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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 has overcome all 112(a) rejections from the non-final rejection dated 07/16/2025.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayr et al. (US20180127317, hereinafter referred to as Mayr).
Regarding claim 1, Mayr discloses a zirconia (see Mayr at the Abstract, disclosing zirconia) mill blank (see Mayr at [0096], disclosing a mill blank) for dental cutting and machining (see Mayr at [0048], disclosing dental articles), containing; a gallium compound (see Mayr at [0156], disclosing Ga2O3).
Concerning an amount of an yttrium compound is 6.9 wt.% or more in terms of yttria, while it is mathematically impossible to directly convert mol% ranges to wt.% ranges, it is possible to demonstrate that the mol% ranges disclosed by Mayr overlap with the claimed wt.% ranges by selecting a point within the mol% ranges disclosed by Mayr, converting that point to wt.% and demonstrating that point is within the claimed range. In the instant case, Mayr discloses 70-100 mol% ZrO2 (see Mayr at claim 4), up to 1 mol% Ga2O3 (see Mayr at [0156]), and 0 to 30 mol% Y2O3 (see Mayr at claim 4). Examiner notes this range contains the point 94 mol% ZrO2, 1 mol% Ga2O3, and 5 mol% Y2O3, which corresponds to approximately 89.7 wt% ZrO2, 8.8 wt% Y2O3, and 1.5 wt% Ga2O3, which is within the instantly claimed range. Therefore, the mol% ranges disclosed by Mayr overlap with the instantly claimed wt.% ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Examiner notes this range of Mayr disclosed above fully encompasses the claimed range, as demonstrated by the following: The point 92 mol% ZrO2, 0.75 mol% Ga2O3, and 7.25 mol% Y2O3 is within the range disclosed by Mayr above, and corresponds to approximately 86.44 wt.% ZrO2, 1.07 wt.% Ga2O3, and 12.5 wt.% Y2O3, which is the upper limit of the claimed range. The point 95.1 mol% ZrO2, 1 mol% Ga2O3, and 3.9 mol% Y2O3 is within the range disclosed by Mayr above, and corresponds to approximately 91.65 wt.% ZrO2, 1.47 wt.% Ga2O3, and 6.9 wt.% Y2O3. Therefore, not only does the range disclosed by Mayr overlap with the claimed range at least one point, but the range disclosed by Mayr encompasses the entire claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Mayr discloses an amount of the gallium compound is within a range of 0.20 wt.% to 1.50 wt.% in terms of gallium oxide (see the rejection of claim 1 above, showing the mol% ranges of Ga2O3 disclosed by Mayr overlap with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, while Mayr does not explicitly disclose wherein; in a case in which a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 24 minutes is defined as a 24 minutes sintered body and a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 427 minutes is defined as a 427 minutes sintered body, a relationship of a contrast ratio of a sample having a thickness of 1 mm between the 24 minutes sintered body and the 427 minutes sintered body satisfies the following formula (1): Formula (1): (Contrast ratio of 24 minutes sintered body) / (Contrast ratio of 427 minutes sintered body) x 100 ≤ 102 (%), this is a property which depends upon the composition, and the composition of Mayr is substantially identical to the instantly composition as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above such that this property would be inherently present. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, while Mayr does not explicitly disclose wherein; in a case in which a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 6.4 minutes is defined as a 6.4 minutes sintered body and a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 427 minutes is defined as a 427 minutes sintered body, a relationship of a contrast ratio of a sample having a thickness of 1 mm between the 6.4 minutes sintered body and the 427 minutes sintered body satisfies the following formula (2):Formula (2): (Contrast ratio of 6.4 minutes sintered body) / (Contrast ratio of 427 minutes sintered body) x 100 ≤ 102 (%), this is a property which depends upon the composition, and the composition of Mayr is substantially identical to the instantly composition as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above such that this property would be inherently present.
Regarding claim 18, while Mayr does not explicitly disclose wherein; in a case in which a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 24 minutes is defined as a 24 minutes sintered body and a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 427 minutes is defined as a 427 minutes sintered body, a relationship of a contrast ratio of a sample having a thickness of 1 mm between the 24 minutes sintered body and the 427 minutes sintered body satisfies the following formula (1):Formula (1): (Contrast ratio of 24 minutes sintered body) / (Contrast ratio of 427 minutes sintered body) x 100 ≤ 102 (%), this is a property which depends upon the composition, and the composition of Mayr is substantially identical to the instantly composition as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above such that this property would be inherently present.
Regarding claim 19, while Mayr does not explicitly disclose wherein; in a case in which a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 6.4 minutes is defined as a 6.4 minutes sintered body and a sintered body prepared by sintering at 1560 °C for a sintering time of 427 minutes is defined as a 427 minutes sintered body, a relationship of a contrast ratio of a sample having a thickness of 1 mm between the 6.4 minutes sintered body and the 427 minutes sintered body satisfies the following formula (2):Formula (2): (Contrast ratio of 6.4 minutes sintered body) / (Contrast ratio of 427 minutes sintered body) x 100 ≤ 102 (%), this is a property which depends upon the composition, and the composition of Mayr is substantially identical to the instantly composition as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above such that this property would be inherently present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the 112(a) section of page 5 of the Remarks, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 6-12, and 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejections of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 18-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments concerning the 103 rejections on pages 5-6 of the Remarks filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mayr fails to disclose specific formulations that anticipate the claimed ranges, however, Examiner notes this argument is not convincing because the rejections above are not based upon a specific example which is within the claimed range. The rejections above are based upon overlapping ranges, and therefore the claimed ranges are obvious because the range of Mayr overlaps with the claimed range as detailed by the rejection of claim 1 above. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731