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 II, claims 8-16 in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/17/2026.
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) 8-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kakita et al. (JP2000095564A with reference to machine translation and Japanese publication as noted, hereinafter referred to as Kakita).
Regarding claim 8, Kakita discloses a zirconia powder (see Kakita at [0037] from the machine translation, disclosing a zirconia raw material powder.) comprising stabilized zirconia containing zirconia and a stabilizer (see Kakita at [0043] from the machine translation, disclosing stabilized ZrO2), wherein the stabilizer contains an oxide of yttrium (See Kakita at [0043] from the machine translation, disclosing Y2O3 stabilizer) and an oxide of M, the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Ba, Sr, Dy, Tb, Gd, Eu, Sm, Nd, Pr, and La (see Kakita at [0043], disclosing a specific rare earth metal element. See also Kakita at Table 1, Example 29, disclosing that element is La2O3), a content of the stabilizer in the stabilized zirconia is 1.7 mol% or more and 2.6 mol% or less in terms of oxide (see Kakita at Table 1, Example 29 from the Japanese publication, disclosing 2 mol% Y2O3 and 0.5 mol% La2O3 for a stabilizer content of 2.5 mol%), a molar ratio between the oxide of M and the oxide of yttrium [(oxide of M)/(oxide of yttrium)] is 0.05 or more and 1.5 or less (see Kakita at Table 1, Example 29 from the Japanese publication, disclosing 2 mol% Y2O3 and 0.5 mol% La2O3 for a molar ratio of M to yttrium oxide of 0.5/2= 0.25, which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 9, Kakita discloses wherein the M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Ca, Dy, Tb, Nd, and La (See Kakita at Table 1, Example 29, disclosing that element is La2O3).
Regarding claim 10, Kakita discloses wherein a content of the oxide of M is 0.1 mol% or more and 1.3 mol% or less relative to an entire amount of the stabilized zirconia (see Kakita at Table 1, Example 29 from the Japanese publication, disclosing 0.5 mol% La2O3).
Regarding claim 13, while Kakita does not explicitly disclose the powder has the following <Characteristic 1> when molded at a molding pressure of 2 t/cm2 by cold isostatic pressing and then heated at 1250°C for 2 hours: <Characteristic 1> a ratio of a tetragonal fraction after thermal treatment at 300°C for 1 hour relative to a tetragonal fraction before thermal treatment is 70% or more, this is a property which depends upon the composition, particle diameter, and surface area of the powder. Kakita at the Abstract from the machine translation discloses a tetragonal single phase. As detailed in the rejections above, Kakita discloses a composition, particle diameter, and surface area substantially identical to those of the instantly claimed powder. Therefore, Kakita would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 14, while Kakita does not explicitly disclose the powder has the following <Characteristic 2> when molded at a molding pressure of 2 t/cm2 by cold isostatic pressing and then heated at 1250°C for 2 hours: <Characteristic 2> a ratio of a tetragonal fraction after hydrothermal treatment at 134°C and 3 atmospheres for 40 hours relative to a tetragonal fraction before hydrothermal treatment is 70% or more, this is a property which depends upon the composition, particle diameter, and surface area of the powder. Kakita at the Abstract from the machine translation discloses a tetragonal single phase. As detailed in the rejections above, Kakita discloses a composition, particle diameter, and surface area substantially identical to those of the instantly claimed powder. Therefore, Kakita would inherently possess the claimed property.
Regarding claim 15, while Kakita does not explicitly disclose the powder has the following <Characteristic 3> when molded at a molding pressure of 2 t/cm2 by cold isostatic pressing and then heated at 1250°C for 2 hours: <Characteristic 3> a toughness value as measured by IF method is 5 MPa*m0.5 or more, this is a property which depends upon the composition, particle diameter, and surface area of the powder. As detailed in the rejections above, Kakita discloses a composition, particle diameter, and surface area substantially identical to those of the instantly claimed powder. Therefore, Kakita would inherently possess the claimed property. This is further evidenced by Kakita at [0002] from the machine translation, disclosing high toughness.
Regarding claim 16, while Kakita does not explicitly disclose the powder has the following <Characteristic 4> when molded at a molding pressure of 2 t/cm2 by cold isostatic pressing and then heated at 1250°C for 2 hours: <Characteristic 4> a three-point bending strength is 80 kgf/mm2 or more and 150 kgf/mm2 or less, this is a property which depends upon the composition, particle diameter, and surface area of the powder. As detailed in the rejections above, Kakita discloses a composition, particle diameter, and surface area substantially identical to those of the instantly claimed powder. Therefore, Kakita would inherently possess the claimed property. This is further evidenced by Kakita at Table 2, Example 29 from the original Japanese publication, disclosing a 3-point bending strength of 1200 MPa which corresponds to approximately 122 kgf/mm2, which is within the claimed range.
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakita.
Regarding claim 11, while Kakita does not explicitly disclose the specific surface area of the powder is 15 m2/g or more and 50 m2/g or less because Kakita does not disclose the specific surface area of the powder, the specific surface area of a powder is a function of the particle diameter of a powder as well as the method for forming the powder. As detailed below, the particle diameter of Kakita is substantially identical to the instant particle diameter. Kakita discloses the zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, and an oxide of a rare earth metal element (such as lanthanum oxide) are ... wet-mixed with a ball mill (see Kakita at [0031] from the machine translation). This wet ball milling is substantially identical to the instant PGPub at [0293], disclosing a wet ball mill. Because Kakita discloses a composition, particle diameter, and processing step which are substantially identical to those of the instant invention, then the powder of Kakita would inherently possess the claimed specific surface area. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Kakita makes obvious a particle diameter D50 of 0.1 µm or more and less than 1.0 µm (see Kakita at [0034], disclosing the average particle size may be about 0.5 to 1.5 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20100240519.
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