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 1.114A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (6 – 6 – 2025) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (11 – 18 – 2024) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as noted in the subsequent action of (2 – 6 – 2024). Noting, applicant has not provided any new arguments and remarks with their request for continued examination (RCE) submission filed on (6 – 6 – 2025).
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 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(s) 1, 6, 13, 17 & 21,
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 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
, 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.
([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.
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.), 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(s) 1, 6, 13, 17 & 21,
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 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
, 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.
([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.
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.), 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.
Aihara et al. (US 20120028057 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) to form an electrostatic chuck, a bonding sheet is applied onto the upper surface of a cooling plate and then the cooling plate is placed in a vacuum dryer at a pressure of 2,000 Pa or less for a pre-bake treatment at 120° C. to 130° C. for 15 to 40 hours, followed by natural cooling. A plate is then stacked on the bonding sheet so that the lower surface of the plate is aligned with the upper surface of the bonding sheet, which is applied onto the cooling plate.
Aihara et al. (US 20130093146 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) to form an electrostatic chuck, a bonding sheet is applied onto the upper surface of a cooling plate and then the cooling plate is placed in a vacuum dryer at a pressure of 2,000 Pa or less for a pre-bake treatment at 120° C. to 130° C. for 15 to 40 hours, followed by natural cooling. A plate is then stacked on the bonding sheet so that the lower surface of the plate is aligned with the upper surface of the bonding sheet, which is applied onto the cooling plate.
Shinichiro Kato (US 20230255733 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A zirconia molded body and a dental mill blank may decrease of the translucency of a zirconia sintered body upon firing even when the cooling solvent used for wet processing of the zirconia molded body or dental mill blank by a dental CAD/CAM system is contaminated.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)-272-1000.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743