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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 20120177456, hereinafter ‘Jung’).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Jung discloses a method of manufacture of a dental prosthesis (abstract) comprising using one of a fluted rotary milling tool comprising a fluted shaft and a fluted drilling tool comprising a fluted shaft 52 (Paragraph [0040]) to mill or drill a block of a sintered ceramic material 10 (see e.g. Fig. 1b and Paragraph [0028]) to cut material therefrom. The method comprises using a support arrangement 40 to support said block such that controlled tilting of the block relative to the fluted tool is permitted (i.e. rotation about axis 42). The fluted rotary milling tool or fluted rotary drilling tool is driven for rotation, at least one of the fluted rotary milling tool or said fluted rotary drilling tool and block are moved such that a part of the fluted rotary milling tool or said fluted rotary drilling tool moves into engagement with said block to allow a cutting face of said fluted shaft to cut or mill material from said block to approximately a desired shape. Further, a tool is used in a finishing operation to finish the prosthesis to a desired shape (see claim 6 of Jung).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Jung discloses the sintered ceramic material being a sintered glass material comprising one of lithium disilicate and lithium silicate (Paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claims 4, Jung discloses the tool being a milling tool of ball-nosed form (Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Jung discloses the tool being provided with a hard, diamond coating applied to the outer surface of at least the end part of the tool (Paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Jung discloses the tool being a milling tool of bull-nosed (i.e. filleted) form (Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Jung discloses the tool being a milling tool of flat-ended form (Paragraph [0040]).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20120177456) in view of Hong (KR 20120111578).
Regarding claim 5, Jung discloses the tool 52 being a ‘forming tool’ and discusses various possibilities of such tools (Paragraph [0048]). Paragraph [0011] of Jung describes a plunging motion with a machining tool, without a sweep/lateral tool path. Jung does not explicitly disclose the tool being a drill.
Hong discloses a similar method of manufacture of a dental prosthesis, wherein a variety of tools are described, including a fluted rotary drilling tool comprising a fluted shaft (Fig. 1 and the Second complete Paragraph on Page 4 of the attached English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a drill in the method of manufacturing a dental prosthesis of Jung, as disclosed by Hong, depending on the desired machining operation/physical characteristics of the finished workpiece desired.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20120177456) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wan et al. (GB 2573524, hereinafter ‘Wan’).
Regarding claim 8, Jung discloses the tool incorporating a diamond (Paragraph [0048]). Jung does not explicitly disclose the type of diamond used.
Wan discloses a similar tool for manufacturing dental prostheses. Such a tool is constructed from PCD and/or CBN (Page 1, Lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to construct the diamond tool of Jung from PCD and/or CBN as taught by Wan, in order to provide the tool with a long working life (Wan, Page 1, Lines 30-34). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20120177456) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Karnaukhov (DE 102016214439).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, Jung discloses performing a roughing and then finishing operation on the workpiece (see claim 6 of Jung). Jung does not explicitly disclose replacing the milling or drilling tool with a tool having a smaller diameter to perform the finishing operation.
Karnaukhov discloses that it is known in the art at the time of filing to replace a roughing tool with a smaller diameter tool prior to the finishing operation, and using the smaller diameter tool to perform the finishing operation, especially when dealing with three-dimensional workpiece machining operations (see e.g. Figs. 4-7 and the first complete paragraph on Page 2 of the attached English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a larger-diameter roughing tool to quickly remove material, then replace said tool with a finer/smaller-diameter tool used to perform the finishing operation resulting in a higher-quality surface finish as taught by Karnaukhov.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant again argues that Jung discloses utilizing an abrasive tool, and does not disclose a fluted rotary milling tool with a fluted shaft as well as arguing that the instantly-claimed method is for machining sintered workpieces and Jung does not disclose this. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
As cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 03/05/2025, in the Final Rejection of 10/01/2025, the Non-Final Rejection of 02/11/2026 and again above, Paragraph [0040] Jung explicitly mentions that the “…forming tool 52 can comprise an end mill, such as a ball end mill, filleted end mill or flat end mill. A forming tool, whether comprising an abrasive or cutting edges as in an end mill, can have a ball end, filleted end, or flat end. (emphasis added)” As Jung explicitly lays out abrasive or cutting edge-equipped tools in the alternative, one would expect the illustration of the tool in Fig. 1b, which illustrates an abrasive tool, to be devoid of flutes. A grinding/abrasive tool is typically constructed at a constant diameter as there is no need for flutes (i.e. helical or straight channels preceding cutting edges to allow space for chips cut from the workpiece to be evacuated from the machining area). However, when the tool is equipped with cutting edges, such a clearance is required to enable the cutting edges to bite into the workpiece as the tool is fed laterally. In an attempt to show that these flutes are not required, Applicant presented an illustration of an alleged flute-free tool. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize this tool as a double-fluted tool/rotary burr. See e.g. Ahrnkiel et al. (US 20050123363), a rotary tool provided with first and second flutes extending around the tool at respective axes A and B (see Fig. 1 below and Paragraph [0028]). As the tool is equipped with cutting edges, these edges are arranged following helical flutes extending clockwise and counter-clockwise around the tool to allow the appropriate clearance required for such a tool to operate and evacuate chips cut by the cutting edges. An end mill having cutting edges, not an abrasive tool (again, as Jung sets these tools out in the alternative and only illustrates an abrasive tool) inherently comprises flutes, either straight or helical.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Second, Applicant alleges that the tool of Jung is unsuitable for operating on sintered material. As pointed out in the Non-Final Rejection of 02/11/2026 and again above, Paragraph [0028] of Jung explicitly mentions the workpiece may be made of “partially sintered ceramics”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sintered ceramic material” in the claim(s), the partially sintered ceramics explicitly mentioned as a suitable workpiece material for the tool of Jung to operate on reads on the claims as written.
Therefore, the rejections will be maintained.
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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights