DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-19 are pending and presented for the examination. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 08/11/2023, 09/07/2023, 12/05/2024, and 02/13/2025 are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 states that the number of peaks detected by Raman spectroscopy is “two or more” in ranges of 780-810 cm -1 and 1340-1370 cm -1 . From this wording, it is unclear if the requirement of the claim limitation is that each range, 780-810 cm -1 and 1340-1370 cm -1 , must separately contain two peaks, or if that two peaks are detected, with at least one in the range 780-810 cm -1 and one in the range 1340-1370 cm -1 . Claim 1 is also indefinite because it states that “four to six” peaks are in ranges of 170-190 cm -1 , 607-627 cm -1 , 720-740 cm -1 , and 924-944 cm -1 . As above, from this wording it is not possible to determine if the claim limitation is mean to cover materials wherein 4-6 peaks are detected in each of the aforementioned four ranges (170-190 cm -1 , 607-627 cm -1 , 720-740 cm -1 , and 924-944 cm -1 ), or if the detected 4-6 peaks are spread over these four ranges. If the latter is the intended interpretation for coverage, it is not clear if a peak must be present in each of the aforementioned four ranges, or if 4-6 peaks are detected and fall within any combination of 1-4 of said ranges, the claim limitation would be met. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112. Claims 2-19 are also indefinite under USC 112 as depending from, and thus containing the ambiguous limitations of, claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1- 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takao (US 8377837 B2) . Regarding claim 1 , Takao teaches a wear resistant member formed of a silicon nitride sintered body that comprises 1-5 wt % rare earth component, 1-6 wt % aluminum component, and with embodiments taught comprising a SiC minority component (see Table 1, examples 9 and 12). The Takao silicon nitride material further comprises a grain boundary phase (see claim 3). Claim 1 differs from Takao because Takao does not specify the number of Raman spectroscopy peaks in the ranges 780-810 cm -1 and 1340-1370 cm -1 , or in the ranges 170-190 cm -1 , 607-627 cm -1 , 720-740 cm -1 , and 924-944 cm -1 . However, Takao teaches a silicon nitride material meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim (see Table 1, example 12, which comprises 4 wt % yttria, 3 wt % alumina, 5.5 wt % SiC , and comprises 82 wt % silicon nitride balance). This compositionally equivalent silicon nitride-based material would inherently have equivalent Raman spectroscopy results when measured according to the conditions of the instant claim. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). As such, each limitation of instant claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is rejected under USC 102(a)(1). Regarding claim 2 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 5.5 wt % silicon carbide. Regarding claim 3 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the l 1 /l 2 ratio of the Takao material would fall within the range 1.2-2.0. Regarding claim 4 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the lack of any peak with full width at half maximum of greater than 70 cm -1 would inherently also be a property of the Takao material within the ranges of the instant claim. Regarding claim 5 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 5.5 wt % silicon carbide. Regarding claim 6 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 4 wt % yttria, 3 wt % alumina, 5.5 wt % SiC , and comprises 82 wt % silicon nitride balance. Regarding claim 7 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 silicon nitride material comprises 2.5 wt % hafnia and is free of the oxides of each of the other elements of the instant claim. Regarding claim 8 , Takao et al teaches that the porosity of the inventive material is less than 1% (see column 1, lines 55-65) and the fracture toughness is 6.2 MPa ·m 1/2 (see Table 3). The three-point bending strength is not specified in Takao. However, as shown above, Takao teaches a material that is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent material thus inherently has equivalent strength properties, and the three-point bending strength would be at least 800 MPa. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Regarding claim 9 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao contains silicon carbide and inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the l 1 /l 2 ratio of the Takao material would fall within the range 1.2-2.0. Regarding claim 10 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the lack of any peak with full width at half maximum of greater than 70 cm -1 would inherently also be a property of the Takao material within the ranges of the instant claim. Regarding claim 11 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 4 wt % yttria, 3 wt % alumina, 5.5 wt % SiC , and comprises 82 wt % silicon nitride balance. Regarding claim 12 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 silicon nitride material comprises 2.5 wt % hafnia and is free of the oxides of each of the other elements of the instant claim. Regarding claim 13 , Takao teaches a wear resistant member that consists of the silicon nitride material discussed above. Regarding claim 14 , Takao teaches a wear resistant member in the form of a bearing ball. Regarding claim 16 , the claim differs from Takao as applied above because Takao does not specify the rolling contact fatigue life according to the testing criteria of the claim. However, a s above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao would inherently have equivalent surface removal resistance properties. As such, the rolling contact fatigue life of the Takao silicon nitride member would have a rolling contact fatigue life of 400 hours or greater. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao (US 8377837 B2) . Regarding claim 15 , Takao teaches that the crushing strength of the inventive ball bearing is 100 N/mm 2 or greater. This range overlaps the inventive range of 150-200 MPa, thus rendering obvious the further limitations of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Claim 15 is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Claim s 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao (US 8377837 B2) in view of Ohmaru et al ( WO 2019235594 A1 ). Regarding claim 1 , Takao teaches a wear resistant member formed of a silicon nitride sintered body that comprises 1-5 wt % rare earth component, 1-6 wt % aluminum component, and with embodiments taught comprising a SiC minority component (see Table 1, examples 9 and 12). The Takao silicon nitride material further comprises a grain boundary phase (see claim 3). Claim 1 differs from Takao because Takao does not specify the number of Raman spectroscopy peaks in the ranges 780-810 cm -1 and 1340-1370 cm -1 , or in the ranges 170-190 cm -1 , 607-627 cm -1 , 720-740 cm -1 , and 924-944 cm -1 . However, Takao teaches a silicon nitride material meeting each compositional limitation of the instant claim (see Table 1, example 12, which comprises 4 wt % yttria, 3 wt % alumina, 5.5 wt % SiC , and comprises 82 wt % silicon nitride balance). Further, the instant disclosure indicates that the microstructural features of the instantly claimed material are resultant from the heat treatment features used in the sintering process. Thus, a compositionally equivalent material such as that taught by Takao, subjected to a heating rate equivalent to that of the instant claims, would necessarily result in a silicon nitride material having the same microstructural features as that of the instant claims. Said structurally equivalent material would therefore have equivalent Raman spectroscopy results that would meet the corresponding limitations of instant claim 1. As shown in detail below for method claim 17, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Takao in view of Ohmaru et al in order to use the faster heating rate taught by Ohmaru and suggested for Takao. Performing this obvious modification would lead to a compositionally equivalent silicon nitride (example 12) being subjected to the heating parameters disclosed by applicant to lead to the claimed microstructural/Raman spectrum features. As such, each limitation of instant claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 2 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 5.5 wt % silicon carbide. Regarding claim 3 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the l 1 /l 2 ratio of the Takao material would fall within the range 1.2-2.0. Regarding claim 4 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the lack of any peak with full width at half maximum of greater than 70 cm -1 would inherently also be a property of the Takao material within the ranges of the instant claim. Regarding claim 5 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 5.5 wt % silicon carbide. Regarding claim 6 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 4 wt % yttria, 3 wt % alumina, 5.5 wt % SiC , and comprises 82 wt % silicon nitride balance. Regarding claim 7 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 silicon nitride material comprises 2.5 wt % hafnia and is free of the oxides of each of the other elements of the instant claim. Regarding claim 8 , Takao et al teaches that the porosity of the inventive material is less than 1% (see column 1, lines 55-65) and the fracture toughness is 6.2 MPa ·m 1/2 (see Table 3). The three-point bending strength is not specified in Takao. However, as shown above, Takao teaches a material that is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This equivalent material thus inherently has equivalent strength properties, and the three-point bending strength would be at least 800 MPa. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Regarding claim 9 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao contains silicon carbide and inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the l 1 /l 2 ratio of the Takao material would fall within the range 1.2-2.0. Regarding claim 10 , as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao inherently has equivalent Raman spectroscopy results, and as such the lack of any peak with full width at half maximum of greater than 70 cm -1 would inherently also be a property of the Takao material within the ranges of the instant claim. Regarding claim 11 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 material comprises 4 wt % yttria, 3 wt % alumina, 5.5 wt % SiC , and comprises 82 wt % silicon nitride balance. Regarding claim 12 , the aforementioned Takao example 12 silicon nitride material comprises 2.5 wt % hafnia and is free of the oxides of each of the other elements of the instant claim. Regarding claim 13 , Takao teaches a wear resistant member that consists of the silicon nitride material discussed above. Regarding claim 14 , Takao teaches a wear resistant member in the form of a bearing ball. Regarding claim 15 , Takao teaches that the crushing strength of the inventive ball bearing is 100 N/mm 2 or greater. This range overlaps the inventive range of 150-200 MPa, thus rendering obvious the further limitations of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 16 , the claim differs from Takao as applied above because Takao does not specify the rolling contact fatigue life according to the testing criteria of the claim. However, as above, the compositionally equivalent silicon nitride material taught by Takao would inherently have equivalent surface removal resistance properties. As such, the rolling contact fatigue life of the Takao silicon nitride member would have a rolling contact fatigue life of 400 hours or greater. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Regarding claim 1 7 , Takao teaches that the inventive silicon nitride material, discussed above, is prepared by mixing and molding starting powders, and thereafter sintering in a nitrogen (inert) atmosphere at a temperature of 1600-1950 °C, with examples taught where sintering is carried out at 1725 °C for 6 hours (see Table 2). Takao teaches a heating rate of 20 °C/ hr in the temperature range of 1400 °C to sintering temperature; however, Takao also teaches a subsequent sintering treatment for setting desired density of the body, and teaches that this is carried out at a heating rate range of 150 °C/ hr or less (see column 16, lines 55-60). As can be seen, this latter range overlaps the 100 °C/ hr or greater range of the instant claim. Takao teaches that the heating increase undertaken during this subsequent sintering is carried out to the sintering temperature of 1700-1900 °C, and thus teaches heating within a range of 1400-1480 °C at rates greater than 100 °C/ hr (i.e. 150 °C/ hr or less). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use this higher heating rate suggested by Takao when producing the sintered silicon nitride bodies taught therein through the teachings of Ohmaru et al. Ohmaru et al teaches a silicon nitride sintered body used in wear resistant machine parts. The Ohmaru silicon nitride further comprises rare earth oxide sintering aids similar to the material taught by Takao, and is prepared by mixing and molding starting materials, binder removal heat treatment, and sintering under nitrogen atmosphere. The sintering temperature is a substantially equivalent range of 1520-1800 °C to that of the instantly claim method, and Ohmaru teaches a heating range of 120 °C/hr. Ohmaru teaches that heating range as a sintering condition is used to set the microstructural properties of the resultant silicon nitride in terms of major axis length of the columnar β-silicon nitride. This teaching would provide motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art for using the higher heating rates taught by Takao for use in the subsequent sintering process, because of the advantageous result of microstructural control. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because the processes of Takao and Ohmura are similar and each involve sintering at similar temperature ranges under inert atmospheres. As such, each limitation of claim 17 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 18 , as discussed above, Takao suggests a subsequent sintering process with a heating rate up to 150 °C/ hr to the maximum sintering temperature, and obvious modification in view of Ohmura, which teaches a heating rate of 120 °C/ hr to the maximum sintering temperature, would lead a skilled artisan to a method wherein the heating rate is greater than 100 °C/ hr to the sintering temperature. Regarding claim 19 , Takao teaches a HIP step can be performed on the sintered body (see claim 10). Conclusion 1 2 . No claim is allowed. 1 3 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 4 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596 . The exam iner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NOAH S WIESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW 25 November 2025