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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 1 uses the term “containing” as a transitional phrase. A transitional phrase like “containing” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended (see MPEP 2111.03(IV)). Here, the specification indicates that open claim language is intended (see, e.g., ¶ 0023, explaining that components other than Si3N4, ZrO2, MgO, SiO2, Al2O3, and Y2O3 may be present in the composite material). Therefore, an open construction will be used in interpreting claim 1 and its dependent claim, such that “containing” is read as substantially equivalent to “comprising.”
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.
Claim 2 is 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. The term “using” in line 1 of claim 2 renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear how the plate-shaped body is “using” the silicon nitride composite material.
For purposes of claim interpretation, claim 2 will be read as if “using” were “comprising,” such that the plate-shaped body comprises the silicon nitride composite material as claimed in claim 1. This interpretation appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the plain meaning of the claim language and the specification (see ¶ 0026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sayyadi-Shahraki et al., “Densification and mechanical properties of spark plasma sintered Si3N4/ZrO2 nano-composites,” Journal of Alloys and Compounds 776 (2019): pp. 798-806 (hereinafter “Sayyadi-Shahraki”).
Regarding claim 1, Sayyadi-Shahraki discloses a silicon nitride composite material (Abstract) comprising Si3N4, ZrO2, Y2O3, and Al2O3 (p. 799, col. 2; Table 1). Sayyadi-Shahraki discloses a particular embodiment (Sample SZ30) that comprises 70 vol% Si3N4 and 30 vol% Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2 (or YSZ) (p. 800, Table 2). Using the respective densities of the silicon nitride and YSZ (see Table 1), the respective mass percentages of Si3N4 and Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2 within Sample SZ30 may be calculated; so, for 100 cm3 of composite material:
(70 cm3 Si3N4) * (3.89 g/cm3 Si3N4) = 272 g Si3N4
(30 cm3 YSZ) * (6.03 g/cm3 YSZ) = 181 g YSZ
(272 g Si3N4)/(272 g Si3N4 +181 g YSZ) = (272)/(453) = 60% by mass Si3N4
(181 g YSZ)/(272 g Si3N4 +181 g YSZ) = (181)/(453) = 40% by mass YSZ
Thus, Sample SZ30 comprises silicon nitride making up 60% by mass of the combined amount of Si3N4 and Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2. Sayyadi-Shahraki also teaches that that the silicon nitride composite material of Sample SZ30 comprises 2 wt% Al2O3 (see Table 2, p. 800); therefore, the Si3N4 and Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2 collectively constitute 98 wt% of the silicon nitride composite material as a whole, so that the respective weight percentages of Si3N4 and YSZ are as shown below:
(60% by mass Si3N4) * (0.98) = 59% by mass Si3N4
(40% by mass YSZ) * (0.98) = 39% by mass YSZ
Sayyadi-Shahraki teaches that the Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2 comprises 3 mol% Y2O3 (p. 799, col. 2). Converting the molar proportions of Y2O3 and ZrO2 within the YSZ to weight percentages, and multiplying those weight percentages by the weight percentage of YSZ within the silicon nitride composite material as a whole (39% by mass, as shown above) gives weight percentages for Y2O3 and ZrO2 within the silicon nitride composite material:
(0.03 mol Y2O3) * (225.81 g/mol) = 6.774 g Y2O3
(0.97 mol ZrO2) * (123.218 g/mol) = 119.521 g ZrO2
(6.774 g Y2O3)/(6.774 g Y2O3 + 119.521 g ZrO2)
= (6.774)/(126.295) = 0.054 = 5.4 wt% Y2O3
(119.521 g ZrO2)/(6.774 g Y2O3 + 119.521 g ZrO2)
= (119.521)/(126.295) = 0.946 = 94.6 wt% ZrO2
(5.4 wt% Y2O3) * (0.39) = 2.1% by mass Y2O3
(94.6 wt% ZrO2) * (0.39) = 36.9% by mass ZrO2
Thus, Sample SZ30 of Sayyadi-Shahraki discloses a silicon nitride composite material comprising the following components by mass percentage:
Component
Sample SZ30
(% by mass)
Si3N4
59
ZrO2
36.9
Al2O3
2
Y2O3
2.1
As shown above, the total combined amount of Al2O3 and Y2O3 (4.1% by mass) falls within the claimed range of 0.5% to less than 5%.
Sayyadi-Shahraki teaches that the Si3N4 of the silicon nitride composite material comprises βSi3N4 and αSi3N4 in a weight ratio of 70:30 (p. 799, col. 2); therefore, a ratio (βSi3N4)/(βSi3N4 + αSi3N4) = (0.70)/(0.70+0.30) = 0.70. Given this ratio of βSi3N4 to αSi3N4, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the silicon nitride composite material of Sayyadi-Shahraki inherently would exhibit a peak intensity ratio: Iβ/(Iα + Iβ) that is 0.70, where Iα denotes the (210) plane peak intensity of αSi3N4, as measured by X-ray powder diffraction, and Iβ denotes the (210) plane peak intensity of βSi3N4, as measured by X-ray powder diffraction. A value of Iβ/(Iα + Iβ) that is 0.70 falls within the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.80.
Thus, Sayyadi-Shahraki discloses a silicon nitride composite material reading on every limitation of claim 1.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0188714 to Yamagishi et al. (hereinafter “Yamagishi”) in view of Sayyadi-Shahraki.
Regarding claim 2, Yamagishi teaches a probe-guiding part for guiding a probe of a probe card (¶ 0028; claim 6) comprising a plate-shaped body comprising a silicon nitride composite material (¶¶ 0029, 0053), wherein the plate-shaped body has a plurality of through-holes and/or slits each for inserting the probe therethrough (¶ 0053; claims 6, 7).
Yamagishi teaches that the silicon nitride composite material of the plate-shaped body comprises Si3N4 in an amount of 20.0 to 60.0% by mass and ZrO2 in an amount of 25.0 to 70.0% by mass (¶¶ 0019-0020); these ranges substantially overlap claimed ranges for Si3N4 and ZrO2 recited in claim 1. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Moreover, Yamagishi teaches that wherein the silicon nitride composite material may include one or more of MgO, SiO2, Al2O3, or Y2O3 (see ¶ 0052). However, Yamagishi does not explicitly teach that the silicon nitride composite material is the silicon nitride composite material as claimed in claim 1—i.e., Yamagishi does not explicitly teach that the silicon nitride composite material reads on every limitation of claim 1, including the limitations concerning one or more selected from the group consisting of MgO, SiO2, Al2O3, and Y2O3, in an amount of 0.5% by mass to less than 5% by mass and concerning the ratio Iβ/(Iα + Iβ).
Sayyadi-Shahraki teaches the silicon nitride composite material as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamagishi by substituting the silicon nitride composite material of Sayyadi-Shahraki in the plate-shaped body of the probe-guiding part Yamagishi, thereby producing a probe-guiding part reading on every limitation of claim 2. Motivation to modify Yamagishi with the silicon nitride composite material of Sayyadi-Shahraki would have come from a desire to take advantage of the high fracture toughness of the silicon nitride composite material of Sayyadi-Shahraki (see Sayyadi-Shahraki at p. 803, col. 1, and Table 2). Moreover, given the substantial similarity in composition between the range of silicon nitride composite materials described in Yamagishi and the silicon nitride composite material of Sayyadi-Shahraki, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the silicon nitride composite material of Sayyadi-Shahraki for the silicon nitride composite material of Yamagishi, with predictable results and a high probability of success (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,883,776 to Pyzik et al. (“Pyzik”) teaches a silicon nitride ceramic body comprising silicon nitride, magnesium oxide, yttrium oxide, and calcium oxide (Abstract). Pyzik teaches wherein the silicon nitride ceramic body includes yttrium oxide and calcium oxide in part to promote the formation of β-Si3N4 (Col. 2, lines 51-55).
Bódis et al., “Silicon nitride-based composites reinforced with zirconia nanofibres,” Ceramics International 43(18) (2017): pp. 16811-16818 (“Bódis”) teaches a composite material comprising silicon nitride and ZrO2 nanofibers (Abstract). Bódis teaches embodiments comprising 3 wt% Al2O3 and 5, 10, or 15 wt% ZrO2 stabilized with 3 mol% Y2O3 (p. 16812, col. 2). Bódis teaches that all embodiments include a mixture of both α-Si3N4 and β-Si3N4 (see p. 16815, Table 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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 R. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights