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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desiles et al. (US20170152193, hereinafter referred to as Desiles).
Regarding claim 1, Desiles discloses a sintered body (See Desiles at [0001], disclosing sintered ceramic grains) comprising: zirconia (See Desiles at [0017], disclosing 40-95 wt.% zirconia) containing a stabilizer (see Desiles at [0063], disclosing stabilizing zirconia); wherein the stabilizer is yttria (See Desiles at [0100], disclosing yttrium) and one or more members selected from the group consisting of calcia, magnesia, and ceria (see Desiles at [0101], disclosing cerium), the yttria content is less than 1.5% by mol (See Desiles at [0100], disclosing at least 0.1 wt.% yttrium, which Examiner notes corresponds to at least 0.27 mol% Y2O3 as noted in the stabilizer equations in the following paragraph), and the stabilizer content if 4.2% or more by mole and 6.2% or less by mole (see Desiles at [0101], disclosing cerium … is less than 5 wt.%);
While it is mathematically impossible to directly convert wt.% ranges to mol% ranges, it can be demonstrated that the wt.% ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges by selecting a point within the wt.% ranges, converting that point to mol%, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, Desiles at claim 1 discloses 3-55 wt. % alumina, 40-95 wt. % zirconia and one or more other inorganic components in a total relative amount of 1-30 wt. %, wherein the grains have a rare earth metal content of 0.3-10 wt. %, expressed as rare earth metal oxide, and the grains have a yttrium content of at least 0.1 wt. %, expressed as Y2O3. Examiner notes [0109] of Desiles states the other inorganic components comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of rare earth metal oxides an alkaline earth metal oxides. Examiner additionally notes cerium is a rare earth metal per [0101] of Desiles. Desiles further discloses CaO is usually at ... 2 wt.% or less. Examiner notes these ranges disclosed by Desiles provide for values which contain the point 3 wt.% Al2O3, 0.6 wt.% CaO, 91 wt.% ZrO2, 4.9 wt.% CeO2, and 0.5 wt.% Y2O3, which converts to approximately 3.64 mol% Al2O3, 1.32 mol% CaO, 91.25 mol% ZrO2, 3.52 mol% CeO2, and 0.27 mol% Y2O3, which is within the claimed range because this provides a total stabilizer content of CaO+CeO2+Y2O3 of 1.32+3.52+0.27= 5.11 mol% stabilizer. Therefore, the wt.% compositional ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While Desiles does not explicitly disclose a region in which an impact mark is formed when an impact force is applied, this is a property which depends upon the hardness of the sintered body as evidenced by the instant specification at [0100], teaching that to facilitate plastic deformation, the sintered body according to the present embodiment preferably has a Vickers hardness (Hv) of 12 GPa or less. Desiles at [0122] discloses a hardness as determined by Vickers indentation at 98N of 900-1600, which converts to approximately 8.826 GPa to a maximum of 15.69 GPa, which overlaps with the hardness of the instant specification at [0100]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the sintered body of Desiles makes obvious a range of hardnesses which inherently possess the claimed property. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, while Desiles does not explicitly disclose the impact mark is a depressed portion, this is an inherent feature of what an impact mark is defined as, and therefore the sintered body of Desiles which would inherently possess an impact mark per the rejection of claim 1 above would also inherently possess the impact mark as a depressed portion.
Regarding claim 3, Desiles discloses the sintered body containing a pigment (see Desiles at [0056], disclosing iron oxide. Examiner notes iron oxide is a pigment per the instant specification at [0123] of the PGPub.).
Regarding claim 4, while it is mathematically impossible to directly convert wt.% ranges to mol% ranges, it can be demonstrated that the wt.% ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges by selecting a point within the wt.% ranges, converting that point to mol%, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, Desiles at claim 1 discloses 3-55 wt. % alumina, 40-95 wt. % zirconia and one or more other inorganic components in a total relative amount of 1-30 wt. %, wherein the grains have a rare earth metal content of 0.3-10 wt. %, expressed as rare earth metal oxide, and the grains have a yttrium content of at least 0.1 wt. %, expressed as Y2O3. Examiner notes [0109] of Desiles states the other inorganic components comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of rare earth metal oxides an alkaline earth metal oxides. Examiner additionally notes cerium is a rare earth metal per [0101] of Desiles. Desiles further discloses CaO is usually at ... 2 wt.% or less. Examiner notes these ranges disclosed by Desiles provide for values which contain the point 3 wt.% Al2O3, 0.6 wt.% CaO, 91 wt.% ZrO2, 4.9 wt.% CeO2, and 0.5 wt.% Y2O3, which converts to approximately 3.64 mol% Al2O3, 1.32 mol% CaO, 91.25 mol% ZrO2, 3.52 mol% CeO2, and 0.27 mol% Y2O3, which is within the claimed range because this provides a total stabilizer content of CaO+CeO2+Y2O3 of 1.32+3.52+0.27= 5.11 mol% stabilizer. Therefore, the wt.% compositional ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, while it is mathematically impossible to directly convert wt.% ranges to mol% ranges, it can be demonstrated that the wt.% ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges by selecting a point within the wt.% ranges, converting that point to mol%, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, Desiles at claim 1 discloses 3-55 wt. % alumina, 40-95 wt. % zirconia and one or more other inorganic components in a total relative amount of 1-30 wt. %, wherein the grains have a rare earth metal content of 0.3-10 wt. %, expressed as rare earth metal oxide, and the grains have a yttrium content of at least 0.1 wt. %, expressed as Y2O3. Examiner notes [0109] of Desiles states the other inorganic components comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of rare earth metal oxides an alkaline earth metal oxides. Examiner additionally notes cerium is a rare earth metal per [0101] of Desiles. Desiles further discloses CaO is usually at ... 2 wt.% or less. Examiner notes these ranges disclosed by Desiles provide for values which contain the point 3 wt.% Al2O3, 0.6 wt.% CaO, 91 wt.% ZrO2, 4.9 wt.% CeO2, and 0.5 wt.% Y2O3, which converts to approximately 3.64 mol% Al2O3, 1.32 mol% CaO, 91.25 mol% ZrO2, 3.52 mol% CeO2, and 0.27 mol% Y2O3, which is within the claimed range because this provides a total stabilizer content of CaO+CeO2+Y2O3 of 1.32+3.52+0.27= 5.11 mol% stabilizer. Therefore, the wt.% compositional ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, while it is mathematically impossible to directly convert wt.% ranges to mol% ranges, it can be demonstrated that the wt.% ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges by selecting a point within the wt.% ranges, converting that point to mol%, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, Desiles at claim 1 discloses 3-55 wt. % alumina, 40-95 wt. % zirconia and one or more other inorganic components in a total relative amount of 1-30 wt. %, wherein the grains have a rare earth metal content of 0.3-10 wt. %, expressed as rare earth metal oxide, and the grains have a yttrium content of at least 0.1 wt. %, expressed as Y2O3. Examiner notes [0109] of Desiles states the other inorganic components comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of rare earth metal oxides an alkaline earth metal oxides. Examiner additionally notes cerium is a rare earth metal per [0101] of Desiles. Desiles further discloses CaO is usually at ... 2 wt.% or less. Examiner notes these ranges disclosed by Desiles provide for values which contain the point 3 wt.% Al2O3, 0.6 wt.% CaO, 91 wt.% ZrO2, 4.9 wt.% CeO2, and 0.5 wt.% Y2O3, which converts to approximately 3.64 mol% Al2O3, 1.32 mol% CaO, 91.25 mol% ZrO2, 3.52 mol% CeO2, and 0.27 mol% Y2O3, which is close to touching the claimed range. Therefore, Krstic makes the claimed range of the yttria content from 0.5% or more by mole obvious.
Regarding claim 7, while it is mathematically impossible to directly convert wt.% ranges to mol% ranges, it can be demonstrated that the wt.% ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges by selecting a point within the wt.% ranges, converting that point to mol%, and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, Desiles at claim 1 discloses 3-55 wt. % alumina, 40-95 wt. % zirconia and one or more other inorganic components in a total relative amount of 1-30 wt. %, wherein the grains have a rare earth metal content of 0.3-10 wt. %, expressed as rare earth metal oxide, and the grains have a yttrium content of at least 0.1 wt. %, expressed as Y2O3. Examiner notes [0109] of Desiles states the other inorganic components comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of rare earth metal oxides an alkaline earth metal oxides. Examiner additionally notes cerium is a rare earth metal per [0101] of Desiles. Desiles further discloses CaO is usually at ... 2 wt.% or less. Examiner notes these ranges disclosed by Desiles provide for values which contain the point 3 wt.% Al2O3, 0.6 wt.% CaO, 91 wt.% ZrO2, 4.9 wt.% CeO2, and 0.5 wt.% Y2O3, which converts to approximately 3.64 mol% Al2O3, 1.32 mol% CaO, 91.25 mol% ZrO2, 3.52 mol% CeO2, and 0.27 mol% Y2O3, which is within the claimed range because this provides a total stabilizer content of CaO+CeO2+Y2O3 of 1.32+3.52+0.27= 5.11 mol% stabilizer. Therefore, the wt.% compositional ranges disclosed by Desiles overlap with the claimed mol% ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, while Desiles discloses tetragonal ZrO2 (see Desiles at [0097]) which contains yttria and ceria as stabilizers (see Desiles at claim 1), Desiles does not explicitly disclose a region in which a ratio of an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (004) plane of a tetragonal phase to an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (220) plane of the tetragonal phase is more than 0 and 1.0 or less. However, the ratio of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (004) plane of a tetragonal phase to an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (220) plane of the tetragonal phase is a property shows a sufficient condition for plastic deformation to occur when an impact force is applied per [0082] of the instant specification. As such, because Desiles discloses a composition substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed in the rejections above, discloses tetragonal ZrO2 per [0097], and inherently possesses a region in which an impact mark is formed when an impact force is applied per the rejection of claim 1 above, the invention of Desiles would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 10, while Desiles discloses tetragonal ZrO2 (see Desiles at [0097]) which contains yttria and ceria as stabilizers (see Desiles at claim 1), Desiles does not explicitly disclose a region in which a ratio of an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (004) plane of a tetragonal phase to an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (220) plane of the tetragonal phase is more than 1.0 and 10 or less when an impact force is applied. However, the instant specification at [0242] discloses Comparative Example 1-6 did not have a plastic deformation region, and I(004)/(220) of the surface of the sintered body before the drop test and I(004)/(220) of the portion other than the center of impact area were 0.38, and I(004)/(220) of the center of impact area after the ball drop test was 0.80. Thus, no significant change in I(004)/(220) due to the ball drop test was observed. Table 1 shows inventive Examples 1-1 through Examples 1-5 have a Ce/Y ratio of greater than 1.2, and form an impact mark, while Comparative Examples 1-1 through Comparative examples 1-5 have a Ce/Y ratio below 1.2 and do not form an impact mark. Therefore, the impact property appears to be dependent upon the presence of a tetragonal phase as well as the Ce/Y ratio which causes the presence of being susceptible to forming an impact mark. Because Desiles discloses a composition substantially identical to the instant composition as detailed in the rejections above, discloses tetragonal ZrO2 per [0097], and inherently possesses a region in which an impact mark is formed when an impact force is applied per the rejection of claim 1 above, the invention of Desiles would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 11, Desiles discloses the sintered body has a Vickers hardness of 12 GPa or less (see Desiles at [0122] disclosing a hardness as determined by Vickers indentation at 98N of 900-1600, which converts to approximately 8.826 GPa to a maximum of 15.69 GPa, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 12, Desiles discloses a member comprising the sintered body (see Desiles at [0002], disclosing wear components used in plants for grinding, crushing and conveying various abrasive materials which are encountered in industrial uses, in particular in cement factories; mines; metal industries, such as for instance steel-making industries; in foundries; power stations; recycling activities; quarries; dredging; ground engaging; oil-sands recovery. Examiner notes this corresponds to a member).
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krstic et al. (US20140011661, hereinafter referred to as Krstic).
Regarding claim 1, Krstic discloses a sintered body (see Krstic at the Abstract, disclosing a sintered body) comprising: zirconia (see Krstic at the Abstract, disclosing zirconia-based ceramics) containing a stabilizer (see Krstic at [0001], disclosing addition of yttria (Y2O3), ceria (CeO2) and chromia (Cr2O3) to partially stabilized zirconia (ZrO2)); wherein the stabilizer is yttria (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing Y2O3, which is yttria) and one or more members selected from the group consisting of calcia, magnesia, and ceria (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing CeO2 present at about 3 to 7 mol. %, which is within the claimed range.), the yttria content is 0.7% or less by mol (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing Y2O3 present at about 1 to 2.5 mol. %, which is close to touching the claimed range.) A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Krstic further discloses the stabilizer content if 4.2% or more by mole and 6.2% or less by mole (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing Y2O3 present at about 1 to 2.5 mol. % and CeO2 present at about 3 to 7 mol. %, where Examiner notes Y2O3 and CeO2 are both stabilizers per instant claim 5. This provides a sum total of stabilizers from a minimum of 1+3= 4 mol% to a maximum of 2.5+7=9.5 mol%, which is a range of stabilizers from 4-9.5 mol% in total, which overlaps with the claimed range.);
While Krstic does not explicitly disclose a region in which an impact mark is formed when an impact force is applied, this is a property which depends upon the hardness of the sintered body as evidenced by the instant specification at [0100], teaching that to facilitate plastic deformation, the sintered body according to the present embodiment preferably has a Vickers hardness (Hv) of 12 GPa or less. Krstic discloses a Vicker's Hardness in excess of 8.5 GPa, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, the sintered body of Krstic would inherently possess the claimed property. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, while Krstic does not explicitly disclose the impact mark is a depressed portion, this is an inherent feature of what an impact mark is defined as, and therefore the sintered body of Krstic which would inherently possess an impact mark per the rejection of claim 1 above would also inherently possess the impact mark as a depressed portion.
Regarding claim 3, Krstic discloses the sintered body containing a pigment (see Krstic at the Abstract, disclosing Cr2O3). Examiner notes Cr2O3 is a pigment
Regarding claim 4, Krstic discloses the ceria content is 3% or more by mole and 5% less by mol (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing CeO2 present at about 3 to 7 mol. %, which overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Krstic discloses the stabilizer is yttria and ceria (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing Y2O3 present at about 1 to 2.5 mol. % and CeO2 present at about 3 to 7 mol. %, where Examiner notes Y2O3 corresponds to yttria and CeO2 corresponds to ceria.).
Regarding claim 6, Krstic makes obvious the yttria content is 0.5% or more by mole (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing Y2O3 present at about 1 to 2.5 mol. %, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Krstic discloses the ceria content is 2% or more by mole and 7.5% or less by mole (see Krstic at claim 1, disclosing CeO2 present at about 3 to 7 mol. %, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Krstic discloses being substantially free of alumina (see Krstic at claim 1 and the examples a [0015]-[0019], disclosing no alumina).
Regarding claim 9, while Krstic discloses the matrix consists of a tetragonal crystal structure which contains yttria and ceria as stabilizers (see Krstic at [0013]), Krstic does not explicitly disclose a region in which a ratio of an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (004) plane of a tetragonal phase to an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (220) plane of the tetragonal phase is more than 0 and 1.0 or less. However, the instant specification at [0242] discloses Comparative Example 1-6 did not have a plastic deformation region, and I(004)/(220) of the surface of the sintered body before the drop test and I(004)/(220) of the portion other than the center of impact area were 0.38, and I(004)/(220) of the center of impact area after the ball drop test was 0.80. Thus, no significant change in I(004)/(220) due to the ball drop test was observed. Table 1 shows inventive Examples 1-1 through Examples 1-5 have a Ce/Y ratio of greater than 1.2, and form an impact mark, while Comparative Examples 1-1 through Comparative examples 1-5 have a Ce/Y ratio below 1.2 and do not form an impact mark. Therefore, the impact property appears to be dependent upon the presence of a tetragonal phase as well as the Ce/Y ratio which causes the presence of being susceptible to forming an impact mark. Because Krstic discloses a tetragonal crystal structure as well as Ce and Y content which provide for Ce/Y ratios which are greater than 1.2, this property would be inherently present.
Regarding claim 10, while Krstic discloses the matrix consists of a tetragonal crystal structure which contains yttria and ceria as stabilizers (see Krstic at [0013]), Krstic does not explicitly disclose a region in which a ratio of an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (004) plane of a tetragonal phase to an intensity of a powder X-ray diffraction peak of a (220) plane of the tetragonal phase is more than 1.0 and 10 or less when an impact force is applied. However, the instant specification at [0242] discloses Comparative Example 1-6 did not have a plastic deformation region, and I(004)/(220) of the surface of the sintered body before the drop test and I(004)/(220) of the portion other than the center of impact area were 0.38, and I(004)/(220) of the center of impact area after the ball drop test was 0.80. Thus, no significant change in I(004)/(220) due to the ball drop test was observed. Table 1 shows inventive Examples 1-1 through Examples 1-5 have a Ce/Y ratio of greater than 1.2, and form an impact mark, while Comparative Examples 1-1 through Comparative examples 1-5 have a Ce/Y ratio below 1.2 and do not form an impact mark. Therefore, the impact property appears to be dependent upon the presence of a tetragonal phase as well as the Ce/Y ratio which causes the presence of being susceptible to forming an impact mark. Because Krstic discloses a tetragonal crystal structure as well as Ce and Y content which provide for Ce/Y ratios which are greater than 1.2, this property would be inherently present.
Regarding claim 11, Krstic discloses the sintered body has a Vickers hardness of 12 GPa or less (See Krstic at the Abstract, disclosing a Vicker's Hardness in excess of 8.5 GPa, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 12, Krstic discloses a member comprising the sintered body (See Krstic at [0005], disclosing the zirconia ceramic produced … is useful in applications such as weld/guide pins. Examiner notes weld/guide pins are members).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments concerning the 103 rejection of claim 1 over Desiles and Krstic filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the invention of Desiles would not necessarily meet the impact mark limitations of claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes the inherency section of the MPEP at 2112(IV) states “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” In the instant case, the impact mark limitation is a function of the composition as well as the hardness of the sintered body as evidenced by the instant specification and detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Because the composition of Desiles and the hardness of Desiles are substantially identical to those of the instantly claimed sintered body, then it necessarily flows that the sintered body of Desiles would meet the claimed impact mark limitation. Therefore, the arguments against the inherency of Desiles are not convincing.
Applicant’s arguments at page 8 of the Remarks concerning the 103 rejection over claim 8 of Desiles are convincing, and the rejection is withdrawn because Desiles does not disclose or make obvious being substantially free of alumina (see Desiles at the Abstract, disclosing 3-55 wt.% alumina). MPEP 2144.05(I) concerning a close to touching range states the obviousness rejection is proper when "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties." In the instant case, the sintered body of Krstic would be expected to have the same properties as those of the sintered body claimed. For example, looking to Table 1 of the instant specification, Example 1-5 has a Y2O3 content of 1.0 mol%, the same as Krstic’s lower range, while Example 1-4 has a Y2O3 content of 0.7% which is within the range of instant claim 1. Both examples formed an impact mark, both have similar densities and hardnesses, and both achieve similar ball drop strengths. As such, the obviousness rejection via close to touching ranges is proper.
At page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Krstic has a yttria content with a minimum of 1 mol%, while claim 1 has a maximum of 0.7 mol%, and therefore claim 1 avoids Krstic as prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes claim 1 is rejected over Krstic because the ranges are close to touching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights