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 without traverse of Group I claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/13/2026.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8 and 10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation from 0 to 25, and the claim also recites from 5 to 25 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 recites “a zirconia ceramic”, however, it is not clear what is, and is not, a zirconia ceramic. For example, would a ceramic comprising any amount of zirconia constitute a zirconia ceramic, or must the zirconia content be within some defined range? At [0074] of the instant PGPub, the instant specification states the zirconia content must be between 82.5-96.5 wt.% zirconia, however, it is unclear if this range is a requirement to be defined as a zirconia ceramic as per instant claim 8. As such, claim 8 will be interpreted as requiring any amount of zirconia unless further clarified by Applicant during the course of prosecution.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the oxide ceramic" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “the oxide ceramic comprising a starting composition of components for preparing the pigment defined in claim 1”, however, in order to achieve the pigment of claim 1, starting components of the pigment must necessarily have been present or the pigment could not have been formed. As such, this limitation does not further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matteucci et al. (MATTEUCCI, F., et al., Colour development of red perovskite pigment Y(Al,Cr)O3 in various ceramic applications, Advances in Applied Ceramics, 01 April 2006, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 99-106, hereinafter referred to as Matteucci).
Regarding claim 1, Matteucci discloses an oxide ceramic (See Matteucci at the Abstract, disclosing ceramic oxides) comprising a pigment, wherein the pigment comprises Al, Cr and Z, and Z is selected from the group consisting of Y, La, lanthanides, and mixtures thereof (see Matteucci at the bold text below the figure on page 100, disclosing YAl0.965Cr0.035O3).
Regarding claim 2, Matteucci discloses the pigment comprises Al and Z in a molar ratio of 0.7:1 to 1:0.7 (see Matteucci at the bold text below the figure on page 100, disclosing YAl0.965Cr0.035O3, which Examiner notes is a Al to Z ratio of 0.965:1 which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Matteucci discloses the pigment comprises Z, Al and Cr in a molar ratio corresponding to the formula ZxAl2-x-yCryO3, wherein x is 0.8 to 1.2, and y is 0.001 to 0.5 (see Matteucci at the bold text below the figure on page 100, disclosing YAl0.965Cr0.035O3, which Examiner notes is a y value of 0.035 and an x value of 1, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Matteucci discloses the main crystal phase of the pigment has a perovskite crystal structure (see Matteucci at the first full paragraph of page 100, disclosing perovskite pigments).
Regarding claim 5, Matteucci discloses Z is selected from the group consisting of Y, Er, Pr, Gd, Dy, Eu, Nd, Yb, Ho and Tm (see Matteucci at the bold text below the figure on page 100, disclosing YAl0.965Cr0.035O3. Examiner notes Z is Y.).
Regarding claim 6, Matteucci discloses a color with an a* value in the range from 0 to 25, or in the range from 5 to 25 (see Matteucci at the second to last paragraph of page 101, disclosing an a* value of 23.5).
Regarding claim 7, Matteucci discloses the pigment in an amount of 0.005 to 10 wt.-% (see Matteucci at the second to last paragraph of page 100, disclosing tests were carried out adding the industrial pigment (5 wt.%, corresponding to 3 wt.% perovskite) to different ceramic bodies. Examiner notes this is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Matteucci discloses a zirconia ceramic Matteucci discloses red perovskite pigment (See Matteucci at the Title) added to different ceramic bodies (see Matteucci at the second to last paragraph of page 100), comprising zirconia (see Table 3, Example S3, comprising 8.1 wt.% ZrO2).
Regarding claim 9, Matteucci discloses the oxide ceramic which is at least partially sintered (see Matteucci at the last paragraph of page 100 to the first paragraph of page 101, disclosing the samples were fired at different temperatures (Table 5). See also Table 5 showing firing temperatures from 950-1200°C. Examiner notes [0082] of the instant PGPub discloses a heat treatment of at least 1200°C, which is substantially identical to Table 5 of Matteucci. Therefore, the firing of Matteucci corresponds to at least partially sintering.).
Regarding claim 10, Matteucci discloses the oxide ceramic comprising a starting composition of components for preparing the pigment (see Matteucci at the bold text below the figure on page 100, disclosing YAl0.965Cr0.035O3. Examiner notes starting components must necessarily have been present in order to achieve the pigment.).
Regarding claim 11, Matteucci discloses the starting composition comprises at least one of the components Al(OH)3, Cr2O3 and Z2O3, wherein Z is selected from Y, La and lanthanides (see Matteucci at the first full paragraph of page 100, disclosing Cr2O3).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteucci in view of Fecher et al. (US20220183804, hereinafter referred to as Fecher).
Regarding claim 8, while Matteucci discloses red perovskite pigment (See Matteucci at the Title) added to different ceramic bodies (see Matteucci at the second to last paragraph of page 100), comprising zirconia (see Table 3, Example S3, comprising 8.1 wt.% ZrO2). However, Matteucci does not explicitly describe S3 as a zirconia ceramic.
Fecher is directed towards pink colored pre-sintered or fully-sintered blanks ... which comprise zirconium dioxide (see Fecher at the Abstract). Fecher discloses dental restorations based on a zirconium dioxide (see Fecher at [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Matteucci to select zirconia as the ceramic as disclosed by Fecher with a reasonable expectation of successfully coloring the zirconia of Fecher with the pigment of Matteucci to obtain a red zirconia in a manner analogous to the pink coloring disclosed by Fecher.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180222799.
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