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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okamoto (US2008/0050593).
Okamoto teaches a porous zirconia powder having a total pore volume (Fresh), measured by the mercury intrusion method using a pore distribution measurement device (Pore Master 60-GT) with a measurement range of 0.0036-10.3 µm, is 1.05 ml/g, and the content ZrO2 in the porous zirconia powder being 72 wt.% (para.[0021], [0063], example 1, Fig. 3, table 1 and claims 1-6).
Regarding claim 1, as for the claimed Formula (1), Okamoto disclosed Fig 3 shows Vp10 ( noted 10 nm is 0.01 µm, x-axis is 1E-2, looking up 1E-2 vertical direction on the Fig 3) is around 0.9523, similarly, Vp100 (noted 100 nm is 0.1 µm, x-axis is 1E-1, looking up 1E-1 vertical direction on the Fig 3) is around 0.529, Vp6000 (noted 6000 nm is 6 µm on X-axis) is about 0, therefore, Okamoto disclosed (Vp10-100)/(Vp100-6000) is within or overlaps with that of instantly claimed Formula (1) range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP§ 2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 2, Okamoto disclosed Fig 3 shows Vp5 ( noted 5 nm is 0.005 µm, i.e., 5E-3, in between 1E-3 and 1E-2 of axis, and its vertical value in between 0.9523 and 1.0581,while Okamoto already discloses Vp10, Vp100, Vp6000 as discussed above, therefore, Okamoto disclosed (Vp10-100)/(Vp5-6000) is within or overlaps with that of instantly claimed Formula (2) range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP§ 2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 3, Okamoto already discloses Vp5, Vp10 and Vp 6000 as discussed above, therefore, Okamoto disclosed (Vp5-10)/(Vp5-6000) is within or overlaps with that of instantly claimed Formula (3) range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP§ 2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 4, Okamoto already discloses Vp5, Vp100 and Vp6000 as discussed above, therefore, Okamoto disclosed (Vp100-6000)/(Vp5-6000) is within or overlaps with that of instantly claimed Formula (4) range thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP§ 2144. 05 I).
Regarding claim 5, Okamoto already discloses Vp5 and Vp6000 as discussed above, therefore, Okamoto disclosed Vp5-6000 is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Okamoto already discloses such limitations as discussed above.
Regarding claim 7, Okamoto does not expressly teach the zirconia powder having a particle diameter D50 after a crushing treatment being 0.05 µm or more and 1.5 µm or less, however, Okamoto already teaches a same or substantially the same porous zirconia powder as that of instantly claimed, therefore, after going through a same or substantially the same crushing treatment would be expected to have same or substantially the same particle diameter D50 as that of instantly claimed because exposing a same crushing treatment to a same or substantially the same zirconia powder would lead to a same or substantially the same crushed zirconia powder/particles, i.e. zirconia powder having same or substantially the same particle diameter D50 as that of instantly claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, MATSUMOTO to (WO2022/107900) (English equivalent document US2023/0125091) teaches a zirconia-based porous body comprising an oxide of a rare earth element, wherein when a pore volume in a pore distribution range of 30 nm or more and 200 nm or less after heating at 1150° C. for 12 hours under atmospheric pressure is defined as pore volume A and a pore volume in a pore distribution range of 30 nm or more and 200 nm or less before heating is defined as pore volume B, the pore volume A is 0.10 ml/g or more and 0.40 ml/g or less, and a pore volume retention ratio X in a pore distribution range of 30 nm or more and 200 nm or less represented by formula (1) below is 25% or more and 95% or less.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights