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
The reply filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the application.
Currently, claims 1-8 are pending. No claims have been amended, added, or cancelled.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/155459A1 by Ban et al. (with reference to its corresponding U.S. filing, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0113658, hereinafter “Ban”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0189143 to Wolz (hereinafter “Wolz”).
Regarding claim 1, Ban teaches a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining (Abstract) containing a stabilizer comprising yttrium (see ¶ 0053, teaching that it is preferable that the stabilizing material contains yttrium). Ban moreover teaches, by way of example, zirconia mill blank stabilizers with 3.0 mol % yttrium oxide (¶ 0123) and 5.5 mol % yttrium oxide (¶ 0124). Ban further teaches that 2 to 7 mol % of the semi-fired body of the total amount of ceramic particles consists of a stabilizing material consisting of an oxide (¶ 0060). Thus, Ban teaches an amount of stabilizer oxide is within a range of 2 mol% to 7 mol % and that the stabilizer oxide may be an yttrium compound (yttrium oxide). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
Ban does not explicitly teach that the stabilizer comprises an indium compound, with the proviso that indium oxide is excluded, or that an amount of the indium compound is within a range of 0.2 mol% to 3.0 mol% in terms of oxide.
Wolz, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a process for producing a dental ceramic blank (Abstract). Wolz teaches wherein the dental ceramic blank includes zirconia partially stabilized with yttrium oxide (¶ 0042), and Wolz teaches wherein the dental ceramic blank includes a solution for adjusting the translucency of the dental ceramic blank (¶¶ 0043, 0104), the solution being present in an amount of 0.001 wt% to 15 wt% (¶ 0104). Wolz teaches that, in some embodiments, the solution for adjusting the translucency of the dental ceramic blank includes indium nitrate hydrate (¶ 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ban by adding indium nitrate pentahydrate as taught by Wolz. Motivation to do so would have come from a desire to adjusting the translucency of the dental ceramic blank (see Wolz at ¶ 0104). Moreover, design incentives—for example, a desire for high translucency in the zirconia mill blank—would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the teachings of Wolz to Ban by adding the indium compound of Wolz. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the design incentives, would have been able to incorporate the indium compound taught by Wolz into the zirconia mill blank of Ban, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success, since both Ban and Wolz are concerned with zirconia-based dental ceramic blank. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Ban in view of Wolz further teaches that the total amount of the yttrium compound and the indium compound is within a range of 5.5 mol % to 7.0 mol % in terms of oxide. Ban teaches zirconia mill blanks with from 2 to 7 mol% total stabilizing material (see Ban at ¶ 0118), including embodiments with from 3.0 to 5.5 mol % yttrium oxide (see Ban at ¶¶ 0121-0124, and at p. 14, Tables 1-3). So, for example, a zirconia mill blank with 4.5 mol % yttrium oxide (within the effective range taught by Ban), combined with 2 mol % indium compound, would yield a zirconia mill bank with 6.5 mol % total amount of the yttrium compound and the indium compound; the claimed total amount range of claim 1 would overlap this (example) total amount produced by combining the teachings of Ban and Wolz. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Ban modified by Wolz teaches a sintered body of the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining (Ban, ¶ 0060, Abstract). Ban modified by Wolz teaches the zirconia mill blank containing a stabilizer with the composition according to claim 1, as described above. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect that a zirconia mill blank containing a stabilizer with overlapping compositional ranges would inherently have a contrast ratio within the range recited in claim 2, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is supported by evidence of Ban, which discloses examples (A-17, A-18, A-19) of yttria-containing zirconia mill blanks for dental cutting and machining with a contrast ratio of 0.68 or less (Ban, Table 12, p. 19), measured on samples having a thickness of 1.0 mm (Ban, ¶ 0158); Ban thus suggests that it is feasible to produce zirconia mill blanks with a contrast ratio of 0.68 or less.
Regarding claim 3, Ban modified by Wolz teaches that the mill blank for dental cutting and machining contains a colorant (coloring material) (Ban, ¶ 0030). Ban modified by Wolz teaches a sintered body of the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining (Ban, ¶ 0060, Abstract). As explained above with regards to claim 2 (see p. 5), Ban modified by Wolz teaches the zirconia mill blank containing a stabilizer with the composition according to claim 1, as described above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect that a zirconia mill blank containing a stabilizer with overlapping compositional ranges would inherently have a contrast ratio within the range recited in claim 3, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is supported by evidence of Ban, which discloses examples (A-17, A-18, A-19) of yttria-containing zirconia mill blanks for dental cutting and machining with a contrast ratio of 0.68 or less (Ban, Table 12, p. 19), measured on samples having a thickness of 1.0 mm (Ban, ¶ 0158); Ban thus suggests that it is feasible to produce zirconia mill blanks with a contrast ratio of 0.68 or less.
PNG
media_image1.png
273
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 12 from WO 2018/155459A1, highlighting row reporting contrast ratios.
PNG
media_image2.png
405
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
English version of the lower half of Table 12 from Ban.
Regarding claim 4, Ban modified by Wolz teaches that a colorant (coloring material) is preferred but not required (see Ban, ¶ 0094); therefore, colorant may be absent. Ban modified by Wolz teaches a sintered body of the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining (Ban, ¶ 0060, Abstract). As explained above with regards to claim 2 (see ¶ 17), Ban modified by Wolz teaches the zirconia mill blank containing a stabilizer with the composition according to claim 1, as described above (pp. 3-5). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would expect that a zirconia mill blank containing a stabilizer with overlapping compositional ranges would inherently have a contrast ratio within the range recited in claim 4, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties. 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 obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). This prima facie case is supported by evidence of Ban, which discloses an example (Example 30, A-19) of a zirconia mill blank with a contrast ratio of 0.65 (Ban, Table 12), measured on samples having a thickness of 1.0 mm (Ban, ¶ 0158).
Regarding Claim 5, Ban modified by Wolz teaches wherein the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining can be cut into the shape of a dental prosthetic device (Ban, ¶ 0085).
Regarding Claim 6, Ban modified by Wolz teaches wherein the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining can be cut into the shape of a dental prosthetic device (Ban, ¶ 0085).
Regarding Claim 7, Ban modified by Wolz teaches wherein the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining can be cut into the shape of a dental prosthetic device (Ban, ¶ 0085).
Regarding Claim 8, Ban modified by Wolz teaches wherein the zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining can be cut into the shape of a dental prosthetic device (Ban, ¶ 0085).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, in the Remarks submitted with the reply filed June 30, 2026 (“Remarks”), Applicant’s argument focuses on showing that the Bersani reference, previously used as a secondary reference to modify Ban, is not analogous art (see Remarks at pp. 2-3). Since the present rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not rely upon Bersani, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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 R. 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
