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 .
Acknowledgement is made of amendments received 12-24-2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The formula fm cuts off the tops of the words immediately below it. The Examiner can reference previous claim 10 for the full language, but the formatting should be corrected. Appropriate correction is required.
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]).
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 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-24-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are summarized as follows:
None of the cited prior art teaches a method of producing a machinable zirconia composite sintered body wherein the fraction of the monoclinic crystal system in ZrO2 is 55% or more as recited in the amended Claim 1.
Response: As explained in the rejection above, Citti ‘484 teaches a range of monoclinic crystal system ZrO2 that overlaps the claimed range.
The method of Claim 1 wherein the fraction of the monoclinic crystal system in ZrO2 is 55% or more produces unexpected and superior results.
Response: The cited examples are described as having predominantly monoclinic crystal system of ZrO2. The specification states that this means at least 50% monoclinic crystal system (¶ [0018]). There is no evidence of criticality specifically at 55%. Citti ‘484 teaches a range of more than 50% monoclinic ZrO2, which overlaps the claimed range and is in line with the cited examples in the specification. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Citti ‘484 does not disclose or suggest a method of producing excellent translucency, mechanical strength, or machinability with a short retention time at the firing temperature.
Response: It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., excellent translucency, mechanical strength, or machinability with a short retention time at the firing temperature) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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