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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method of making a sintered ceramic body, comprising: providing a green body comprising an yttria- stabilized zirconia ceramic material stabilized by 5.0 mol% to 7.1 mol% yttria, heating the green body for a sufficient time to transform the green body into a bisqued body comprising the ceramic material, wherein the bisque body comprises less than or equal to 1% monoclinic phase, and sintering the bisque body for a sufficient time to transform the bisque body into a sintered body, wherein the ceramic material of the sintered body comprises at least 98% theoretical density and has an average grain size greater than or equal to 8 µm.
The closest prior art is Fujisaki et al. (US20170143458, hereinafter referred to as Fujisaki). Fujisaki discloses a production method for a colored translucent zirconia sintered body (see Fujisaki at claim 7). Fujisaki discloses a green body (see Fujisaki at claim 7). Fujisaki discloses the monoclinic phase ratio ... not greater than 1% (see Fujisaki at [0103]). However, per instant claim 1, Fujisaki fails to disclose or make obvious an average grain size greater than or equal to 8 µm (see Fujisaki at [0025], disclosing an average crystal grain size is from 0.3 to 5.0 μm). As such, the cited prior art neither teaches nor fairly suggests the method of making a sintered ceramic body as claimed in independent claim 1.
All claims not specifically addressed are allowed due to their dependence on an allowed claim, or because they contain all of the allowable limitations of an allowed claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujisaki et al. (US20170143458, hereinafter referred to as Fujisaki).
Regarding claim 9, Fujisaki discloses a method of making a sintered ceramic body (see Fujisaki at claim 7, disclosing a production method for a colored translucent zirconia sintered body.), comprising: providing a green body (see Fujisaki at claim 7, disclosing a green body.) comprising a shaded yttria-stabilized zirconia ceramic material stabilized by 5.5 mol% to 6.5 mol% yttria (see Fujisaki at Table 2, working example 1, disclosing an example comprising 5.38 mol% Y2O3) and a metal-containing component as a coloring agent (see Fujisaki at the Abstract, disclosing less than 0.25 mol % of erbia, less than 2,000 ppm of iron oxide in terms of Fe2O3, less than 0.01 wt. % of cobalt oxide in terms of CoO, all of which are colorants per instant claim 6.), heating the green body to transform the green body into a bisqued body comprising the ceramic material (see Fujisaki at [0163]-[0167], disclosing heating), wherein the bisqued body comprises less than or equal to 1% monoclinic phase (see Fujisaki at [0103], disclosing the monoclinic phase ratio ... not greater than 1%), and heating the bisqued body to transform the bisqued body into a sintered body (see Fujisaki at the Abstract, disclosing a sintered body) comprising the ceramic material having at least 98% theoretical density (see Fujisaki at Table 2, working example 1, disclosing an example with a relative density of 99.93%.) and having an average grain size greater than or equal to 1 µm (see Fujisaki at [0025], disclosing an average crystal grain size is from 0.3 to 5.0 μm, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
While Fujisaki does not explicitly disclose a transmittance greater than 58% at 700 nm (when measured on a 1 mm thick sintered body), this is a function of the amount of monoclinic phase as evidenced by the instant specification at [0024] and Fig. 8. Because the sintered body of Fujisaki has substantially identical monoclinic phase as the instantly claimed body, the sintered body of Fujisaki would inherently possess the claimed transmittance at 700 nm. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Fujisaki discloses the ceramic material is stabilized by 5.8 mol% to 6.3 mol% yttria (see Fujisaki at the Abstract, disclosing 4.0 mol % and not greater than 6.5 mol % of yttria, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, while Fujisaki does not explicitly disclose the transmittance of the ceramic material of the sintered body is greater than 60% at 700 nm (when measured on a 1 mm thick sintered body), this is a function of the amount of monoclinic phase as evidenced by the instant specification at [0024] and Fig. 8. Because the sintered body of Fujisaki has substantially identical monoclinic phase as the instantly claimed body, the sintered body of Fujisaki would inherently possess the claimed transmittance at 700 nm. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, while Fujisaki does not explicitly disclose the transmittance is ceramic material of the sintered body is greater than 62% at 700 nm (when measured on a 1 mm thick sintered body), this is a function of the amount of monoclinic phase as evidenced by the instant specification at [0024] and Fig. 8. Because the sintered body of Fujisaki has substantially identical monoclinic phase as the instantly claimed body, the sintered body of Fujisaki would inherently possess the claimed transmittance at 700 nm. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights