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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of the International Application PCT/EP2022/082953. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 1 October 2024.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application PA 2021 01121 filed in the Kingdom of Denmark on 26 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 22 May 2024, 21 January 2026, and 8 April 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 5, lines 2 and 8, page 9, line 6, and Table 1, the term “alkalis” should read “alkali metals” and “alkaline earth metals” if it intended to refer to the oxides of elements of Group I and/or Group II of the Periodic Table, versus being used to define a base that dissolves in water (interchangeable with the word alkali)
On page 8, lines 28-29, the specification recites “yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. It appears that the phrase “cubic modification” was accidentally repeated. And should read “yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. See page 4, lines 4-5 and 15-16 and page 5, lines 23-25.
On page 9, lines 18-19, the specification recites “yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. It appears that the phrase “cubic modification of” was accidentally repeated. And should read yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. See page 1, lines 5-8, page 4, lines 4-5 and 15-16, and page 5, lines 23-25 of the instant specification.
On page 10, line 9, the claims are referred to within the body of the disclosure. The claims should not be referred to in the body of the disclosure. Therefore, the wording “any of claims 1 to 6” should be amended to read “any of features 1 to 6” in accordance with the features listed above on page 8, line 25 to page 10, line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 22 May 2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9 recite weight percentages for various components, the claims recite the weight percentages using two different notations, “wt.-%” and wt. %”. The claims should use consistent notation.
Claim 1, lines 4-5, recite “an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. It appears that the phrase “cubic modification” was accidentally repeated. And should read “ an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. See page 1, lines 5-8, page 4, lines 4-5 and 15-16, and page 5, lines 23-25 of the instant specification.
Claim 4, line 2, the term “alkalis” is objected to and it is believed that it should reads “alkali metals” and/or “alkaline earth metals” if it intended to refer to the oxides of elements of Group I and/or Group II of the Periodic Table, versus being used to define a base that dissolves in water (interchangeable with the word alkali).
Claim 7, lines 4-5, recite “an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. It appears that the phrase “cubic modification of” was accidentally repeated. And should read “an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2”. See page 1, lines 5-8, page 4, lines 4-5 and 15-16, and page 5, lines 23-25 of the instant specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or second paragraph
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as indefinite since it is not clear what the “shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product” is comprising? The claim recites “(a) a chemical composition comprising a content of Al2O3: at least 40 wt.-%; Y2O3: 2.0-57 wt.-%; ZrO2: below 42.0 wt.-%; and (b) a bond matrix comprising at least an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification cubic modification of the ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2.” This is confusing since it appears that there are at least two components: (a) and (b). However, based on the instant specification as a whole and Table 1, the Examiner believes that the overall composition of “A shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product” has a chemical composition comprising a content of Al2O3 of at least 40 wt.-%, Y2O3 of 2.0-57 wt.-%, and ZrO2 of below 42.0 wt.-%, wherein the ceramic refractory product has a bond matrix comprising at least an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification of a ternary system Al2O3-Y2O3-ZrO2. Therefore, the combined amounts for Al2O3, Y2O3, and ZrO2 contents in the bond matrix, the yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide, and other present components would fall within the ranges of the recited composition for the ceramic refractory product.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ternary system" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic crystal structure" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or from one from which it depends. Claim 1 refers to “an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic crystal structure" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or from one from which it depends. Claim 1 refers to “an yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic modification”.
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 4 recites the broad recitation “the sum of the oxides SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, alkalis, HfO2 … is at most 2.2 wt.-%”, and the claim also recites “preferably at most 1.7 wt.-%” 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 4 recites the limitations "the sum” and “the oxides" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or from one from which it depends.
Claim 4 is rejected as indefinite since it is unclear if the term “alkalis” in line 2 is referring to the oxide amounts of the “alkalis”, since the other components listed in “the sum of the oxides are listed as oxide equivalents. The claim would be clearer if the term “alkalis” was defined in accordance with the objection above whether it be the alkali metal oxides, alkaline earth metal oxides, or a combination thereof and possibly amended to read “The refractory product according to claim 1, wherein a sum of SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, alkali metal oxides, alkaline earth metal oxides, and HfO2 further contained in the product is at most 2.2 wt.-%”.
Claims 6 and 9 recite limitations for a component or grain size in a range in the format of “between X to Y” or “between X-Y”. This renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the claim limits the range to the values between the numbers or if the range is meant to include the recited endpoints of the range. For example, claim 6 recites the “composition comprises between 2.0 to 25 wt. % Y2O3”. Does that include the weight percentages 2.0 and 25? Numerically, does between 2.0 and 25 mean a) 2.0 wt.%≥Y2O3≥25 wt% or b) 2.0wt%>Y2O3>25 wt%? In claim 9, does “grain sizes of between 0-1 mm and/or between 1-5 mm” mean a) 0 mm ≥ grain size > 1 mm and/or 1 mm ≥ grain size ≥ 5 mm or b) 0 mm> grain size > 1 mm and/or 1 mm > grain size > 5 mm? for the purposes of examination the use of the term between does not include the end point. Especially considering that a grain size as recited in claim 9 would not have a grain size of 0 mm. In view of this, claim 6 is read that the Y2O3 content is greater than 2.0 and less than 25 wt. % or Y2O3 is >2.0 to <25 wt% and claim 9 is read that the grain size is greater than 0 to less than 1 mm and/or greater than 1 to less than 5 mm or the grain size is >0 mm to <1 mm and/or >1 mm to <5 mm, which essentially reads on a grain size of greater than 0 mm to less than 5 mm with the exclusion of 1 mm.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the step” and “the ternary system" in lines 3 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or from one from which it depends.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "Y2O3/the total sum of rare earth oxides" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the total sum of rare earth oxides” in the claim or from one from which it depends.
Claim 10 recites the limitations the first instant of "the raw material mixture” and “the shaping” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim or from one from which it depends.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the average grain size" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the average grain size in the claim or from one from which it depends.
Claim 12 is rejected as indefinite for claiming a process of using the product without recited any active steps, “using” is not an active step. Merely reciting a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced renders these claims indefinite. See Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). Also see MPEP 2173.05(g).
The term “rich” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear from the claim or the instant specification what amount of hydrogen and carbon monoxide must be present in the gases the gases to be considered hydrogen and carbon monoxide rich gases?
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected as indefinite since they depend either directly or indirectly from a claim rejected as indefinite above without correcting the issue.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al., International Patent Publication WO 2004/087609 A1 in view of Liu et al., Effect of Y2O3 doping on the high-temperature properties of magnesia aluminate spinel refractories.
A machine-generated translation of WO 2004/087609 A1 accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Tsuda et al. teach a monolithic refractory for melting furnace for waste and melting furnace for waste lined with the same. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001]-[0005]. Tsuda et al. teach the monolithic refractory comprises a yttria-based raw material and an alumina-based raw material where product comprises 3-15 mass % of Y2O3 and at least 85 mass% of Al2O3. See paragraphs [0009], [0022]-[0023], and [0029]-[0032]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory material is used as a lining for a melting furnace. See paragraph [0008]. Tsuda et al. further teach that the combination of the specific amounts of Y2O3 and Al2O3 raw materials allows for the reaction of the Y2O3 and the Al2O3 at high temperature to generate yttria-aluminum garnet (YAG) regions in the matrix which densifies the refractory material. See paragraph [0012]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory material is mixed and can be poured directly into the furnace or can be precast to make a molded body. See paragraph [0035]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory composition and poured into a metal mold. See paragraph [0051].Tsuda et al. teach that the molded material is cured for 24 hours and demolded and then dried at 110 °C for 24 hours. See paragraph [0051]. The material was then cut into standard brick sizes of 230 x 114 x 65 mm. See paragraph [0052]. Tsuda et al. disclose that the refractory material molded into bricks was heated up to 1400°C for 15 minutes and cooled and repeated 10 times. And bricks of the refractory material were also installed in a gasification melting furnace and used for 1-2 months with an operating temperature of 1400 °C. See paragraphs [0053]-[0054]. Tsuda et al. further teach that the raw materials used to form the shaped and fired ceramic refractory product includes sintered alumina, fused alumina, calcined alumina, fused zirconia, and yttria, wherein the sintered alumina is 99.7 mass% of Al2O3, the fused alumina is 99.4 mass % Al2O3, the calcined alumina is 99.9 mass% of Al2O3, the fused zirconia is 98.6 mass % ZrO2, and the yttria is 99.9 mass % Y2O3. See Table 1. Tsuda et al. further teach that the refractory product can be made from raw materials where the electrofused alumina and the sintered alumina each can have particle sizes of 1 mm to 8 mm and less than 1 mm,, where the calcined alumina has a particle size of on average 1 µm, and the yttria has a particle size of 45 µm or less. See Table 2. Tsuda et al. teach Examples 3 and 4, where Example 3 has a total content of Al2O3 of 94.9 mass% and a total content of 3.3 mass % and Example 4 has a total content of Al2O3 of 90.1 mass% and a total content of 8.2 mass %. See Table 2. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory material is used as monolithic refractories in waste treatment furnaces which operate at high temperatures and that these also include gasification melting furnaces and ash melting furnaces. See paragraphs [0002], [0060], and [0061]. Tsuda et al. teach that these melting furnaces operate under harsh conditions at temperatures of 1300 °C or greater. See paragraph [0004]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractories used in the furnaces are classified as fixed-form refractories and undefined-form refractories. See paragraph [0005].
Tsuda et al. fail to teach specifically teach that the refractory materials are fired prior to installation into the furnace to act as a liner.
Liu et al. teach a similar ceramic refractory comprising a magnesium aluminate spinel refractory having a composition of 75.34 wt% of Al2O3, 23.56 wt% of MgO, 0.13 wt% of SiO2, 0.27 wt% of Fe2O3, and 0.52 wt% of CaO and doped with 0-3 wt% of Y2O3. See Abstract and the entire article, specifically page 390, lines 2-11. Liu et al. teach that incorporation of the raw material of Y2O3 into the raw material of the magnesium aluminate spinel creates the synthesis of yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG). See page 389, column 2, lines 10-20. Lui et al. further teach that the raw materials are weighed to the desired composition and mixed using a ball mill for 6 hours and further ground and mixed before being pressed into molds having a brick shape of 230 x 114 x 65 mm, and the bricks were dried at 100 °C for 24 hours and then heated to 1750 °C and held for 6 hours. See page 390, column 1, lines 12-26. Liu et al. teach that the addition of the Y2O3 to the magnesium aluminate spinel after firing resulted in the formation of yttria aluminum garnet (YAG or Y3Al5O12). See Figures 2-4 and the section Phase composition and microstructure analysis on pages 392-393. Liu et al. teach that the YAG is formed via the reaction of the Y2O3 with the solid solution of Al2O3 in spinel. See page 392 and Figure 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a shaped ceramic refractory product of Tsuda et al. as suggested by Liu et al. because the resultant shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product would have the superior heat resistance properties while having excellent durability created by the synthesis of the YAG phase in the alumina matrix after the firing as taught by Liu et al.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product (as shown above), which reads on a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product as recited in instant claim 1. Tsuda et al. further teach the product composition comprises 0.3-15 mass% of Y2O3 and at least 85 mass% of Al2O3 (see paragraphs [0022], [0023], and [0029]-[0032] of Tsuda et al.) and Tsuda et al. teach Examples 3 and 4, (see Table 2), which reads on the product having a chemical composition comprising a content of Al2O3 of at least 40 wt%, a Y2O3 content of 2.0-57 wt%, and a ZrO2 content of less than 42.0 wt%, as recited in instant claim 1. Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. further teach that the refractory product wherein the raw materials of Al2O3 and Y2O3 undergo a reaction at high temperatures to synthesize a yttria aluminum garnet (YAG) crystal which is known in the art to have a cubic structure (see above), which reads on the refractory product having a bond matrix comprising at least one yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with a cubic modification of a ternary system Y2O3-Al2O3-ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the refractory product comprises yttrium-aluminum garnet (YAG or Y3Al5O12) (see paragraph [0012] of Tsuda et al. and section Phase composition and microstructure analysis and Figure 4 on pages 392-393 of Liu et al.), which reads on a refractory product, wherein the yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic crystal structure of the ternary system is yttrium-aluminum garnet (Y3Al5O12), as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 4, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the refractory product in Examples 3 and 4 where the total amount of Al2O3+Y2O3 is 98.2 and 98.3 mass % (see Table 2 of Tsuda et al.), which reads on the refractory product having a sum of the oxides: SiO2, TiO2, Fe2O3, alkalis, and HfO2 of at most 2.2 wt. %, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the refractory product comprises 94.9 and 90.1 mass % of Al2O3 in Examples 3 and 4, respectively, (see Table 2 of Tsuda et al.), which reads on a refractory product, wherein the chemical composition comprises at least 60 wt % of Al2O3, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the refractory product comprises 3.3 and 8.2 mass % of Y2O3 in Examples 3 and 4, respectively, (see Table 2 of Tsuda et al.), which reads on a refractory product, wherein the chemical composition comprises between 2.0 to 25 wt % of Y2O3, as recited in instant claim 6.
As to claim 7, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach a method of making a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product (as shown above), which reads on process for producing a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product as recited in instant claim 7. Tsuda et al. further teach the product composition comprises 0.3-15 mass% of Y2O3 and at least 85 mass% of Al2O3 (see paragraphs [0022], [0023], and [0029]-[0032] of Tsuda et al.) and Tsuda et al. teach Examples 3 and 4, (see Table 2), which reads on the refractory having a chemical composition comprising a content of Al2O3 of at least 40 wt%, a Y2O3 content of 2.0-57 wt%, and a ZrO2 content of less than 42.0 wt%, as recited in instant claim 7. Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. further teach that the method of making the refractory product includes mixing the raw materials of Al2O3 and Y2O3 and firing the molded mixture which undergoes a reaction at high temperatures to synthesize a yttria aluminum garnet (YAG) crystal which is known in the art to have a cubic structure (see above), which reads on a step of providing a bond matrix comprising at least one yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with a cubic modification of a ternary system Y2O3-Al2O3-ZrO2, as recited in instant claim 7.
As to claim 8, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the Y2O3 raw material has a purity of 99.9% of Y2O3 in the raw material (see yttria in Table 1 of Tsuda et al.), which reads on the process wherein the Y2O3 for providing the yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide has a degree of purity greater than 98.5% of the Y2O3/total sum of rare earth oxides, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the process of making the refractory product includes raw material mixtures of sintered alumina (also known as corundum) having an Al2O3 content of 99.7% and a particle size of 1-8mm, sintered alumina having an Al2O3 content of 99.7% and a particle size of 1 mm or less, fused alumina (also known as corundum) having an Al2O3 content of 99.44% and a particle size of 1-8 mm, fused alumina having an Al2O3 content of 99.4% and a particle size of 1 mm or less, and calcined alumina having an Al2O3 content of 99.9% and an average particle size of 1 µm (see Table 2), which reads on a process of making a refractory product wherein a raw material mixture comprises granular high purity fused corundum and/or sintered corundum with an Al2O3 content of > 98.5 wt. % and with grain sizes of between 0-1 mm and/or between 1-5 mm, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the process of making the refractory product includes firing the molded raw materials to form a bond matrix with YAG crystals (see above and specifically, Figures 2-4 and the section Phase composition and microstructure analysis on pages 392-393 of Liu et al.), which reads on a process of making a refractory product wherein the bond matrix is formed by firing the raw material mixture after the shaping of the raw material mixture, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the method of making the refractory product includes the addition of the raw material yttria having a particle size of 45 µm or less (see Table 2 of Tsuda et al.), which reads on the process of making the refractory product wherein the average grain size of the Y203 is less than 63 µm, as recited in instant claim 11.
As to claim 12, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the refractory product is used as a furnace refractory liner under harsh condition when used as monolithic refractories in waste treatment furnaces which operate at high temperatures and that these also include gasification melting furnaces and ash melting furnaces (see paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0060], and [0061] of Tsuda et al. and the Introduction section on page 389 of Liu et al.), which reads on a process of using the refractory product comprising the step of using the product as a refractory material exposed to a reducing atmosphere, as recited in instant claim 12.
As to claim 13, Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. teach that the refractory material is used to form furnace liners which can be considered to be a vessel or chamber (see paragraphs [0002], [0005], and [0061] of Tsuda et al.), which reads on a vessel comprising the refractory product, as recited in instant claim 13.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuda et al., International Patent Publication WO 2004/087609 A1 in view of Liu et al., Effect of Y2O3 doping on the high-temperature properties of magnesia aluminate spinel refractories in further view of Gogtas et al., Effect of nano-YSZ and nano-ZrO2 additions on the strength and toughness behavior of self-flowing alumina castables.
A machine-generated translation of WO 2004/087609 A1 accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Tsuda et al. teach a monolithic refractory for melting furnace for waste and melting furnace for waste lined with the same. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001]-[0005]. Tsuda et al. teach the monolithic refractory comprises a yttria-based raw material and an alumina-based raw material where product comprises 3-15 mass % of Y2O3 and at least 85 mass% of Al2O3. See paragraphs [0009], [0022]-[0023], and [0029]-[0032]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory material is used as a lining for a melting furnace. See paragraph [0008]. Tsuda et al. further teach that the combination of the specific amounts of Y2O3 and Al2O3 raw materials allows for the reaction of the Y2O3 and the Al2O3 at high temperature to generate yttria-aluminum garnet (YAG) regions in the matrix which densifies the refractory material. See paragraph [0012]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory material is mixed and can be poured directly into the furnace or can be precast to make a molded body. See paragraph [0035]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory composition and poured into a metal mold. See paragraph [0051].Tsuda et al. teach that the molded material is cured for 24 hours and demolded and then dried at 110 °C for 24 hours. See paragraph [0051]. The material was then cut into standard brick sizes of 230 x 114 x 65 mm. See paragraph [0052]. Tsuda et al. disclose that the refractory material molded into bricks was heated up to 1400°C for 15 minutes and cooled and repeated 10 times. And bricks of the refractory material were also installed in a gasification melting furnace and used for 1-2 months with an operating temperature of 1400 °C. See paragraphs [0053]-[0054]. Tsuda et al. further teach that the raw materials used to form the shaped and fired ceramic refractory product includes sintered alumina, fused alumina, calcined alumina, fused zirconia, and yttria, wherein the sintered alumina is 99.7 mass% of Al2O3, the fused alumina is 99.4 mass % Al2O3, the calcined alumina is 99.9 mass% of Al2O3, the fused zirconia is 98.6 mass % ZrO2, and the yttria is 99.9 mass % Y2O3. See Table 1. Tsuda et al. further teach that the refractory product can be made from raw materials where the electrofused alumina and the sintered alumina each can have particle sizes of 1 mm to 8 mm and less than 1 mm,, where the calcined alumina has a particle size of on average 1 µm, and the yttria has a particle size of 45 µm or less. See Table 2. Tsuda et al. teach Examples 3 and 4, where Example 3 has a total content of Al2O3 of 94.9 mass% and a total content of 3.3 mass % and Example 4 has a total content of Al2O3 of 90.1 mass% and a total content of 8.2 mass %. See Table 2. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractory material is used as monolithic refractories in waste treatment furnaces which operate at high temperatures and that these also include gasification melting furnaces and ash melting furnaces. See paragraphs [0002], [0060], and [0061]. Tsuda et al. teach that these melting furnaces operate under harsh conditions at temperatures of 1300 °C or greater. See paragraph [0004]. Tsuda et al. teach that the refractories used in the furnaces are classified as fixed-form refractories and undefined-form refractories. See paragraph [0005].
Tsuda et al. fail to teach specifically teach that the refractory materials are fired prior to installation into the furnace to act as a liner.
Liu et al. teach a similar ceramic refractory comprising a magnesium aluminate spinel refractory having a composition of 75.34 wt% of Al2O3, 23.56 wt% of MgO, 0.13 wt% of SiO2, 0.27 wt% of Fe2O3, and 0.52 wt% of CaO and doped with 0-3 wt% of Y2O3. See Abstract and the entire article, specifically page 390, lines 2-11. Liu et al. teach that incorporation of the raw material of Y2O3 into the raw material of the magnesium aluminate spinel creates the synthesis of yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG). See page 389, column 2, lines 10-20. Lui et al. further teach that the raw materials are weighed to the desired composition and mixed using a ball mill for 6 hours and further ground and mixed before being pressed into molds having a brick shape of 230 x 114 x 65 mm, and the bricks were dried at 100 °C for 24 hours and then heated to 1750 °C and held for 6 hours. See page 390, column 1, lines 12-26. Liu et al. teach that the addition of the Y2O3 to the magnesium aluminate spinel after firing resulted in the formation of yttria aluminum garnet (YAG or Y3Al5O12). See Figures 2-4 and the section Phase composition and microstructure analysis on pages 392-393. Liu et al. teach that the YAG is formed via the reaction of the Y2O3 with the solid solution of Al2O3 in spinel. See page 392 and Figure 4.
Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. fail to teach that the refractory product comprises a yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic crystal structure is yttria fully stabilized zirconia or a mixture of yttria fully stabilized zirconia and Y3Al5O12.
Gogtas et al. teach a self-flowing castable (SFC) refractory product comprising alumina. See Abstract and the entire article, specifically page 1847, Section 1. Introduction. Gogtas et al. teach that the SFC are an alumina-based castable having a composition as recited in Table 1 and the alumina based castables can be strengthened by the inclusion of Y2O3, CeO2, TiC, SiC, Al2O3, and ZrO2. See Table 1 and the first paragraph on page 1848. Gogtas et al. teach the alumina castable may be enhanced by the addition of nano-ZrO2 and nano-yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ). See the Abstract and the first paragraph on page 1848. Gogtas et al. teach the addition of nano-YSZ which is known in the art to have a cubic crystalline structure. See page 1848, section 2. Experimental. Gogtas et al. teach a method of making refractory products wherein the raw material mixture were cast into bars having a shape of 160 x 40 x 40 mm, cured at room temperature for 24 hours, dried at 110 °C for 24 hours, and then fired at temperatures from 1000-1500°C for 3 hours. See page 1848, section 2. Experimental. Gogtas et al. teach that the shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product includes alumina and YSZ Gogtas et al. teach that the addition of nano-YSZ reinforced SFC-3 when fired at 1300°Cshows the presence of c-ZrO2, the formation of m-ZrO2 after the addition of 1 wt% of YSZ and that other phases are present including a-Al2O3(corundum) and anorthite. See description of Figure 4 on page 1849. Gogtas et al. teach that the aggregate-free binder system comprising nano-ZrO2 and nano-YSZ had improved MOR and K1C values. See section 3.3. MOR and K1C binder properties on pages 1850-1851 and section 4. Conclusions on page 1854.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product of Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. as suggested by Gogtas et al. because the resultant shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product would have the superior heat resistance properties while having the improved MOR and K1C- as a result of the addition of yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) in the alumina matrix after the firing as taught by Gogtas et al.
Specifically, as to claim , Tsuda et al. in view of Liu et al. in further view of Gogtas et al. teach a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product wherein the bond matrix comprising Al2O3 and Y2O3 further comprises yttria stabilized zirconia (YSZ) (as shown above), which reads on a shaped and fired coarse ceramic refractory product wherein the yttria-containing crystalline mixed oxide with cubic crystal structure is yttria fully stabilized zirconia or a mixture of yttria fully stabilized zirconia and Y3Al5O12, as recited in instant claim 3.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A. Bolden whose telephone number is (571)272-1363. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 6:30 pm M-F.
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.
/Elizabeth A. Bolden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
EAB
19 August 2026
Prosecution Insights