DETAILED ACTION40
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/2/19 have been fully considered and applicant arguments in regards to Balasubramanian are persuasive, but the current rejection does not rely on this reference.Claim Interpretation
The examiner has interpreted the term “following” to mean “after.” In other words, the step may not occur before the step it follows but can occur any time after and there may be intermediate steps in between.
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 1-5, 8, 10, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balasubramanian (US 2019/0127284).
As to claims 1 and 22, Balasubramanian teaches a process for preparing a dental restoration, in which an oxide ceramic material [0022] (a) is subjected to at least one heat treatment (the entire 101 and the raising portion of 102, 301 and 302, 501 and the rising portion of 502, 701 and rising portion of 702) [Fig 1, 3, 5-7], and (b) is cooled, wherein the cooling comprises (b1) a first cooling step with the cooling rate T1 (the initial fall during the first peak) [Fig 1, 3, 5-7] as the slope is approximate to a vertical line and drops approximately 200 C it would have a rate of greater than 40K/min [0031, 0032, 0043]. (b2) a second cooling step (any of the holds) with the cooling rate T2 and wherein an absolute value of the cooling rate T2 (0) is less than an absolute value of the cooling rate T1 [Fig 2] with 1500-1100 C [Fig 1, 3, 5, 7].
As to claim 2, Balasubramanian teaches a cooling step b1 preceded by a cooling step b2 and b2 has a cooling rate of 0 k/min as explained above b2 the temperature is held constant at between 1200-1300 [Fig 1 3, 5-7]and (b3) a third cooling step with the cooling rate T3 (the final fall of Figs 1, 5-7), wherein the absolute value of the cooling rate T2 is less than the absolute values of the cooling rates T1 and T3 as it is 0.
As to claim 3, Balasubramanian teaches a step (b2) is carried out in a temperature range of 1500 to 1100 which would encompass/overlap with 1200 to 1300°C (curve 1 appears to be just below 1500) [Fig 1, 3, 5-7].
As to claim 4, Balasubramanian teaches a step (b2) the absolute value of the cooling rate T2 is less than 60 K/min as it is zero [Fig 1, 3, 5-7].
As to claim 5, Balasubramanian teaches a step (b2) is carried out at a substantially constant temperature [Fig 1, 3, 5-7].
As to claim 8, Balasubramanian teaches the oxide ceramic material is heated in step (a) to a temperature which is in the range of 1100 to 1700°C [Fig 1, 3, 5-7].
As to claim 10, Balasubramanian teaches the oxide ceramic material is cooled in step (b) to a temperature which is in the range of 20 to 1300°C as it is finally cooled to at least 100 C [Fig 1, 5-7].
As to claim 17, Balasubramanian teaches the oxide ceramic material is based on zirconia [0022].
As to claim 18, Balasubramanian teaches zirconium oxide stabilized with 2 to 12 mol% of Y2O3, based on the amount of zirconium oxide [0023].
As to claim 19, Balasubramanian teaches multiple coloring agents [0024] and as the piece is dipped into coloring layers to give it its desired color it would comprise at least 2 layers of different colors ( the preform and the various dip coated layers) [0025].
As to claim 20, Balasubramanian teaches the following coloring agents Fe, Mn, Cr, Tb, Er, Co [0024]
As to claim 21, Balasubramanian teaches the product is a bridge, an inlay, an onlay, a crown, a veneer, a facet or an abutment [0029].
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 6, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian (US 2019/0127284).
As to claim 6, Balasubramanian teaches (b2) is carried out for a duration of 1 to 20 min phrased as dwell time [0042, 0031, 0032, 0043]. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claim 7, Balasubramanian teaches the absolute value of the cooling rate T1 and/or the absolute value of the cooling rate T3 is at least 40 K/min (as the temperature is decreased from 1400 to 1300 in close to 2 minutes based on the graph) [Fig 7]. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claim 9, Balasubramanian teaches the oxide ceramic material is heated in step (a) at a heating rate in the range of 5 to 500 K/min [Fig 1, 5-7]. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian (US 2019/0127284) in view of Jiang (US 2020/0170763).
As to claims 11-16, Balasubramanian teaches the holding the temperature at 1500 during the heat treatment [0063]does not explicitly state the oxide ceramic material in step (a) is (a1) subjected to a first heat treatment, and (a2) subjected to a second heat treatment, wherein the heat treatment in step (a1) is carried out at a lower pressure than the heat treatment in step (a2).
Jiang teaches a method of preparing/heating a zirconia dental blank [Abstract]. Jiang teaches the dental blank is prepared by 2 heat treatment steps [0080, 0081] wherein the first heat treatment step is at lower pressure than the 2nd [0083] and carried out in a range of 0.1-200 mbar [0083] and the 2nd temperature range is 1100-1700 C [0083] for 34 or 35 min [0097, 0104] step (a2) is carried out at a pressure greater than 500 mbar and at ambient pressure and/or in an oxygen-containing atmosphere an oxygen-containing atmosphere is flowed discontinuously or continuously through the heating chamber, at a flow rate of 0.1 to 50 l/min [0083] and the oxide ceramic material is heated in step (a1) to a temperature which is 0 to 500 K below the temperature or temperature range at which the oxide ceramic material is held in step [0083]. These steps lead to “ preparation of dental restorations with precisely the desired dimensions is made easier and the accuracy of fit thereof is improved” [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Balasubramanian and performed the heating treatment like that of Jiang as Jiang had demonstrated success at creating dental restorations with the precisely desired dimensions.
As to claim 18, Balasubramanian teaches a zirconia but does not explicitly state the zirconium oxide stabilized with 2 to 12 mol% of Y2O3, CeO2, MgO and/or CaO, based on the amount of zirconium oxide.
Additionally, Jiang teaches a method of preparing/heating a zirconia dental blank [Abstract]. The zirconium oxide stabilized with 2 to 12 mol% of Y2O3, CeO2, MgO and/or CaO, based on the amount of zirconium oxide [0022]. These steps lead to “ preparation of dental restorations with precisely the desired dimensions is made easier and the accuracy of fit thereof is improved” [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Balasubramanian had the zirconia be stabilized with 2 to 12 mol% of Y2O3, CeO2, MgO and/or CaO, based on the amount of zirconium oxide, as suggested by Jiang, and this composition had demonstrated success at creating dental restorations with the precisely desired dimensions.
As to claim 19, Balasubramanian teaches oxide ceramic material is colored and comprises at least two layers which differ in color.
Additionally, Jiang teaches a method of preparing/heating a zirconia dental blank [Abstract]. The zirconium oxide is multiple layers wherein different compositions of different colors are used in order to obtain the desired color and translucence of the end part [0046-0048, 0023-0025]. These steps lead to “ preparation of dental restorations with precisely the desired dimensions is made easier and the accuracy of fit thereof is improved” [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Balasubramanian had the oxide ceramic material is colored and comprises at least two layers which differ in color, as suggested by Jiang, in order to create the dental restoration with the desired color and translucency.
As to claim 20, Balasubramanian teaches that the oxide ceramic material comprises at least one coloring element selected from the group consisting of Fe, Mn, Cr, Pr, Tb, Er, Yb, Ce, Co, Ni, Nd, Cu, and Bi.
Additionally, Jiang teaches a method of preparing/heating a zirconia dental blank [Abstract]. The zirconium oxide includes a pigment of Fe, Mn, Cr, Pr, Tb, Er, Yb, Ce, Co, Ni, Nd, Cu, and Bi, in order to make the blank with the desired color [0023-0025]. These steps lead to “ preparation of dental restorations with precisely the desired dimensions is made easier and the accuracy of fit thereof is improved” [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Balasubramanian had the coloring element Fe, Mn, Cr, Pr, Tb, Er, Yb, Ce, Co, Ni, Nd, Cu, and Bi, as suggested by Jiang, in order to create the dental restoration with the desired color.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759