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 .
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 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) 1,5-6, 8, 11-12, 14-17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0318281.
Koike discloses a composite ceramic body comprising a matrix of alumina in which zirconia is dispersed. See paragraph 0003. The ratio of alumina to zirconia is 80:20 to 95:5. See paragraph 0020. The ceramic body has a relative density of 93% or more up to 98%. See table 1 and paragraph 0020. The structure has pores which can have the same size as the mean particle diameter of the alumina particles, which is 0.7 to 1.8 microns. See paragraph 0020. Koike does not teach including silica or the trace elements listed in claim 6. Note that the coefficient of thermal expansion is inherent to the particular type of ceramic, and that since Koike teaches the same materials, same relative density, same pore size and porosity as claimed, there is a reasonable expectation that the material of Koike would have the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion. Similarly, it would be expected that the thermal conductivity would be as claimed since the same structure is present. With regard to the density variation, while Koike does not explicitly teach the claimed value, it would have been obvious to have maintained the same properties throughout the entirety of the ceramic structure, in order to provide a product with uniform properties, such as no weak points, more or less dense areas, different porosity, etc.
Koike differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the particularly claimed dimensions. However, it would have been obvious to have formed the structure so that it had the desired dimensions, depending on the intended use of the ceramic article.
Claim(s) 19, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0318281 in view of Rhee et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,548,011.
Koike discloses a composite ceramic body comprising a matrix of alumina in which zirconia is dispersed. See paragraph 0003. The ratio of alumina to zirconia is 80:20 to 95:5. See paragraph 0020. The ceramic body has a relative density of 93% or more up to 98%. See table 1 and paragraph 0020. The structure has pores which can have the same size as the mean particle diameter of the alumina particles, which is 0.7 to 1.8 microns. See paragraph 0020. Koike does not teach including silica or the trace elements listed in claim 6. Note that the coefficient of thermal expansion is inherent to the particular type of ceramic, and that since Koike teaches the same materials, same relative density, same pore size and porosity as claimed, there is a reasonable expectation that the material of Koike would have the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion. Similarly, it would be expected that the thermal conductivity would be as claimed since the same structure is present. With regard to the density variation, while Koike does not explicitly teach the claimed value, it would have been obvious to have maintained the same properties throughout the entirety of the ceramic structure, in order to provide a product with uniform properties, such as no weak points, more or less dense areas, different porosity, etc.
Koike differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose the particularly claimed dimensions. However, it would have been obvious to have formed the structure so that it had the desired dimensions, depending on the intended use of the ceramic article.
With regard to the method claims, Koike teaches blending aluminum oxide and zirconium oxide powder, but does not clearly teach the other steps.
However, Rhee et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,548,011 teaches that it was known to mix, calcine, sinter and anneal ceramic powder mixtures in order to provide alumina-based ceramic materials. See example 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the structure of Koike by the well-known and conventional methods taught by Rhee in view of their art recognized suitability for forming ceramic structures and to have selected suitable temperatures and pressures for forming, calcining, sintering and annealing. The structure of Koike can be used as a gas sensor.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the D90 pore size, since the instant application refers to the D90 ranges with regard to the particle size, (See paragraphs 0105, 0144), rather than pore size per se, it is reasonable to presume that as long as the particle size meets the claimed size range that the pore size would likewise have the claimed D90 range. The specification does not teach any way of achieving the claimed D90 range other than by the particle size. Koike also teaches that particle size is directly related to pore size and therefore there is a reasonable basis to expect that having particle sizes within the claimed range would lead to the same D90 for the pore size.
With regard to the claimed density variation, Applicant argues that the claimed ceramic body is achieved by using spark plasma sintering. However, the claims are not drawn to a process but to the product. As set forth above, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to make the structure of Koike uniform so that the product had uniform properties. While Applicant argues that it would not have been possible to form a structure having the claimed density variation by the method of Koike, no evidence has been provided in support of this contention. Finally, with regard to the relative density of greater than 98% as claimed versus 98% as disclosed in Koike, one of ordinary skill would have expected that a material with a relative density of 98.0001% would have the same properties as a material of 98% density, absent a showing of criticality.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights