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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments, remarks and affidavit filed (4 – 28 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Stefan Wolz (US 20170189143 A1, hereinafter Wolz) teaches that the additional heating to be optional.
Wolz does not teach the additional heating to be a part of the deposition.
Wolz does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of wherein in the deposition step, the decomposing is conducted by placing the porous zirconia molded body having the impregnating solution in a resin bag and degassing in a sealed state, followed by heating at a temperature equal to or higher than the decomposition temperature of the at least one precipitant and below the boiling point of the solvent of the impregnating solution, and for a period of 10 minutes to 24 hours, and wherein the at least one precipitant is urea, hexamethylene tetramine, and/or dimethyl oxalate.
Affidavit argues that a Zirconia powder containing 5.5 mol% of solid-solved yttrium oxide was filled in a mold (φ100 mm), and press molding (surface pressure: 50 MPa) was performed to obtain a molded body. Further, the molded body was subjected to CIP treatment (maximum load pressure: 200 MPa, holding period: 1 minute. Thereafter, calcination was performed in an electric furnace (1000 °C, 30 minutes) to prepare a porous zirconia molded body. Followed by 1000 g of the impregnating solution was prepared by adding a metal salt and a precipitant to ion-exchanged water and stirring for 1 hour. Next, the porous zirconia molded body was placed in a container, and the impregnating solution was poured therein SO that only the top surface of the porous zirconia molded body was exposed, and then left standing under normal atmospheric pressure atmosphere for 24 hours. hereafter, the porous zirconia molded body was taken out from the impregnating solution, and after removing the excess impregnating solution, it was placed in a resin bag and degassed. The porous zirconia molded body placed in a resin bag and degassed was placed in a dryer, and then a heat treatment at 95 °C for 15 hours was performed to deposit a metal compound. After the heat treatment, the porous zirconia molded body was taken out from the resin bag and dried (120 °C, 1 hour) to prepare a porous zirconia molded body supporting a metal compound. This porous zirconia molded body was heat treated in an electric furnace (500 °C, 30 minutes) to prepare a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining. Provides for unexpected results including improved deposition step of the claims, the variation in the amount of supported metal in the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining is remarkably suppressed, and the variation in translucency and/or the variation color tone of the zirconia sintered body prepared from the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining are remarkably suppressed.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Wolz / Wolz as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
While Wolz teaches that the additional heating is optional, the disclosure of Wolz still discloses the additional heating step. As such, while the step may be an alternative or optional, the disclosure still provides for and communicates an additional heating step.Accordingly, the case law for entire teaching may be recited. Where, it has been held that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiment. (In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423). Also, it has been held that a reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, but must be evaluated for all of its teachings, including its teachings of non-preferred embodiments. (In re Burckel, 201 USPQ 67), MPEP 2143.
As noted in applicant’s newly amended feature it requires that the article is moved / placed into a resin bag after infiltration by a slurry. As such, even if the decomposition transpires during the deposition, the article is physical moved / placed into a different environment, i.e., a resin bag. Accordingly, while no perceived discrepancies are understood to exist regarding the decomposing transpiring during the deposition step. Nevertheless, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2144.
([0028]) teaches that in an additional drying step that follows the distribution control step or the distribution of the chemical substances within the porous ceramic body, the porous ceramic body, or the ceramic blank, can be heat treated. In this step, the porous ceramic body or the ceramic blank is exposed to a temperature ranging from 80° C. to 1200° C., preferably from 80° C. to 800° C., for the formation of an oxide phase, in particular a nitrate oxide phase. Highlighting, that the solvent utilized is water ([0032]), which is understood to have a boiling point of 100 °C. Namely, the range of from 80° C to below 100 °C is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of below the boiling point of the solvent. Furthermore, the temperature utilized in the additional drying step is understood to impact the formation of an oxide phase. Accordingly, the temperature implemented in the additional drying is understood to be a result effective variable. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).Additionally, ([0103]) teaches that once the coloring pigment solution and the stabilizers in the porosities are dried, an oxidation phase of the doping is carried out at approximately 100° to 800° and/or a calcining phase is carried out at approximately 800° to 1500°, for approximately 1 to 24 hour. As such, after drying the optional drying with heat treatment is implemented for a time of 1 to 24 hours which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 10 minutes to 24 hours.
As detailed the applicant’s arguments encompass a very detail process that includes a multitude of steps and processes which are not mentioned or claimed. In particular, that the molded body was subjected to CIP treatment (maximum load pressure: 200 MPa, holding period: 1 minute. Nor is it claimed that the impregnating solution was poured therein SO that only the top surface of the porous zirconia molded body was exposed, and then left standing under normal atmospheric pressure atmosphere for 24 hours. Nor was it claimed to provide a heat treatment, the porous zirconia molded body was taken out from the resin bag and dried (120 °C, 1 hour) to prepare a porous zirconia molded body supporting a metal compound. This porous zirconia molded body was heat treated in an electric furnace (500 °C, 30 minutes) to prepare a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining. As such, applicant’s arguments are found to rely upon subject matter which is not claimed and more so the arguments along with corresponding unexpected results are found not to be commensurate in scope with the claims. Namely, the data presented within the affidavit to show unexpected results is restricted to a narrower scope, as such it not found to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness for a much broader scope. Accordingly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the aforementioned processing steps and conditions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Wolz / Wolz as modified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 13, 17 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefan Wolz (US 20170189143 A1, hereinafter Wolz) in further view of Bull et al. (The pH of Urea Solutions, 1963, hereinafter Bull)Regarding claim 1,
A preparing method of a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining, comprising
an impregnation step of impregnating a porous zirconia molded body with an impregnating solution containing
at least one metal ion and
at least one precipitant, and
a deposition step of decomposing via hydrolysis by heating the at least one precipitant in the porous zirconia molded body to deposit a metal compound,
wherein the at least one precipitant is decomposed by heating in the deposition step,
wherein in the deposition step, the decomposing is conducted by placing the porous zirconia molded body having the impregnating solution in a resin bag and degassing in a sealed state,
followed by heating at a temperature equal to or higher than the decomposition temperature of the at least one precipitant and below the boiling point of the solvent of the impregnating solution, and
for a period of 10 minutes to 24 hours, and
wherein the at least one precipitant is urea, hexamethylene tetramine, and/or dimethyl oxalate.
, 13a.), 17a.) & 21a.) Wherein the at least one precipitant comprises urea.
Wolz teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches a process for producing a ceramic body (100), in particular a dental ceramic blank, having selectively adjustable degrees of expression of one or more different physical properties, wherein the ceramic body (100) has a porosity to enable the control of a selective distribution of one or more chemical substances (101, 102) that are suitable for influencing the physical properties of the ceramic body (100), and in a first step, which is a loading step, the ceramic body is loaded with one or more solutions (104) of the one or more chemical substances (101, 102). ([0038]) teaches that the ceramic blank is zirconium oxide (zirconia).
([0043]) teaches that the metal ions or metal complexes are prepared according to the invention in a form in which they can most readily penetrate into the porous ceramic material.
([0089]) teaches the solvent and/or transport fluid may optionally contain additives, such as stabilizers or electrolytes, complexing agents, dispersants, etc. ([0014]) teaches loading the ceramic with both organic and inorganic substances.
& e.) ([0028]) teaches that an additional drying step that follows the distribution control step or the distribution of the chemical substances within the porous ceramic body, the porous ceramic body, or the ceramic blank, can be heat treated. In this step, the porous ceramic body or the ceramic blank is exposed to a temperature ranging from 80 °C to 1200° C. Where the additional drying step after deposition is understood to be a decomposing step. Highlighting, while the drying step is understood to transpire after the impregnation step. The case law for sequential vs. simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2143.
([0027]) teaches that the ceramic blank is placed within an environment, the ambient parameters of which, in particular the air humidity and/or pressure and/or temperature, are adjustable. This environment may, for example, be a climatic chamber or a compartment dryer, but may also be an accessible room, the ambient parameters of which are adjustable. In this case, the ceramic blank may be left in the mold in such a way that only the freely accessible surface is in contact with the environment. In a fifth step, which is a distribution control step, the distribution of the chemical substances that were introduced into the ceramic blank by means of loading is controlled. For this purpose, at least one ambient parameter, in particular the air humidity and/or the pressure and/or the temperature, is adjusted to create an ambient parameter gradient between the one or more freely accessible surfaces and the one or more isolated and/or sealed off surfaces of the ceramic blank. As such, the sealed environment i.e., a climatic chamber or dryer acts as applicant’s in a resin bag and with the reduction of ambient parameters in particular tailoring of the pressure is understood to provide for degassing in a sealed state. In summary, the decomposing is conducted by placing the porous zirconia molded body having the impregnating solution in a resin bag and degassing in a sealed state. Highlighting, while applicant notes that the deposition step, it is noted applicant does conducted the decomposing by placing the zirconia blank in a different environment i.e., a sealed resin bag. As such, even applicant’s own claim requires that the article is moved after infiltration via a slurry. Accordingly, while no perceived discrepancies are understood to exist regarding the decomposing transpiring during the deposition step. Nevertheless, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2144.
([0028]) teaches that in an additional drying step that follows the distribution control step or the distribution of the chemical substances within the porous ceramic body, the porous ceramic body, or the ceramic blank, can be heat treated. In this step, the porous ceramic body or the ceramic blank is exposed to a temperature ranging from 80° C. to 1200° C., preferably from 80° C. to 800° C., for the formation of an oxide phase, in particular a nitrate oxide phase. Highlighting, that the solvent utilized is water ([0032]), which is understood to have a boiling point of 100 °C. Namely, the range of from 80° C to below 100 °C is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of below the boiling point of the solvent. Furthermore, the temperature utilized in the additional drying step is understood to impact the formation of an oxide phase. Accordingly, the temperature implemented in the additional drying is understood to be a result effective variable. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
([0103]) teaches that once the coloring pigment solution and the stabilizers in the porosities are dried, an oxidation phase of the doping is carried out at approximately 100° to 800° and/or a calcining phase is carried out at approximately 800° to 1500°, for approximately 1 to 24 hour. As such, after drying the optional drying with heat treatment is implemented for a time of 1 to 24 hours which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 10 minutes to 24 hours.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 6, 13, 17 & 21, Wolz also teaching that the pH of a solution should be between 5 – 9, ([0090]), and that the viscosity can be adjusted, ([0148]). Wolz also teaches that the chemical substances are contained in a liquid, in particular an aqueous solution, ([0014]). Wolz implementing potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide as an additive, ([0090]). Wolz is silent on implementing urea as the precipitant and the amount of precipitant. In analogous art for aqueous solution, the art determining the impact of urea on aqueous solutions, Bull suggests details regarding the influence of urea on aqueous solutions, and in this regard, Bull teaches the following:
, c.), i.), 6a.), 13a.), 17a.) & 21a.) (Abstract) teaches that it has been confirmed that urea increases the measured pH of aqueous solutions. Adding, it is concluded from experimentation that urea increases the ionization of water. Noting, that it is postulated that urea at high concentrations in aqueous solutions drastically reduces the activity of hydrogen ions, leaving the activities of the other ions more or less unchanged. (Pg. 300-301, Tables III – VI) gives data of Urea concentration vs. pH achieved from various solutions including those of potassium hydroxide. Highlighting, as detailed as the concentration of Urea is adjust the pH of the various solution is impacted, namely the pH goes up as the concentration goes up.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of zirconia ceramics that are impregnated with an aqueous solution that comprises a metallic ion for deposition in the zirconia ceramic, the zirconia ceramics are dried to allow for the removal of the solvent and setting of the deposited metallic ion of Wolz. By modifying the aqueous solution to comprise an optimized amount of urea, as taught by Bull. Highlighting, that implementation an optimized amount of urea in an aqueous solution provides for tailoring the pH of the solution by reduces the activity of hydrogen ions, (Abstract). Highlighting, that the addition of urea in an aqueous solution is understood to impact the pH of the aqueous solutions by reducing the activity of hydrogen ions. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim(s) 2 – 3 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein at least one of the metal ion is a rare earth metal ion.
Wherein at least one of the metal ion is a transition metal ion.
Wolz teaches the following:
& 3a.) ([0120]) teaches that the color-producing components and/or non-color-producing components, introduced by means of solvent into the loading body material, and/or the fireproof pigments and/or the oxides and/or the coloring and fluorescent metal oxides and/or the organic or inorganic salts containing at least one of the elements yttrium, iron, titanium, selenium, silver, indium, gold, chromium, copper, praseodymium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, erbium, neodymium, cerium, aluminum, zirconium or rare earth metals, or mixtures thereof. Highlighting, that neodymium and erbium are understood to be rare earth metals. Additionally, copper, chromium, nickel and iron are understood to be transition metals.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein at least one of the metal ion is any one or more of an aluminum ion, a gallium ion and an indium ion.
Wolz teaches the following:
([0120]) teaches that the color-producing components and/or non-color-producing components, introduced by means of solvent into the loading body material, and/or the fireproof pigments and/or the oxides and/or the coloring and fluorescent metal oxides and/or the organic or inorganic salts containing at least one of the elements, indium, aluminum, amongst others or rare earth metals, or mixtures thereof. Highlighting, that aluminum & indium, are directly mentioned.
B.) Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6, 13, 17 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolz in further view of Li et al. (Effect of adding urea on…, 2010, hereinafter Li)
Regarding claim 1,
A preparing method of a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining, comprising
an impregnation step of impregnating a porous zirconia molded body with an impregnating solution containing
at least one metal ion and
at least one precipitant, and
a deposition step of decomposing via hydrolysis by heating the at least one precipitant in the porous zirconia molded body to deposit a metal compound,
wherein the at least one precipitant is decomposed by heating in the deposition step,
wherein in the deposition step, the decomposing is conducted by placing the porous zirconia molded body having the impregnating solution in a resin bag and degassing in a sealed state,
followed by heating at a temperature equal to or higher than the decomposition temperature of the at least one precipitant and below the boiling point of the solvent of the impregnating solution, and
for a period of 10 minutes to 24 hours, and
wherein the at least one precipitant is urea, hexamethylene tetramine, and/or dimethyl oxalate.
, 13a.), 17a.) & 21a.) Wherein the at least one precipitant comprises urea.
Wolz teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches a process for producing a ceramic body (100), in particular a dental ceramic blank, having selectively adjustable degrees of expression of one or more different physical properties, wherein the ceramic body (100) has a porosity to enable the control of a selective distribution of one or more chemical substances (101, 102) that are suitable for influencing the physical properties of the ceramic body (100), and in a first step, which is a loading step, the ceramic body is loaded with one or more solutions (104) of the one or more chemical substances (101, 102). ([0038]) teaches that the ceramic blank is zirconium oxide (zirconia).
([0043]) teaches that the metal ions or metal complexes are prepared according to the invention in a form in which they can most readily penetrate into the porous ceramic material.
([0089]) teaches the solvent and/or transport fluid may optionally contain additives, such as stabilizers or electrolytes, complexing agents, dispersants, etc. ([0014]) teaches loading the ceramic with both organic and inorganic substances.
& e.) ([0028]) teaches that an additional drying step that follows the distribution control step or the distribution of the chemical substances within the porous ceramic body, the porous ceramic body, or the ceramic blank, can be heat treated. In this step, the porous ceramic body or the ceramic blank is exposed to a temperature ranging from 80 °C to 1200° C. Where the additional drying step after deposition is understood to be a decomposing step. Highlighting, while the drying step is understood to transpire after the impregnation step. The case law for sequential vs. simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2143.
([0027]) teaches that the ceramic blank is placed within an environment, the ambient parameters of which, in particular the air humidity and/or pressure and/or temperature, are adjustable. This environment may, for example, be a climatic chamber or a compartment dryer, but may also be an accessible room, the ambient parameters of which are adjustable. In this case, the ceramic blank may be left in the mold in such a way that only the freely accessible surface is in contact with the environment. In a fifth step, which is a distribution control step, the distribution of the chemical substances that were introduced into the ceramic blank by means of loading is controlled. For this purpose, at least one ambient parameter, in particular the air humidity and/or the pressure and/or the temperature, is adjusted to create an ambient parameter gradient between the one or more freely accessible surfaces and the one or more isolated and/or sealed off surfaces of the ceramic blank. As such, the sealed environment i.e., a climatic chamber or dryer acts as applicant’s in a resin bag and with the reduction of ambient parameters in particular tailoring of the pressure is understood to provide for degassing in a sealed state. In summary, the decomposing is conducted by placing the porous zirconia molded body having the impregnating solution in a resin bag and degassing in a sealed state. Highlighting, while applicant notes that the deposition step, it is noted applicant does conducted the decomposing by placing the zirconia blank in a different environment i.e., a sealed resin bag. As such, even applicant’s own claim requires that the article is moved after infiltration via a slurry. Accordingly, while no perceived discrepancies are understood to exist regarding the decomposing transpiring during the deposition step. Nevertheless, the case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125, MPEP 2144.
([0028]) teaches that in an additional drying step that follows the distribution control step or the distribution of the chemical substances within the porous ceramic body, the porous ceramic body, or the ceramic blank, can be heat treated. In this step, the porous ceramic body or the ceramic blank is exposed to a temperature ranging from 80° C. to 1200° C., preferably from 80° C. to 800° C., for the formation of an oxide phase, in particular a nitrate oxide phase. Highlighting, that the solvent utilized is water ([0032]), which is understood to have a boiling point of 100 °C. Namely, the range of from 80° C to below 100 °C is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of below the boiling point of the solvent. Furthermore, the temperature utilized in the additional drying step is understood to impact the formation of an oxide phase. Accordingly, the temperature implemented in the additional drying is understood to be a result effective variable. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
([0103]) teaches that once the coloring pigment solution and the stabilizers in the porosities are dried, an oxidation phase of the doping is carried out at approximately 100° to 800° and/or a calcining phase is carried out at approximately 800° to 1500°, for approximately 1 to 24 hour. As such, after drying the optional drying with heat treatment is implemented for a time of 1 to 24 hours which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 10 minutes to 24 hours.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 6, 13, 17 & 21, Wolz also teaching that copper can be one of the materials utilized to load the ceramic body, ([0120]). Wolz also teaches that the chemical substances are contained in a liquid, in particular an aqueous solution, ([0014]). Wolz is silent on implementing urea as the precipitant. In analogous art for a YSZ/Cu ceramic structure that are impregnated with a solution, Li suggests details regarding the influence of urea on the YSZ/Cu ceramic structures, and in this regard, Li teaches the following:
, c.), i.), 6a.), 13a.), 17a.) & 21a.) (Abstract) teaches a ceramic structures with Cu/yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) and Cu–CeO2/YSZ composition were fabricated and evaluated with improved outputs. The addition of urea into the impregnated solution has been proposed to tailor the distribution and/or morphology of Cu when fabricating the ceramic structures by impregnation method. The microstructure of Cu in ceramic structures appeared significantly different after the addition of urea. The electronic conductivity obtained from the ceramic structures impregnated with adding urea was twice as high as the ones without. Highlighting (Pg. 2231, Fig. 1) which depicts a graph comparing the conductivity in part (a) for the sample without adding urea and that in part (b) for the sample with adding urea. With the comparison illustrating that the conductivity of the ceramic structure impregnated without urea was only ∼60% of that with adding urea.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of zirconia ceramics that are impregnated with an aqueous solution that comprises a metallic ion for deposition in the zirconia ceramic, the zirconia ceramics are dried to allow for the removal of the solvent and setting of the deposited metallic ion of Wolz. By modifying the aqueous solution to comprise an optimized amount of urea, as taught by Li. Highlighting, implementation of an aqueous solution with an optimized amount of urea allows for tailoring / increasing the conductivity of the ceramic structure, (Pg. 2231, Fig. 1) & by augmentation the distribution and/or morphology of Cu when fabricating the ceramic structures by impregnation method, (Abstract). Highlighting, that the substitution of a urea impregnation solution to for that of an aqueous impregnation solution used to deposit metallic ion in a zirconia ceramic is understood to impact the conductivity of the ceramic structure by augmentation the distribution and/or morphology of Cu that is deposited. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim(s) 2 – 3 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein at least one of the metal ion is a rare earth metal ion.
Wherein at least one of the metal ion is a transition metal ion.
Wolz teaches the following:
& 3a.) ([0120]) teaches that the color-producing components and/or non-color-producing components, introduced by means of solvent into the loading body material, and/or the fireproof pigments and/or the oxides and/or the coloring and fluorescent metal oxides and/or the organic or inorganic salts containing at least one of the elements yttrium, iron, titanium, selenium, silver, indium, gold, chromium, copper, praseodymium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, erbium, neodymium, cerium, aluminum, zirconium or rare earth metals, or mixtures thereof. Highlighting, that neodymium and erbium are understood to be rare earth metals. Additionally, copper, chromium, nickel and iron are understood to be transition metals.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein at least one of the metal ion is any one or more of an aluminum ion, a gallium ion and an indium ion.
Wolz teaches the following:
([0120]) teaches that the color-producing components and/or non-color-producing components, introduced by means of solvent into the loading body material, and/or the fireproof pigments and/or the oxides and/or the coloring and fluorescent metal oxides and/or the organic or inorganic salts containing at least one of the elements, indium, aluminum, amongst others or rare earth metals, or mixtures thereof. Highlighting, that aluminum & indium, are directly mentioned.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kadobayashi et al. (US 20090317780 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the present invention relates to a tooth which is used in a dental arch model with which dental students can experience dental works in the oral cavity and practice treatments. More specifically, the present invention relates to a tooth composition for formation trainings such as abutment tooth formation and cavity preparation.
Kadobayashi et al. (US 20140030685 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The present invention relates to a tooth which is used in a dental arch model with which dental students can experience dental works in the oral cavity and practice treatments. More specifically, the present invention relates to a tooth composition for formation trainings such as abutment tooth formation and cavity preparation
Nonaka et al. (US 20220202544 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A technique for imparting high translucency which is similar to an enamel of a natural tooth to a zirconia sintered body, has been required. To provide a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining, containing, an yttrium compound and an indium compound as stabilizers.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights