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/JP2022/048288. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 12 November 2024.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP 2021-212807 filed in Japan on 27 December 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 24 September 2024, 7 May 2026, and 24 August 2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The original drawings received on 24 June 2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) or fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites the limitation that the content of the stabilizing element is 0.1 mol% or greater and 4.0 mol% or less. This fails to further limit claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, since the total amount of a stabilizing element and the germanium oxide is 4.0 mol% or less as recited in claim 1 and the amount of germanium oxide divided by the stabilizing element is 0.35 or greater; therefore the stabilizing element cannot be 4 mol%, mathematically, the highest the stabilizing element can be is 2.96 mol%. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mimurada et al., Superplastic Behavior in GeO2 Doped Y-TZP.
Mimurada et al. disclose a chemical composition of the material was ZrO2-2.5 mol% Y2O3-1.0 mol% GeO2 (TZP-1Ge). See Abstract and the entire article, specifically, II. Experimental Procedures on page 836. Mimurada et al. disclose raw materials are mixed and ball-milled then dried into powder. See II. Experimental Procedures on page 836. The powder was then pressed and then cold isostatically pressed (CIP), followed by sintering for 2 hours at 1200 °C, and further annealed in temperature range of 1400-1500 °C for a period of 0-20 hours. See II. Experimental Procedures on page 836. The compositional ranges of Mimurada et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the sintered body, powder, calcined body, method for producing the sintered body, and component as recited in claims 1-6 and 8-11. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) which has a ratio of Y/X of 0.4 and a X+Y content of 3.5 mol%, and the material is a sintered body, (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a sintered body comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Mimurada et al. disclose that the TZP-1Ge undergoes superplastic deformation (see page 839), which reads on the sintered body undergoing plastic deformation when a load is applied, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a sintered body comprising 0.1 mol% to less than 4.0 mol% of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a sintered body comprising having a stabilizing element includes at least one pf yttrium, calcium, magnesium, ytterbium, and gadolinium, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a sintered body comprising having a stabilizing element in the amount of 0.1-4.0 mol%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, since the composition of Mimurada et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the sintered body of Mimurada et al. would inherently possess a fracture toughness of at least 6.0 MPam0.5, as recited in claim 6. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 8, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) which has a ratio of Y/X of 0.4 and a X+Y content of 3.5 mol%, and the material is a powder (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a powder comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) which has a ratio of Y/X of 0.4 and a X+Y content of 3.5 mol%, and the material undergoers heat treatments (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a calcined body comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Mimurada et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2.5 mol% of Y2O3, and 1.0 mol% of GeO2, (TZP-1Ge) which has a ratio of Y/X of 0.4 and a X+Y content of 3.5 mol%, and the material undergoers heat treatments including heating to 1200 °C for 2 hours (see II. Experimental Procedures page 836), which reads on a method of making a sintered body comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, at a temperature of 1100-1500 °C for a time of 0.3-20 hours, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Mimurada et al. disclose a chemical composition of the material was ZrO2-2.5 mol% Y2O3-1.0 mol% GeO2 (TZP-1Ge), Mimurada et al. disclose raw materials are mixed and ball-milled then dried into powder, the powder was then pressed and then cold isostatically pressed (CIP), followed by sintering for 2 hours at 1200 °C, and further annealed in temperature range of 1400-1500 °C for a period of 0-20 hours, tensile stress specimens having a gauge length of 13 mm and a cross sectional area of 2 mm x 2 mm were formed (see II. Experimental Procedures on page 836), which reads on a component made of the sintered body, as recited in claim 11.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimurada et al., Superplastic Behavior in GeO2 Doped Y-TZP in view of Wang et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 113429202 A.
A machine-generated translation of CN 113429202 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Mimurada et al. disclose a chemical composition of the material was ZrO2-2.5 mol% Y2O3-1.0 mol% GeO2 (TZP-1Ge). See Abstract and the entire article, specifically, II. Experimental Procedures on page 836. Mimurada et al. disclose raw materials are mixed and ball-milled then dried into powder. See II. Experimental Procedures on page 836. The powder was then pressed and then cold isostatically pressed (CIP), followed by sintering for 2 hours at 1200 °C, and further annealed in temperature range of 1400-1500 °C for a period of 0-20 hours. See II. Experimental Procedures on page 836.
Mimurada et al. fail to teach that the ZrO2-2.5 mol% Y2O3-1.0 mol% GeO2 (TZP-1Ge) sintered body also includes alumina as recited in claim 7.
Wang et al. teach a similar sintered body comprising ZrO2, 3 mol% of Y2O3, 1 mol% of GeO2, and 0.1-0.5 mol% of Al2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically paragraphs [0002] and [0005]. Wang et al. teach the material can be a powder, green body, or a sintered body. See paragraph [0005]. Wang et al. teach that the material is sintered at a temperature of 1450 °C for 2 hours. See paragraphs [0012] and [0020]. Wang et al. teach that the addition of Al2O3 increases the 3-point bend strength up to 0.25 % and also increases the fracture toughness. See paragraph [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a ZrO2-2.5 mol% Y2O3-1.0 mol% of GeO2. of Mimurada et al. as suggested by Wang et al. because the resultant sintered body would have the increased strength and fracture toughness while having excellent plasticity of Mimurada et al. See paragraphs [0002], [0005], and [0059] of Wang et al.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., Determination of Solid Solubility Limit of GeO2 in 2 mol% Y2O3-Stabilized Tetragonal ZrO2 by Raman Spectroscopy.
Kim et al. disclose a material comprising 0-6 mol% of GeO2 in a 2 mol% Y2O3 stabilized t-ZrO2 (2Y-TZP). See the entire specification, specifically, end of first column and start of second column on page 1007. Kim et al. disclose the powders were mixed and ball milled for 24 hours, the mixed powders were calcined at 1000°C for 5 hours and then sintered at 1350°C for 3 hours, and the powders were formed into pellets. See column 2 of page 1007. Kim et al. disclose that samples comprising 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mol% of GeO2. See Figure 1. Kim et al. disclose that the solubility limit of GeO2 is about 3.5 mol%. See column 2 of page 1008.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge), where 2Y-TZP-1Ge and 2Y-TZP-2Ge have a ratio of Y/X of 0.5 and 1 and a X+Y content of 3 and 4 mol%, respectively, and the material is a sintered body, (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a sintered body comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, since the composition of Kim et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the sintered body of Kim et al. would inherently undergo plastic deformation when a load is applied, as recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 3, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge) (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a sintered body comprising 0.1 mol% to less than 4.0 mol% of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 4, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge) (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a sintered body comprising having a stabilizing element includes at least one pf yttrium, calcium, magnesium, ytterbium, and gadolinium, as recited in instant claim 4.
As to claim 5, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge) (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a sintered body comprising having a stabilizing element in the amount of 0.1-4.0 mol%, as recited in instant claim 5.
As to claim 6, since the composition of Kim et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the sintered body of Kim et al. would inherently possess a fracture toughness of at least 6.0 MPam0.5, as recited in claim 6. See MPEP 2112.
It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Products of identical composition may not have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada 15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Circ. 1990).
As to claim 8, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge), where 2Y-TZP-1Ge and 2Y-TZP-2Ge have a ratio of Y/X of 0.5 and 1 and a X+Y content of 3 and 4 mol%, respectively, and the material is a powder, (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a powder comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 8.
As to claim 9, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge), where 2Y-TZP-1Ge and 2Y-TZP-2Ge have a ratio of Y/X of 0.5 and 1 and a X+Y content of 3 and 4 mol%, respectively, and the material is a calcined body, (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a calcined body comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, as recited in instant claim 9.
As to claim 10, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge), where 2Y-TZP-1Ge and 2Y-TZP-2Ge have a ratio of Y/X of 0.5 and 1 and a X+Y content of 3 and 4 mol%, respectively, and the material is a sintered body, which was sintered at a temperature pf 1350 °C for 3 hours (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a method of making a sintered body comprising zirconia that contains a stabilizing element, and germanium oxide, wherein Y/X is at least 0.35 and X+Y is at most 4.0 mol%, where X is the amount of a stabilizing element and Y is the amount of germanium oxide, at a temperature of 1100-1500 °C for a time of 0.3-20 hours, as recited in instant claim 10.
As to claim 11, Kim et al. disclose a material comprising ZrO2, 2 mol% of Y2O3, and 0-6 mol% of GeO2, (2Y-TZP-(0-6)Ge), where 2Y-TZP-1Ge and 2Y-TZP-2Ge have a ratio of Y/X of 0.5 and 1 and a X+Y content of 3 and 4 mol%, respectively, Kim et al. disclose raw materials are mixed and ball-milled then dried into powder, the powder was then calcined at 1000°C for 5 hours, the powders were pressed by isostatically pressed into pellets, and followed by sintering for 3 hours at 1350 °C (see columns 1 and 2 of page 1007), which reads on a component made of the sintered body, as recited in claim 11.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., Determination of Solid Solubility Limit of GeO2 in 2 mol% Y2O3-Stabilized Tetragonal ZrO2 by Raman Spectroscopy in view of Wang et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 113429202 A.
A machine-generated translation of CN 113429202 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Kim et al. disclose a material comprising 0-6 mol% of GeO2 in a 2 mol% Y2O3 stabilized t-ZrO2 (2Y-TZP). See the entire specification, specifically, end of first column and start of second column on page 1007. Kim et al. disclose the powders were mixed and ball milled for 24 hours, the mixed powders were calcined at 1000°C for 5 hours and then sintered at 1350°C for 3 hours, and the powders were formed into pellets. See column 2 of page 1007. Kim et al. disclose that samples comprising 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mol% of GeO2. See Figure 1. Kim et al. disclose that the solubility limit of GeO2 is about 3.5 mol%. See column 2 of page 1008.
Kim et al. fail to teach that the 0-6 mol% of GeO2 in a 2 mol% Y2O3 stabilized t-ZrO2 (2Y-TZP) sintered body also includes alumina as recited in claim 7.
Wang et al. teach a similar sintered body comprising ZrO2, 3 mol% of Y2O3, 1 mol% of GeO2, and 0.1-0.5 mol% of Al2O3. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically paragraphs [0002] and [0005]. Wang et al. teach the material can be a powder, green body, or a sintered body. See paragraph [0005]. Wang et al. teach that the material is sintered at a temperature of 1450 °C for 2 hours. See paragraphs [0012] and [0020]. Wang et al. teach that the addition of Al2O3 increases the 3-point bend strength up to 0.25 % and also increases the fracture toughness. See paragraph [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a ZrO2-2.5 mol% Y2O3-1.0 mol% of GeO2. of Mimurada et al. as suggested by Wang et al. because the resultant sintered body would have the increased strength and fracture toughness while having excellent plasticity of Kim et al. See paragraphs [0002], [0005], and [0059] of Wang et al.
Conclusion
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
30 August 2026
Prosecution Insights