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/JP2023/004724. A Notice of Acceptance of Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 was mailed 20 August 2024.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application 2022-028344 filed in Japan on 25 February 2022.
It is noted, however, that the Japanese application 2022-028344 does not appear to have support for the subject matter of claims 2 and 3, wherein the yttrium silicon oxynitride particles include particles of Y4Si2O7N2 and/or Y2Si3O3N4.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 20 August 2024, 9 March 2026, and 20 May 2026have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: minor typographical errors.
Claim 2 recites “Y6Si11N20O particles, YSi3O3N particles, Y4Si2O7N2 particles, and YSi3O3N4 particles”. The examiner believes there are two typographical errors in the chemical compositions of the second and fourth particles and the recitation should read as follows with sizing and bolding added by the examiner for emphasis: “Y6Si11N20O particles, YSi3O3N4 particles, Y4Si2O7N2 particles, and Y2Si3O3N4 particles”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kajino et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2018-098164 A.
A machine-generated translation of JP 2018-098164 A accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Kajino et al. disclose a silicon nitride sintered body. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0003] and [0006]. Kajino et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body includes silicon nitride particles (Si3N4) and yttrium silicon oxynitride particles including Y2Si3O3N4 and Y4Si2O7N2. See paragraphs [0012] and [0021]. Kajino et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has a closed porosity of at most 15% and preferably at most 5% and an open porosity of at most 3% and preferably at most 1%. See paragraph [0024]. Kajino et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has a three-point bending strength of at least 500 MPa and preferably at least 600 MPa. See paragraph [0025]. Kajino et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has a Fracture Toughness (K1C) of at least 5 MPam1/2 and preferably at least 7 MPam1/2. See paragraph [0026]. The compositional ranges of Kajino et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the silicon nitride sintered body as recited in claims 1-3 and 7. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Kajino et al. disclose Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Example 1 (see Table 1), which reads on a silicon nitride sintered body comprising: silicon nitride particles; and yttrium silicon oxynitride particles, the silicon nitride sintered body having a porosity of 14% or less, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2, Kajino et al. disclose Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Example 1 (see Table 1), which reads on a silicon nitride sintered body wherein the yttrium silicon oxynitride particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of Y6Si11N20O particles, YSi3O3N4 particles, Y4Si2O7N2 particles, and Y2Si3O3N4 particles, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Kajino et al. disclose Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Example 1 (see Table 1), which reads on a silicon nitride sintered body wherein the yttrium silicon oxynitride particles comprise two selected from the group consisting of Y6Si11N20O particles, YSi3O3N4 particles, Y4Si2O7N2 particles, and Y2Si3O3N4 particles, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 7, Kajino et al. disclose Examples 1 and 2 and Comparative Example 1 (see Table 1), which reads on the silicon nitride sintered body, wherein a fracture toughness is 6.5 MPam1/2 or more and a three-point bending strength is 521 MPa or more, as recited in instant claim 7.
Since the composition of Kajino et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the silicon nitride sintered body of Kajino et al. would inherently possess an isolation voltage is 10 kV or more, as recited in claim 7. 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).
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 6334413 B2.
A machine-generated translation of JP 6334413 B2accompanies this action. In reciting this rejection, the examiner will cite this translation.
Komatsu et al. disclose a silicon nitride sintered body. See Abstract and the entire specification, specifically, paragraphs [0001] and [0004]. Komatsu et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body includes silicon nitride particles (Si3N4) and yttrium silicon oxynitride particles including Y2Si3O12N, YSiO2N, Y4Si2O7N2, and Y2Si3O3N4. See paragraphs [0004], [0011], and [0043]-[0050]. Komatsu et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has a three-point bending strength of at least 900 MPa. See paragraphs [0065] and [0066]. Komatsu et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has a Fracture Toughness (K1C) of at least 6.0 MPam1/2. See paragraphs [0065] and [0066]. Komatsu et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has undergone hot isostatic pressing (HIP) which eliminates the pores in the silicon nitride sintered body. See paragraph [0081]. The compositional ranges of Komatsu et al. are sufficiently specific to anticipate the silicon nitride sintered body as recited in claims 1-3 and 7. See MPEP 2131.03.
Specifically, as to claim 1, Komatsu et al. disclose Examples 1-13 (see Table 3) Komatsu et al. disclose that the silicon nitride sintered body has undergone HIP to eliminate the pores, (see paragraph [0081], which reads on a silicon nitride sintered body comprising: silicon nitride particles; and yttrium silicon oxynitride particles, the silicon nitride sintered body having a porosity of 14% or less, as recited in instant claim 1.
As to claim 2 Komatsu et al. disclose Examples 1-13 (see Table 3), which reads on a silicon nitride sintered body wherein the yttrium silicon oxynitride particles comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of Y6Si11N20O particles, YSi3O3N4 particles, Y4Si2O7N2 particles, and Y2Si3O3N4 particles, as recited in instant claim 2.
As to claim 3, Komatsu et al. disclose Examples 3, 12, and 13 (see Table 3), which reads on a silicon nitride sintered body wherein the yttrium silicon oxynitride particles comprise two selected from the group consisting of Y6Si11N20O particles, YSi3O3N4 particles, Y4Si2O7N2 particles, and Y2Si3O3N4 particles, as recited in instant claim 3.
As to claim 7, Komatsu et al. disclose Example 1 (see Table 3), which reads on the silicon nitride sintered body, wherein a fracture toughness is 6.5 MPam1/2 or more and a three-point bending strength is 521 MPa or more, as recited in instant claim 7.
Since the composition of Komatsu et al. is the same as those claimed herein it follows that the silicon nitride sintered body of Komatsu et al. would inherently possess an isolation voltage is 10 kV or more, as recited in claim 7. 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 4-6, the further limitation wherein the silicon nitride sintered body comprising silicon nitride particles and yttrium silicon oxynitride particles wherein the yttrium silicon nitride particles comprise Y6Si11N20O particles and YSi3O3N4 particles having a volume ratio of Y6Si11N20O/YSi3O3N4 of at least 1.4.
Conclusion
The additional references cited on the 892 have been cited as art of interest since they are considered to be cumulative to or less than the art relied upon in the rejections above.
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
22 August 2026
Prosecution Insights