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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
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, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hock et al. (US20100062396, hereinafter referred to as Hock).
Regarding claim 1, Hock makes obvious a zirconia (see Hock at [0001], disclosing zirconia) mill blank (see Hock at [0002], disclosing an oxide ceramic blank) for dental cutting and machining (see Hock at [0028], disclosing a dental structure), containing; a gallium compound (see Hock at the Table at [0018], disclosing 0-1% by weight gallium), wherein an amount of an yttrium compound is 6.9 to 12.5 wt.% in terms of yttria (see Hock at the Table at [0018], disclosing 1-7% by weight yttrium oxide, which overlaps with the claimed range.) 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), and an amount of zirconia is within a range of 85 to 93 wt.% (see Hock at the Table at [0018], disclosing 90-98% by weight zirconia, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, Hock makes obvious an amount of the gallium compound is within a range of 0.20 wt.% to 1.50 wt.% in terms of gallium oxide (see Hock at the Table at [0018], disclosing 0-1% by weight of one of the oxides of ... gallium, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 7, while Hock 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 Hock 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 Hock 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 Hock 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 Hock 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 Hock 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 Hock 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 Hock 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 Remarks, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10, and 18-19 under 103 in view of Mayr et al. (US20180127317) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. At pages 5-6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Mayr is discloses a printing sol which contains a large amount of polymer and is not a zirconia mill blank, which is convincing. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hock as detailed above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights