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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04-30-2026 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citti ‘484 (US 2010/0012484 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Citti ‘484 teaches:
fabricating a molded body with a raw material composition (¶ [0040]-[0041], [0116]-[0118], [0156]-[0157]) that comprises 78 to 95 mol% of ZrO2 and 2.5 to 10 mol% of Y2O3, and further comprises 2 to 8 mol% of Nb2O5 and/or 3 to 10 mol% of Ta2O5 (Table 1, Nr 2 - wherein mol% of ZrO2 can be calculated as about 86-87 mol% for the range of HfO2 content described in ¶ [0081]), and in which ZrO2 predominantly comprises a monoclinic crystal system (¶ [0080])
sintering the molded body (¶ [0042], [0119]-[0120], [0158])
in the raw material at least part of Y2O3, Nb2O5, and Ta2O5 are not dissolved in zirconia as a solid solution (¶ [0083]-[0085], [0092], [0096]).
Citti ‘484 does not explicitly teach the claimed formula fm for calculating the percentage of the monoclinic crystal system in ZrO2 relative to a total amount of the monoclinic, tetragonal, and cubic crystal systems. However, Citti ‘484 teaches a fraction of the ZrO2 that is of the monoclinic crystal system is “more than 50% by weight” (¶ [0080]), which includes up to 100% monoclinic crystal system. The claimed formula is merely a way of calculating the fraction of monoclinic crystal system based on characteristic XRD peaks of each crystal system, and monoclinic ZrO2 as suggested by Citti ‘484, such as 100% monoclinic, would necessarily meet the claimed formula if measured by XRD. The range of fraction of the monoclinic crystal system taught by Citti ‘484 overlaps the claimed range, and it has been held that where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 2, Citti ‘484 further teaches the raw material composition further comprises TiO2, and TiO2 is present in an amount of more than 0 part by mass to 3 parts by mass relative to total 100 parts by mass of ZrO2, Y2O3, Nb2O5, and Ta2O5 (Table 1, Nr 2, wherein the amount of TiO2 as claimed can be calculated as about 0.65-0.67 parts by mass for the range of HfO2 content described in ¶ [0081]).
Regarding claim 3, Citti ‘484 further teaches the raw material composition comprises 2 to 8 mol% of Nb2O5 (Table 1, Nr 2).
Regarding claim 5, Citti ‘484 does not describe any kind of pre-sintering of the molded body after the fabrication, and thus it is considered that the method of Citti ‘484 comprises no pre-sintering.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citti ‘484 (US 2010/0012484 A1) in view of Brodkin ’668 (US 10,004,668 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Citti ‘484 is silent regarding pre-sintering the molded body after the fabrication of the molded body. In analogous art of zirconia ceramics, Brodkin ‘484 suggests that pre-sintering a molded zirconia body after fabrication of the molded body and before final sintering is an optional step that can be performed or not (Fig. 4; column 10, lines 4-15; column 12, lines 6-11). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Citti ‘484 by pre-sintering the molded body after the fabrication of the molded body as an optional step for sintering a zirconia body, as suggested by Brodkin ‘484.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citti ‘484 (US 2010/0012484 A1) in view of Gόmez ’16 (Gόmez et al. Nanocrystalline yttria-doped zirconia sintered by fast firing. Materials Letters 166 (2016) 196-200.).
Regarding claims 6-7, Citti ‘484 further teaches the sintering comprises a main firing having a maximum firing temperature of 1,400 to 1,650°C (¶ [0120], [0162]). Citti ‘484 is silent regarding a retention time at the maximum firing temperature of less than 2 hours, or less than 30 minutes. In analogous art of zirconia ceramics, Gόmez ’16 suggests that yttria-zirconia bodies can be sintered at a maximum firing temperature of 1400°C with a retention time at the maximum firing temperature of less than 2 hours and less than 30 minutes (2. Materials and methods, pp. 196-197; Fig. 2). Gόmez ’16 suggests that such firing can result in high densities and limited grain growth, and that firing time is a result effective variable because it can be altered in order to optimize density of the sintered body (3. Results and discussion, pp. 197-199; Fig. 2). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Citti ‘484 by sintering with a retention time at maximum firing temperature of less than 2 hours, or less than 30 minutes, as suggested by Gόmez ’16, for the benefit of optimizing density and increasing efficiency by reducing total processing time.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito ‘330 (WO 2018/056330 A1 - English language equivalent publication US 2020/0317581 A1 referenced herein) in view of Gong ‘425 (US 2017/0327425 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ito ‘330 teaches:
fabricating a molded body with a raw material composition that comprises ZrO2 and 2.5 to 10 mol% of Y2O3, and in which ZrO2 predominantly comprises a monoclinic crystal system (¶ [0011], [0037], [0074], [0079]-[0080]
sintering the molded body (¶ [0017], [0055], [0136], [0151]-[0152])
a fraction fm of the monoclinic crystal system in ZrO2 calculated from mathematical expression (1) is at least 55% relative to a total amount of the monoclinic crystal system, and tetragonal and cubic crystal systems (¶ [0079]-[0080])
in the raw material at least a part of Y2O3 is not dissolved in zirconia as a solid solution (¶ [0011], [0071]-[0072]).
Ito ‘330 is silent regarding the raw material composition comprising 2 to 8 mol% of Nb2O5 and/or 3 to 10 mol% of Ta2O5. In analogous art of zirconia sintering, Gong ‘425 suggests that Nb2O5 and Ta2O5 are known as sintering aids for zirconia which improve toughness and break resistance of the ceramic (¶ [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ito ‘330 by including Nb2O5 and Ta2O5 in the raw material composition for the benefit of improving toughness and break resistance of the ceramic, as suggested by Gong ‘425. Gong ‘425 further suggests including such sintering additives a 0.1 to 5 weight% relative to the weight of zirconia (¶ [0021]). As an example, for 5 wt% Nb2O5 and 95 wt% ZrO2, the Nb2O5 would be about 2.4 mol%. Applied to the method of Ito ‘330, Ito ‘330 does not require any additional raw material composition constituents, and as an example, for 90 wt% ZrO2, 5 wt% Nb2O5 and 5 wt% Y2O3 the mol% would be about 94.7 mol% ZrO2, 2.4 mol% Nb2O5, and 2.9 mol% Y2O3. Thus, it can be seen that the disclosed ranges overlap the claimed ranges for the constituents of the raw material composition. It has been held that 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. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select an amount of Nb2O5 and/or Ta2O5 for the benefit of achieving desired toughness and break resistance of the ceramic.
Regarding claim 2, Ito ‘330 further teaches the raw material composition further comprises TiO2 as a coloring agent (¶ [0099]-[0100]). Ito ‘330 is silent regarding a specific amount of TiO2 in the raw material composition. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ito ‘330 by selecting an amount of TiO2 for the benefit of achieving a desired coloring effect in the ceramic, as suggested by Ito ‘330.
Regarding claim 4, Ito ‘330 further teaches pre-sintering the molded body after the fabrication of the molded body (¶ [0013], [0065], [0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Ito ‘330 further teaches the sintering comprises a main firing having a maximum firing temperature of 1400 to 1650°C and a retention time at the maximum firing temperature less than 2 hours (¶ [0151]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 7, Ito ‘330 further teaches the retention time at the maximum firing temperature in the main firing is less than 30 minutes (¶ [0152]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 15, Ito ‘330 further teaches the raw material composition does not contain ZrSiO4 (Ito ‘330 does not make any mention of ZrSiO4 or zircon, and thus it is not required to be a part of the raw material composition).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04-21-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
None of Citti, Brodkin, nor Gomez teach or suggest a method where the raw material composition contains at least part of Y2O3, Nb2O5, and Ta2O5 that are not dissolved in zirconia as a solid solution.
Response: Citti specifically states that those constituents can be added to the raw material separately from the zirconia, as now cited above. If they are added separately to the raw materials, then they are not dissolved in zirconia as a solid solution.
Citti fails to suggest or disclose formula (1) as recited in claim 1, or that the fraction fm of monoclinic systems in ZrO2 is 55% or more.
Response: As noted in the rejections above and previously, the claimed forming is merely a way of calculating the fraction of monoclinic crystal system based on characteristic XRD peaks of each crystal system. The formula itself is not inventive. Citti specifically states that a fraction of the ZrO2 that is of the monoclinic crystal system is “more than 50% by weight”, which overlaps the claimed range, and would necessarily meet the claimed formula if such a composition was measured by XRD. Applicant has not explained why they do not agree with this explanation.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to new claim 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights