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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the request for continued examination including remarks and amendments received by the office on 24 November 2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 are pending. No claims are added, cancelled or amended.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 6-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0160485 to C. Alex Touchstone (‘485 hereafter) previously cited by examiner in view of U.S. Patent 5,498,157 to Neil R. Hall (‘157 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘485 teaches a method of making an article having a desired color, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a color array, said array comprising at least 36 color points, each color point having a color value, determined in accordance with the CIE (International Commission of 'Eclairage) system(Fig 4, paragraph 0050) (b) comparing the desired color with the color points on the color array and selecting a color point that substantially corresponds to the desired color of the article, wherein the desired color has a CIE color value, as determined by spectral reflectance or transmittance, and wherein said comparing step comprises identifying a color point having a color difference value (AE) with the desired color of less than 6, and wherein the selecting step optionally comprises adjusting the ratio of masterbatch resins in the resin mixture of the identified color point to achieve AE of between 0 to 4 (Fig. 11, paragraphs 0084-0088); (c) preparing a resin mixture having a AE of between 0 to 4 relative to the desired color (paragraph 0084-0088); and (d) making the article using the resin mixture of step (c) (paragraph 0045). ‘485 does not teach the claimed ΔE range. However, ‘845 does teach that it is known to minimize the ΔE, since a lower ΔE corresponds to a closer match, which results in more realistic, natural looking dental restorations. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to select a ΔE value within the claimed range since it has been held that finding optimal or workable values for art-recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. ‘485 does not teach the composition of masterbatch resins.
In the same field of endeavor, ‘157 teaches the method wherein each color point being independently composed of a resin mixture comprising two to seven masterbatch resins (C4L62-C4L65), wherein each masterbatch resin independently comprises inorganic dye particles or organic dye particles (C8L36-C8L38; porcelain being understood to be inorganic material), and wherein each color point is obtained by adjusting a ratio of the two to seven masterbatch resins in the resin mixture (C4L62-C4L65) for the benefit of accurately matching individual patients’ natural tooth color. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of ‘485 with that of ‘157 for the benefit of matching accurately patients’ natural tooth color when manufacturing dental restorations.
Regarding claim 2, ‘485 teaches the method wherein the color array comprises at least 144 color points, each color point having a color value, determined in accordance with the CIE system (Fig 4 demonstrates an arbitrarily large set of dental restoration materials “DR” and suggests the set is at least 299 members).
Regarding claim 4, ‘485 does not teach the masterbatch component composition. In the same field of endeavor, ‘157 teaches the method wherein each resin mixture comprises three to five masterbatch resins (C4L62-C4L65) for the benefit of accurately matching individual patients’ natural tooth color. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of ‘485 with that of ‘157 for the benefit of matching accurately patients’ natural tooth color when manufacturing dental restorations.
Regarding claim 6, ‘485 teaches the method wherein the desired color is determined based on a color of a reference object, wherein the reference object comprises a human tooth (paragraphs 0038 and 0062-0064).
Regarding claim 7, ‘485 teaches the method wherein the comparing step further comprises determining the CIE color values of the color points on the color array by measuring the spectral reflectance or transmittance of the color point (paragraph 0090).
Regarding claim 8, ‘485 teaches the method comprising using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer in the measuring step (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 9, ‘485 does not teach the claimed ΔE range. However, ‘845 does teach that it is known to minimize the ΔE, since a lower ΔE corresponds to a closer match, which results in more realistic, natural looking dental restorations. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to select a ΔE value within the claimed range since it has been held that finding optimal or workable values for art-recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, ‘485 teaches the method wherein said article is a dental article (Fig 1 item 14).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘485 in view of ‘157 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0070782 to Dmitri Brodkin (‘782 hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, ‘485 in view of ‘157 does not teach or suggest additive manufacturing. In the same field of endeavor, ‘782 teaches the use of additive manufacturing to form dental restorations (paragraphs 0030 and 0034) for the benefit of additively manufacturing dental restorations. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have combined the teachings of ‘485 in view of ‘157 with those of ‘782 for the benefit of additively manufacturing dental restorations.
Regarding claim 11, ‘485 in view of ‘157 does not teach additive manufacturing, and is therefore silent with respect to specific additive manufacturing modalities. In the same field of endeavor, ‘782 teaches the method wherein the 3D printing process is selected from the group consisting of: stereolithography (SLA), Digital Light Processing (DLP), and Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) (paragraphs 0030 and 0034) for the benefit of additively manufacturing dental restorations. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have combined the teachings of ‘485 in view of ‘157 with those of ‘782 for the benefit of additively manufacturing dental restorations.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant claims, applicant argues that the above and previously applied prior art does not teach blending color points of a color array from of two to seven master batch resins. Applicant’s characterization of the prior art employed in the rejection is correct insofar as the ‘157 reference (to Hall) teaches that artificial teeth are formed from two to four color points from an array of color points particularly selected to cover the desirable range of coloration for artificial teeth with a reduced set size of individual color points (see rejection above for citation). The ordinary artisan at the time of effective filing would have appreciated the benefit proposed by Hall in the selection/blending of a reduced set of pigments for artificial teeth is equally applicable to selection/blending of other articles for the benefit of reducing the amount/number of materials which must be purchased/stored/maintained in order to manufacture, such as the color points in a color selection array.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743