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 III, claims 7-9, in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the inventions of Groups III and IV are not independent or distinct such that they are both directed to a single inventive group. Furthermore, the Restriction Requirement fails indicate why the two groups fail to establish a lack of unity of invention This is not found persuasive because each of Groups I-IX require the shared technical feature of “A sintered body of zirconia, wherein the zirconia contains (i) stabilizing element-containing zirconia or (ii) zirconia containing stabilizing element-containing zirconia and a coloring element, the sintered body has three or more regions stacked in a layered manner, two adjacent regions among the regions differ from each other in at least one of stabilizing element content and coloring element content.” This includes the inventions of Groups III and IV. However, this shared technical feature is taught by the reference of Ushio as discussed in the Restriction Requirement dated 06/10/2026. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 and 07/29/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushio et al. (US 2020/0283341).
Regarding claim 7, Ushio teaches a layered body which may be a calcined body containing layers of a zirconia composition (Paragraph [0047]). The bodies include a first zirconia layer containing a zirconia and a colorant and a second layer containing a zirconia and a colorant wherein the second layer has a different stabilizer content different from the first layer (Paragraph [0049]). The layers also have a necking structure (Paragraphs [0120]-[0123]). A third layer may be interposed between the first and second layers and the content of the stabilizer in the various layers changes constantly (Paragraph [0061]). The difference in the stabilizer content between the first and second layers is in the range of 0.2 to 2.5 mol% (Paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 8, Ushio teaches the bodies as discussed above with respect to claim 7. As discussed above, the bodies further include additional optional layers between the first and second layers.
Regarding claim 9, Ushio teaches the bodies as discussed above with respect to claim 8. As discussed above, the bodies further include additional optional layers between the first and second layers and the change in the stabilizer content between layers is kept constant (“an increasing or decreasing tendency of a color tone does not change in a stacking direction from the first region to the third region or from the second region to the third region”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights