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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that contrary to the interpretation in the Office Action, unity of invention is not missing between the claims of groups (I)-(IV). This is not found persuasive because the restriction is made based on PCT practice rule. Groups I- IV lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a sintered technical ceramic based on zirconia ZrO2., this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of EP2266934B1. EP2266934B1 discloses a ceramic for decorative parts, characterized by comprising zirconia comprises yttrium being 2.0 mol% (about 3.4wt%) or more and 4.0 mol% or less (Claims 1 and 2), magnesium oxide (MgO), and a content of iron oxide being less than 0.5% by mass nor more than 5.0% by mass. See claims 1-2; Example 2; Table 2; [0013] and [0028].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: please add “and” after ”;” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner interpretates claim 6 as:
The sintered technical ceramic as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sintered technical ceramic comprises:
a proportion by mass of zirconia ZrO2 comprised within a range of from 92% to 93%; and
yttrium oxide Y2O3 in a proportion by mass comprised within a range of from 2.9% to 3.1%; and
hafnium oxide HfO2 in a proportion by mass comprised within a range of from 1.65% to 1.75%; and
alumina Al2O3 in a proportion by mass comprised within a range of from 0.4% to 0.5%; and
magnesium oxide MgO in a proportion by mass comprised within a range of from 0.25% to 0.35%; and
an additional element Fe, in a form of iron oxide Fe2O3 in a proportion by mass comprised within a range of from 0.75% to 0.85%; and
an additional element Ni, in a form of nickel oxide NiO in a proportion by mass comprised within a range of from 0.75% to 0.85%; and
an additional element Cr, in a form of chromium oxide in a proportion by mass comprised in a range of from 0.5% to 0.65%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-5, 7-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108751985(CN’985).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7 and 19 -20, CN’985 discloses gray oxide zircon ceramic including zirconia as main part and an additive. The additive includes at least one of aluminum oxide and gallium oxide, nickel oxide and manganese oxide. The mass percentage of at least one of the aluminum oxide and gallium oxide is 0.01%~20%, the mass percentage of the nickel oxide is 0.01%~4% (the mass percent of Ni overlapping with the claimed range), and the mass percentage of the manganese oxide is 0.01%~3%. The additive can further include yttrium oxide and the mass percentage of yttrium oxide described in object is 2.5%~7.85%. The additive can further comprise hafnium oxide. See pages 2-5 and claims 1-4.
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, the mass percentage of yttrium oxide described in object is 2.5%~7.85%. See pages 3-4.
Regarding claim 3, CN’985 discloses that the mass percentage of at least one of the aluminum oxide and gallium oxide is 0.01%~20%, the mass percentage of the nickel oxide is 0.01%~4% (the mass percent of Ni overlapping with the claimed range), the mass percentage of the manganese oxide is 0.01%~3% and the mass percentage of yttrium oxide described in object is 2.5%~7.85%. Thus, the mass percentage of Zirconia can be in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, CN’985 discloses that magnesia is in a range of 0.1%~5% by mass, the mass percentage of at least one of the aluminum oxide and gallium oxide is 0.3%~6%, the mass percentage of the nickel oxide is 0.1%~3%, and the mass percentage of the manganese oxide is 0.01%~1.6%, the mass percentage of the yttrium oxide is 3%~6.3%. The additive further includes magnesia with a content of 0.1-5%. The quality percentage of hafnium oxide contains in zirconia ceramics material is 5%.Pages 2-5.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum hafnium oxide content through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In order to obtain the gray oxide zircon ceramic of different hues, the amount of additive can be adjusted to obtain the gray oxide zircon ceramic of different hues. See page 5
Regarding claims 8-10, CN’985 discloses that D50 is 0.05 μm~1.50 μm. See claim 4.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2266934B (EP’934).
Regarding claims 1-5, and 7, EP’934 discloses a ceramic for decorative part, comprising:
zirconia containing a stabilizing agent as a main component;
iron oxide;
chromium oxide;
aluminum oxide; and
hafnium oxide,
wherein the stabilizing agent is composed of a compound containing yttrium, and
the content of the stabilizing agent composed of the compound containing yttrium is not less than 2.0 mol%, about 3.4wt%, nor more than 4.0 mol% and iron oxide content is not less than 0.05% by mass and less than 0.5% by mass. It is preferable that the content of hafnium oxide in the ceramics is not less than 0.5% by mass nor more than 3.0% by mass based on 100% by mass of all components that constitute the ceramics for decorative part. The main component as used herein is a component that occupies 50% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of all components constituting the ceramics for decorative part. See claims 1-2 and [0014].
Regarding claim 19, iron oxide content is not less than 0.05% by mass and less than 0.5% by mass, chromium oxide content is not less than 0.5% by mass nor more than 3.0% by mass, and aluminum oxide content is not less than 0.05% by mass nor more than 0.8% by mass. See claim 1
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108751985(CN’985).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP2266934B (EP’934).
CN’985 discloses a gray oxide zircon ceramic including zirconia as main part and an additive. The additive includes at least one of aluminum oxide and gallium oxide, nickel oxide and manganese oxide. The mass percentage of at least one of the aluminum oxide and gallium oxide is 0.01%~20%, the mass percentage of the nickel oxide is 0.01%~4% (the mass percent of Ni overlapping with the claimed range), and the mass percentage of the manganese oxide is 0.01%~3%. The additive can further include yttrium oxide and the mass percentage of yttrium oxide described in object is 2.5%~7.85%. The additive can further comprise hafnium oxide. But it is silent about the claimed content of the hafnium oxide.
EP’934 discloses that inclusion of hafnium oxide enables ceramic to be deep color tone and it is preferable that the content of hafnium oxide in the ceramics is not less than 0.5% by mass nor more than 3.0% by mass based on 100% by mass of all components that constitute the ceramics for decorative part. See [0034].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the claimed hafnium oxide content, motivated by the fact that EP’934 discloses that inclusion of hafnium oxide enables the ceramic to be deep color tone and it is preferable that the content of hafnium oxide in the ceramics is not less than 0.5% by mass nor more than 3.0% by mass based on 100% by mass of all components that constitute the ceramics for decorative part. See [0034].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 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, 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights