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 .
Claim Objections
The previous objections are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 11 are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reusch et al (WO 2016/071301; herein Reusch, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Reusch teaches making an agglomerated zirconia powder by build-up granulation in claims 1 and 4. Spray drying the particle would cause impacts and build up, there is a zero percent chance that no particle impacted each other during the spraying process.
Regarding claims 4 and 6:
Since Reusch teaches spray drying to produce the zirconia granulate, this means that a suspension of zirconia was made prior to the spray drying.
Regarding claim 7:
Since the zirconia granulate is spray dried it implies that is at least 99 wt% solid.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reusch, as evidenced by Tosoh Zirconia Powder Specification and Typical Properties (herein Tosoh, already of record). Regarding claim 3:
Reusch teaches that the spray dried zirconia granule used can be the 3YSB-E from Tosoh (page 18, section 2.1). Based on Tosoh, 3YSB-E has a crystallite size of 36 nm and a granule size of 60 microns.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 11 are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oswald et al (U.S. PGPub 2010/0048376; herein Oswald, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Oswald teaches making an agglomerated zirconia powder by build-up granulation in paragraphs 0061-0071. Spray drying the particle would cause impacts and build up, there is a zero percent chance that no particle impacted each other during the spraying process.
Regarding claim 2:
Oswald teaches up to 2.5 wt% organic binder in Table 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Oswald teaches prior to agglomeration a suspension of the zirconia with water is created in paragraph 0064.
Regarding claim 6:
Oswald teaches spray drying the suspension in paragraph 0069.
Regarding claim 11:
Oswald teaches granulate has a d50 average particle size of 33-51 microns in Table 2.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (CN 107043267; herein Zhou, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Zhou teaches making an agglomerated zirconia powder by build-up granulation in paragraphs 0072-0075. Zhou uses a ball mill which is both a source of rolling and impact, and there would be a zero percent chance that no particle impacted each other during the ball milling.
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Zhou teaches prior to agglomeration a suspension of the zirconia with ethyl alcohol is created in paragraph 0073.
Regarding claim 8:
Zhou teaches using a mixing granulator in paragraph 0075, this implies the use of shaking, vibrating, and/or oscillating.
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusch, Oswald, or Zhou. Regarding claim 9:
The material of the agglomeration surface is not disclosed by Reusch, Oswald, or Zhou.. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the needed surface, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious, MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou. Regarding claim 10:
Zhou teaches an agglomeration time of 2-4 hours. Two hours is 120 minutes, which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed since it has been held that overlapping endpoints are sufficient showing of obviousness, MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald. Regarding claim 21:
Oswald teaches that there can be 0.5 to 5 wt% binder (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since overlapping ranges is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Reusch, Oswald, nor Zhou teach agglomeration of zirconia via rolling or impacts. The Examiner disagrees. Reusch and Oswald teach spraying the dispersion. There is a zero percent chance that no impacts of particles occurred. For this to be true, no particles would ever touch one another, and if an impact on a surface occurs it would be a perfect elastic response. This is impossible. Thus the spray drying of Reusch and Oswald would create agglomerates by impact. Zhou teaches ball milling, again the same situation arises, there is a zero percent chance that no impacts occur during the rolling. The Applicant has provided no evidence to the lack of impacts in Reusch, Oswald, or Zhou. Thus the prior art still anticipates the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights