DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but are moot as a new reference is applied.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 4-9, 10-12, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cologna (NPL 2010 – of record by Examiner on 03/07/20251) in view of Vendrell (NPL 20182)
In reference to claim 1, Cologna discloses a method of increasing the deformability of a ceramic material in the form of a compact, the method comprising:
providing a compact made of a nanocrystalline powder of an yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic material (“Commercial tetragonal 3YSZ powders (TZ-3YB, Tosoh USA,Grove City, OH) with a particle size of 60 nm” [Methods, Pg. 3556]).
subjecting the compact to flash sintering at a temperature less than 1300 °C by applying an electric field and heat to the compact, wherein the electric field is greater than 15 V/cm and the heat is provided at a constant heating rate up to a maximum temperature of 1300 °C (See Fig 1; “3YSZ specimens could be sintered in a few seconds at 850 C at a field of 120 V/cm” [Conclusions, Pg. 3559]. See title and abstract.). Cologna indicates that full density is achieved by flash sintering (abstract).
Cologna explains that a benefit of flash sintering is that it enables the user to perform sintering at a lower temperature and achieve energy savings (see last sentence of conclusion). Thus, it would have been obvious to turn the power off after sintering was achieved by flash sintering.
This is further evidenced by Vendrell (overlapping authorship and from the same academic institution as Cologna) who demonstrates that “The samples were held at the set current limit (in Stage III of flash) for 60s before turning off the power supply. The furnace was allowed to cool to room temperature, before removing the flash-sintered specimens.” (Pg. 1353, Col 1); and,
“after hold times of 60s in the flash condition, the measured densities of F1-F3 samples, as well as C1, were similar and high, >97%; as can be seen in the micrographs, Fig. 1(a–d),” (Pg 1356, Col 2).
This would result in prohibited grain grown as evidenced by the micrographs of Vendrell shown in Fig 1(a-d). See also the first paragraph of the results section of Vendrell: “As expected, the conventionally sintered sample (a) shows a large average grain size of ˜1.2μm. The flashed 8YSZ samples (b–d), show smaller grain size” (Pg 1353, Col 1, Results Section).
Therefore it would have been obvious to remove the electric field and heat after flash sintering the ceramic to full density of at least 97% with reduced grain growth as claimed.
In reference to claim 4-9 and 16-18 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. The cited prior art teaches the same the steps of the claimed method, but does not recite the outcome of the steps as claimed. However, a method claim is anticipated when all the operative steps of the method are performed by the prior art. Thus, the cited prior art meets the claim.
In reference to claim 10, see Cologna at “Commercial tetragonal 3YSZ powders (TZ-3YB, Tosoh USA,Grove City, OH) with a particle size of 60 nm” (Methods, Pg. 3556)
In reference to claim 12, see Cologna at Fig 1 or “flash sintering regime (60–120 V/cm)”.
In reference to claim 20, See Cologna at Fig 3 demonstrating “1150 C.”.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cologna (NPL 2010) and further in view of Downs (NPL 20133)
In reference to claim 13, Cologna does not explore fields greater than 120V/cm, but shows that as the field increases the flash onset temperature reduces. A lower onset temperature means that the sample does not need to be heated as much and would result in power cost savings (see last sentenced of Cologna’s conclusion).
Furthermore, in the same field, Downs shows that higher fields allows for lower temperatures and explores fields over 1000 V/cm for flash sintering of yttria stabilized zirconia (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to explore the use of higher fields in order to use lower temperatures.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cologna (NPL 2010) and further in view of Raj (US 20130085055 A1)
In reference to claim 19, Cologna discloses heating at 10C/min, but the authors of Cologna had contemplated rates greater than 10C/min as evidenced by Raj. Raj is a patent publication by the same authors for similar subject matter, and demonstrates that the use of heating of 25C/min was known (see paragraph 92 of Raj).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 https://ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2010.04089.x
2 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955221918307672
3 https://ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jace.12281
Prosecution Insights