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 .
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.
Claims 1, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holand et al. (US 2012/0196737) in view of in view of Arai et al. (JP 2004035332).
Holand shows a pre-sintered or fully-sintered blank for use for producing a dental restoration comprising of a ceramic material which includes zirconium doped with yttrium oxide, calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, and/or cerium oxide ([0061]), when viewed across its height has layers of different compositions wherein material of a first layer differs from material of a second layer in terms of color and proportions of stabilized crystal forms present at room temperature ([0055]; these different colored materials/layers and therefore different compositions are further discussed in [109], [110], [112] for instance), and wherein the blank has at least three layers of which one is a middle layer that extends over at least 1/10 H to 1/5 H of the total height H of the blank (first layer is first material, second layer is second material, and third layer is a middle portion having both the first and second layers that is 1/10 H to 1/5 H of the height), which the middle layer is formed from a material of the first layer and the second layer (middle layer is selected to be half the first layer and half the second layer in the middle). With respect to claim 17, the material has yttrium oxide between 4.5 wt % to 7.0 wt % and the first may be lower than the second ([0115] for instance discusses various materials and various amounts of ytrrium oxide that may be used in the layers; the reference also discusses using yttrium oxide as a stabilizer and that utilization of different color additives will require different stabilizations and therefore varying ytrrium oxide used in each layer). With respect to claim 20, this is considered intended use in how a restoration is milled from the blank, such that the blank only need have two different translucencies, which will be a result of the varying materials detailed above.
Holand discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show wherein the first layer has a surface that is structured with elevations and depressions, and wherein at least a portion of second layer penetrates into the depressions of the first layer to form the middle layer, such that a transition between the first and second layers is non-abrupt and at least one property changes continuously or substantially continuously across the middle layer; and with respect to claim 18, the percentage of yttrium oxide in the middle layer from the first layer commencing in the direction of the second layer increases continuously or substantially continuously.
Arai similarly shows a blank with either conventionally stacked materials (Fig. 1 or 2, similar to Holand) or wherein the first layer (see annotated Fig. 3 below) has a surface that is structured with elevations and depressions, and wherein at least a portion of second layer penetrates into the depressions of the first layer to form the middle layer (see annotated Fig. 3 below), such that a transition between the first and second layers is non-abrupt and at least one property changes continuously or substantially continuously across the middle layer (3 3 is shown penetrating from the top to the bottom into the middle layer in Fig. 3, just as in the present invention). Claim 18 will be met when the 2nd layer is yttrium oxide of Holand so that it increases in the direction of the second layer/top of Arai’s Fig. 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holand’s method by including the structuring of a middle layer as taught by Arai in order to provide more aesthetic gradations.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holand in view of Arai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jahns et al. (US 2015/0282905).
Holand/Arai discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show the specific percentage of zirconium dioxide that is tetragonal crystal form in each material, and specifically being 95% in one and between 51% and 80% in another, and therefore having a ratio of tetragonal to cubic of greater than or equal to 1 (noting that over 50% corresponds to a ratio of greater than 1 and under 50% less than 1).
Jahns similarly teaches a dental blank wherein amount of tetragonal phase of zirconia/zirconium dioxide may be varied to achieve different translucencies and therefore discloses the amount of tetragonal phase as a results effective variable for controlling the translucency. Jahns shows ranges of greater than 95% and between 51 and 80% with corresponding ratio ([120] in particular shows ratios of 1.2 to 50 which is equivalent to approximately 55% to 98%, thus overlapping the ranges claimed, again noting that over 50% corresponds to a ratio of greater than 1 and under 50% less than 1; [122] discusses including additional sections/layers within these ranges and therefore two sections/layers capable of meeting the present claim language). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tetragonal phase % of Holand/Arai’s materials as taught by Jahns in order to reach aesthetically pleasing translucencies and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to be arguing the Holland reference individually, however the portion cited as lacking is what Arai was incorporated to teach in the combination.
Applicant argues that since Figure 3 uses the convex punch method it does not structure the first layer with elevations/depressions followed by penetration of a second layer. It is unclear how the punch method does not result in elevation/depression as in the present invention. As seen in annotated figure 3 above and text of the prior art, the first layer is placed, then the first layer is structured with the elevation/depression by the convex punch, and finally the second layer is added, where some of the second layer penetrates within the convex punch depression forming the middle layer along with the first layer material therein. The text of Arai goes on to state that this configuration is done for the same reason as the present invention of providing a gradation between the two layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772