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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that no serious burden exists in examining all the pending claims. This is not found persuasive because for purposes of the initial requirement, a serious burden on the Examiner may be prima facie shown if the Examiner shows by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search (as defined in MPEP § 808.02). The restriction requirement meets this requirement. While that prima facie showing may be rebutted by appropriate showings or evidence by the Applicant, an unsupported statement by Applicant that no serious burden would exist in the examination of all pending claims does not qualify as an “appropriate showing” or “evidence”. See MPEP § 803. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025, 06/21/2024 and 06/21/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada et al. (US 20160074142 A1) [IDS dated: 06/21/2024], herein Yamada.
In regards to claim 1, Yamada teaches a zirconia (i.e., oxide ceramic) based pre-sintered body [Abstract, Title, 0002-0003, 0011]. The zirconia has an average particle size of 130 nm (i.e., 0.13 microns) [0130]. Yamada does not expressly teach the D10 or D90 of the pores in the cumulative pore distribution, however, the pore distribution is expected to be substantially similar to that of the claimed body.
Yamada teaches a substantially similar method of creating the powder, ball milling, and a similar average particle size, 130 nm, as well as similar a forming process for the body including CIP at 1500 kg/cm2 (150 Ma) and firing at 1000oC, that one would expect the pore distribution including the D10 and D90, would be substantially similar, see In re Best [0132-0133].
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 2, Yamada does not expressly teach the relative density of the body, however, the relative density range of the body is expected to be substantially similar to that of the claimed body.
Yamada teaches a substantially similar method of creating the powder, ball milling, and a similar average particle size, 130 nm, as well as similar a forming process for the body including CIP at 1500 kg/cm2 (150 Ma) and firing at 1000 oC, that one would expect the relative density range, would be substantially similar, see In re Best [0132-0133].
In regards to claim 3, Yamada does not expressly teach the BET specific surface area of the body, however, the BET specific surface area range of the body is expected to be substantially similar to that of the claimed body.
Yamada teaches a substantially similar method of creating the powder, ball milling, and a similar average particle size, 130 nm, as well as similar a forming process for the body including CIP at 1500 kg/cm2 (150 Ma) and firing at 1000 oC, that one would expect the BET specific surface area range, would be substantially similar, see In re Best [0132-0133].
In regards to claim 4, Yamada further teaches the pre-sintered body has a three-point flexural strength of 41 MPa [0135, Table 7].
In regards to claim 5, Yamada does not expressly teach the hardness of the body, however, the hardness of the body is expected to be substantially similar to that of the claimed body.
Yamada teaches a substantially similar method of creating the powder, ball milling, and a similar average particle size, 130 nm, as well as similar a forming process for the body including CIP at 1500 kg/cm2 (150 Ma) and firing at 1000 oC, that one would expect the hardness, would be substantially similar, see In re Best [0132-0133].
In regards to claim 6, Yamada further teaches the pre-sintered body comprises zirconia and alumina [0062, 0091, 0129].
In regards to claim 7, Yamada further teaches the alumina is alpha alumina [0091]. Yamada doesn’t expressly teach the purity of the alpha alumina, however, it would have been obvious to use any high purity alpha alumina including 99.5% or more. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
In regards to claim 8, Yamada further teaches the body comprises CaO or MgO or yttria or cerium oxide [0093].
Claims 9-10 define the product by how the product was made. Thus, claims 9-10 are product-by-process claims. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a pre-sintered oxide body comprising ceramic particles having an average primary particle size of 50 to 300 nm and pores having a D10 or 20 nm or more and a D90 of 90 nm or less. The reference suggests such a product.
Yamada does not expressly teach the translucency of body as claimed nor the number-based average crystal grain size as claimed, however, the hardness of the body is expected to be substantially similar to that of the claimed body.
Yamada teaches a substantially similar method of creating the powder, ball milling, and a similar average particle size, 130 nm, as well as similar a forming process for the body including CIP at 1500 kg/cm2 (150 Ma) and firing at 1000 oC, that one would expect the properties including the translucency and grain size, would be substantially similar once processed as claimed, see In re Best [0132-0133].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure teaching pre-sintered blanks includes Nonaka et al. (US 20200170753 A1), Camposilvan et al. (US 2023/0295048 A1), and Yang et al. (US 2022/0098115 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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 COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784