DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-16 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 statements (IDS) submitted on 05/24/2024 and 07/21/2025 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 15-16 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 12 is drawn to a method of producing a sintered body by using the powder composition, but contains no further limitations as to what said use constitutes. The metes and bounds of the claimed process are therefore unclear, and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 15 recites that sintered body has a “difference in crystal grain size”, but it is unclear to what property this difference is meant to refer. It is not clear if this is meant to be a limitation pertaining to grain size distribution, or some other feature of the claimed sintered body. Because of this ambiguity, the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 16 is drawn to a method of producing a sintered body by using the calcined body, but contains no further limitations as to what said use constitutes. The metes and bounds of the claimed process are therefore unclear, and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
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 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikesue (JP 2011073907 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ikesue teaches a sintered zirconia body and methods of producing the same. Ikesue teaches that the zirconia body can be produced from a mixture of two or more kinds of raw material (ZrO2) powders having different yttria contents. The total content of the yttria is 3-5.5 mol% (see claim 1), and Ikesue teaches embodiments wherein contents of 3 mol% and 4 mol% are used, and further embodiments wherein the yttria contents in the two zirconia powders are 2.5 mol% and 4 mol%.
Ikesue does not teach the rate of change of thermal shrinkage per unit temperature at 1300 °C. However, this property is resultant from the zirconia composition. As the Ikesue zirconia sintered body is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims, the sintered body would also inherently have an equivalent change of thermal shrinkage property at the temperature 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, the further property limitation of instant claim 1 is met by the Ikesue teachings, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Ikesue teaches embodiments wherein two zirconia powders having different yttria contents are mixed, and wherein the first powder comprises 3 mol% yttria and the second powder comprises 4 mol% yttria, or wherein the first powder comprises 2.5 mol% yttria and the second power comprises 4 mol% yttria (see Tables 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Ikesue does not teach the rate of change of thermal shrinkage per unit temperature at 1300 °C. However, this property is resultant from the zirconia composition, and as the Ikesue zirconia sintered body is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims, the sintered body would also inherently have an equivalent change of thermal shrinkage property at the temperature of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, the Ikesue zirconia body and starting powders comprise yttrium oxide stabilizer.
Regarding claim 5, Ikesue teaches embodiments wherein the starting powder comprises two zirconia powders having different yttria contents, and wherein the specific surface area is 12 m2/g (see Table 9, example 7).
Regarding claim 6, Ikesue teaches that the inventive zirconia has a crystal phase that is 40-100 vol% tetragonal phase and a cubic phase in an amount of 0-60 vol%, and further teaches that it is desirable that the sintered body substantially consists of these two crystal phases. As such, Ikesue teaches a sintered body wherein 65% or more of is made up of tetragonal and cubic phases.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Ikesue teaches a sintered zirconia body produced from a mixture of two or more kinds of raw material (ZrO2) powders having different yttria contents. The total content of the zirconia is 3-5.5 mol% (see claim 1), and Ikesue teaches embodiments wherein contents of 3 mol% and 4 mol% are used, and further embodiments wherein the yttria contents in the two zirconia powders are 2.5 mol% and 4 mol%. The Ikesue sintered body would also inherently have an equivalent change of thermal shrinkage property at the temperature of the instant claim. Ikesue teaches that the green body formed from the aforementioned mixed powder is calcined to thus produce a calcined body. Said calcined body would therefore meet each limitation of instant claim 7, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, Ikesue teaches embodiments wherein two zirconia powders having different yttria contents are mixed, and wherein the first powder comprises 3 mol% yttria and the second powder comprises 4 mol% yttria, or wherein the first powder comprises 2.5 mol% yttria and the second power comprises 4 mol% yttria (see Tables 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, Ikesue does not teach the rate of change of thermal shrinkage per unit temperature at 1300 °C. However, this property is resultant from the zirconia composition, and as the Ikesue zirconia calcined body is compositionally equivalent to that of the instant claims, the sintered body would also inherently have an equivalent change of thermal shrinkage property at the temperature of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, the Ikesue zirconia body and starting powders comprise yttrium oxide stabilizer.
Regarding claim 11, Ikesue teaches that the inventive zirconia has a crystal phase that is 40-100 vol% tetragonal phase and a cubic phase in an amount of 0-60 vol%, and further teaches that it is desirable that the sintered body substantially consists of these two crystal phases. As such, Ikesue teaches a calcined body wherein 75% or more of is made up of tetragonal and cubic phases.
Regarding claim 12, Ikesue teaches that the inventive zirconia body is produced using the powder discussed above in a sintering process.
Regarding claims 13-14, Ikesue teaches a sintered body formed from the powder discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Ikesue teaches forming a calcined body from the inventive powder mixture, and thereafter forming a sintered body.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikesue (JP 2011073907 A).
Regarding claim 15, Ikesue teaches a sintered zirconia body stabilized with yttria wherein the total content of the yttria is 3-5.5 mol% (see claim 1). This range overlaps and thus renders obvious the range 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. The average crystal grain size of the Ikesue zirconia is 0.2 to 1.5 μm. No crystal grain size difference is taught, and Ikesue teaches a zirconia material wherein optical properties are inventive. Thus, the grain size difference must be taken to be less than 0.10 µm, and one of ordinary skill would have had motivation to minimize any difference so as to ensure desirable optical properties. Ikesue teaches that the inventive zirconia has a crystal phase that is 40-100 vol% tetragonal phase and a cubic phase in an amount of 0-60 vol%, and further teaches that it is desirable that the sintered body substantially consists of these two crystal phases. As above, routine optimization of the overlapping tetragonal phase content would lead to a sintered body meeting this further limitation of the instant claim. Each limitation of claim 15 is therefore met by the Ikesue teachings, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
13. No claim is allowed.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. 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 examiner 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
NSW10 July 2026
Prosecution Insights