating and
impregnating. In re Marra et al., 141 USPQ 221. See Claim Interpretation.
Regarding Claim 12 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
Lopez teaches it is characterized in that,
the tile or slab has a length of 1.2-3.7 m, a width of 0.6-1.8 m, and a thickness of 12-30 mm;
[0068], “ …the product of the invention has unique mechanical properties allowing it to be
manufactured in large sized pieces, even exceeding 3 meters in length and 1.5 meters in width,
and with a thickness that can reach up to 3 cm (30mm) or more if required.”
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez and in further view of
Bagatti as evidenced by“ Typical Chemical and Physical Data of Some Fillers used in PVC” (Knovel).
Regarding Claim 6 - Lopez and Bagatti in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1.
the calcium silicate material is wollastonite comprising 40 - 50 wt% of CaO with respect to the
weight of the wollastonite; “ Typical Chemical and Physical Data of
Some Fillers used in PVC” (Knovel) cites wollastonite with calcium oxide of 48.30%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Imerys Ceramics France (EP2690077A1) discloses forming and firing a ceramic tile, where the composition contains clays, feldspars, alumina and zirconia silicate as well as an engobe composition.
Caroni (GB2416767) discloses a process for production of ceramic tile that includes continuous pressing with a pair of rollers on a belt where the ceramic material is compacted and fired. Also, a ceramic composition is cited containing kaolin clays, feldspars and other materials.
Beneventi et. al. (EP3459919A1) discloses forming and firing large ceramic tile, where composition contains clays, feldspars, zirconium silicate and other materials. Also, the tile contains a glaze.
Shchepochkina (RU25366031C1) discloses a ceramic material mixture for making tile that includes clays and wollastonite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights