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 July 17, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 11-12 are pending. Claims 3, 6, and 8-10 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, and 12 have been amended.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3517518 A1 to Ito (previously designated and hereinafter referenced as “Ito II”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0214661 to Ito (previously designated and hereinafter referenced as “Ito I”).
Regarding claim 1, Ito II discloses a zirconia molded body (see ¶ 0020, teaching a zirconia body; ¶¶ 0073, 0107, teaching that the zirconia body is molded) comprising zirconia (¶ 0002, Abstract); yttria as a stabilizer capable of inhibiting a phase transformation of zirconia (¶¶ 0028, 0066; claim 6; Abstract); and an acrylic binder (¶ 0092). Ito II teaches wherein an amount of yttria is from 3 mol% to 7.5 mol% relative to a total mole amount of the zirconia and the yttria (¶ 0029; claim 7). Ito II teaches wherein a fraction of monoclinic crystal system of the zirconia is at least 50% of the total amount of all zirconia crystal systems present (see ¶ 0011, claim 1, teaching that a fraction of monoclinic crystal system of the zirconia is 55% or more of the total amount of all zirconia crystal systems present; ¶ 0025, teaching that 80% or more of the zirconia is monoclinic).
Ito II teaches zirconia molded body outlined above. Ito II also teaches a cold isostatic pressing (CIP) step at 1700 kg/cm2 (equal to 167 MPa) in the preparation of the zirconia molded body (¶ 0073). Thus, Ito II teaches a zirconia molded body with a substantially identical composition, prepared by substantially the same process, as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention (see Specification at p. 6, ¶ 0018, teaching that acrylic binders are preferred and that choice of binder can influence the open porosity value of the zirconia molded body; p. 8, ¶ 0028, teaching cold isostatic pressing of the zirconia molded body, an applied pressure of 10 MPa to 1,000 MPa, and that the applied pressure can influence the can influence the open porosity value). 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 either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Here, because Ito II teaches a zirconia molded body with a substantially identical composition, prepared by substantially the same process, as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the zirconia molded body of Ito II inherently possesses the same physical properties as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention, including an open porosity of the zirconia molded body that is 25% or less.
As noted above, Ito II teaches wherein the zirconia molded body includes an acrylic binder (¶ 0092). Ito II does not explicitly teach wherein the acrylic binder is from 4 mass% to 10 mass% relative to a total mass of the zirconia, the stabilizer, and the binder.
Ito I, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a zirconia molded body (¶¶ 0031, 0120) comprising yttria (¶ 0069; claim 37) and 6 mass% acrylic binder (¶ 0151).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the zirconia molded body of Ito II to the extent of including the acrylic binder in an amount of 6 mass% relative to a total mass of the zirconia, the stabilizer, and the binder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make the modification with predictable results and a high probability of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches the zirconia molded body according to claim 1, as set forth above. Moreover, as noted above (see p. 3), Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches a substantially identical process for preparing the zirconia molded body. Because Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches a zirconia molded body with a substantially identical composition, prepared by substantially the same process, as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the zirconia molded body of Ito II as modified by Ito I inherently possesses the same physical properties as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention, including an open porosity that is 5% or more. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches wherein the content of the acrylic binder is 6 mass% (see Ito I, ¶ 0151), which is within the recited range of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches the zirconia molded body according to claim 1, as set forth above. Further, as noted above (see p. 3), Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches a substantially identical process for preparing the zirconia molded body. Because Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches a zirconia molded body with a substantially identical composition, prepared by substantially the same process, as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the zirconia molded body of Ito II as modified by Ito I inherently possesses the same physical properties as the zirconia molded body of the claimed invention, including a water absorbency of the zirconia molded body that is 7% or less. 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).
Regarding claim 7, Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches wherein at least a part of the stabilizer is undissolved in the zirconia as a solid solution (see Ito II at ¶ 0063, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches wherein a biaxial flexural strength of the zirconia molded body is preferably 15 MPa or greater and more preferably 60 MPa or lower (see Ito II at ¶ 0120). (The flexural strength in Ito II may be “measured in accordance with ISO 6872” [¶ 0121], which is the same measurement standard used in the present Application for measuring biaxial flexural strength [see ¶ 0042 of the Specification]; therefore, “flexural strength” as described in Ito II is taken to be equivalent to “biaxial flexural strength” in claim 11.) The range of 15 to 60 MPa in Ito II substantially overlaps the recited range of 7 to 30 MPa in claim 11. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Ito II as modified by Ito I teaches “dental materials” comprising the zirconia molded body of claim 1 (see Ito II at ¶ 0197, teaching that the zirconia molded body may be used for “dental materials, such as prostheses”; see Ito I at ¶ 0070). Although Ito II as modified by Ito I does not explicitly teach a dental mill blank comprising the taught zirconia molded body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a dental mill blank would be a normal intermediate product in the process of creating a dental prosthesis. In other words, a dental mill blank would be one of the “dental materials” that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art equipped with the disclosure of Ito II as modified by Ito I. Therefore, in view of Ito II as modified by Ito I, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a dental mill blank comprising the zirconia molded body of claim 1, as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that Ito II “fails to disclose the binder content in its examples” (Applicant’s Remarks filed July 17, 2025 [hereinafter “Remarks”] at p. 5), it is worth noting, first, that that a prior art reference is prior art for all that it teaches (MPEP 2121.01). “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123). Therefore, the teaching as to acrylic binder in Ito II is not limited to the disclosed examples. Secondly, the new ground of rejection looks to Ito I, not Ito II, for the particular teaching that the binder content is from 4 mass% to 10 mass%, as set forth above (see p. 4). Applicant’s argument that the binder content exhibits unexpected superior effects, such as improved strength (see Remarks at pp. 5-6) is unavailing because Ito I teaches an acrylic binder content (6 mass%) that is squarely within the claimed range. Evidence of unexpected results may be used to show the criticality of a claimed range relative to a prior art range (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A)), but not when the prior art teaches a specific example falling within the claimed range, as is the case here.
Applicant’s remaining 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.
Conclusion
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 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 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