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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Jiang was directly pertinent to the instant invention as it was concerned with preparation of sintered ceramic dental restorations. Applicant argues that Jiang does not teach the 2 heating steps in connection to the subsequent cooling steps, but the examiner does not rely on Jiang for the cooling steps. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In regards to the arguments regarding Balasubramanian, these arguments are moot due to the newly cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the duration of a sintering process.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the duration of a cooling process.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the conduction.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the cooling process (b) is carried out immediately after the conduction of the sintering process (a).” However, it is unclear what “the conduction” would comprise: does it require (a) to be completed in entirety, initiated, or a only one of the “at least one heat treatment” to be completed. For purposes of examination it was assumed that conduction only required one of the “at least one heat treatment” to be completed.
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 1, 3-10, 17-21, 23-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2019/0101332) in view of Garvie (US 4067745).
As to claims 1 and 27 Schmidt teaches a process for preparing a dental restoration, in which an oxide ceramic material [0012-0015] (a) is subjected to at least one heat treatment [0044], and(b) subsequently is cooled [0044], wherein the cooling comprises (b1) a first cooling step with the cooling rate T1 and (b2) a second cooling step, immediately following the first cooling step, with the cooling rate T2 and (b3) a third cooling step, immediately following the second cooling step, with the cooling rate T3, the absolute value of the cooling rates T1 and T3 are each at least 40 K/min [0044, 0045]. The heating and cooling being the total duration of the sintering process [claims 11, 12, 13].
Schmidt does not disclose b2 a step in between two faster cooling steps in a range from 1000-1400
Garvie teaches a zirconia cooling method [Abstract] wherein during the cooling process the part is cooled slowly in the range of 1400-1000C [col 4 line 43-60] and even held at a constant temperature for 1350-1200 C [col 5 line 14-22] as generates a desirable microstructure [col 4 line 35-49] with enhanced strength [col 6 line 28-68]. 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 Schmidt and included the slow cooling step in between faster steps, as suggested by Garvie, in order to endow the ceramic part with a desirable microstructure and greater strength.
As to claim 3, The combination of Schmidt and Garvie teach step (b2), as explained above, and this step is carried out in temperature range of 1200 to 1300 [col 5 line 14-22].
As to claims 4 and 5, he combination of Schmidt and Garvie teach step (b2), as explained above, and this step is carried out at a constant temperature and therefore has a cooling rate of zero [col 4 line 43-60,col 5 line 14-22].
As to claim 6, Schmidt teaches step (b2) is carried out for a duration of 1 to 20 min then continues past this time [Fig 4, col 4 line 43-60,col 5 line 14-22]
As to claim 7, Schmidt teaches the absolute value of the cooling rate T1 and/or the absolute value of the cooling rate T3 is at least 50 K/min [0044, 0045].
As to claim 8, Schmidt teaches the oxide ceramic material is heated in step (a) to a temperature which is in the range of 1100 to 1700 [0015].
As to claim 9, Schmidt teaches the oxide ceramic material is heated in step (a) at a heating rate in the range of 5 to 500 K/min [0014, 0044 0049].
As to claim 10, Schmidt teaches the oxide ceramic material is cooled in step (b) to a temperature which is in the range of 20 to 1300, ie the opening temperature [0015, 0075].
As to claim 17, Schmidt teaches the oxide ceramic material is based on zirconia [0012, 0015].
As to claim 21, Schmidt teaches the dental restoration is a bridge, an inlay, an onlay, a crown, a veneer, a facet or an abutment [0013].
As to claim 23, Schmidt teaches the oxide ceramic material is cooled in step (b) to a temperature which is in the range of 20 to 1300 C and the heating chamber is opened immediately following the cooling in step (b) [0062, 0060, 0015, 0050, 0051].
As to claim 24, Schmidt teaches the heating chamber is opened immediately following step b3 [0062, 0060, 0015, 0050, 0051].
As to claim 25, the combination of Schmidt and Garvie teach the cooling in step (b) does not comprise a heating step as explained above.
Claims 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2019/0101332) in view of Garvie (US 4067745), as applied to claims 1, 3-10, 17-21, 23-25, 27 above, and in further view of Jiang (US 2020/0170763).
As to claims 11-16, Schmidt teaches the holding the temperature at 1500 during the heat treatment [0015]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 Schmidt 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, Schmidt 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 Schmidt 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, Schmidt teaches oxide ceramic material is colored, but does not explicitly states 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 Schmidt 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, Schmidt does not explicitly state 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 Schmidt and 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.
Claims 6, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US 2019/0101332) in view of Garvie (US 4067745), as applied to claims 1, 3-10, 17-21, 23-25, 27 above, and in further view of Balasubramanian (US 2019/0127284).
As to claim 6, Schmidt teaches step (b2) is carried out for a duration of 1 to 20 min then continues past this time [Fig 4, col 4 line 43-60,col 5 line 14-22].
Additionally, Balasubramanian teaches a method of sintering ceramic bodies [Abstract] and the oxide ceramic material is densely sintered to a relative density of at least 97%, based on the true density of the oxide ceramic material [0049, 0030] for use as dental restorations[0007] and step b2 is carried out in an overlapping range to 1 to 20 min [0031, 0032, 0042, 0043]. 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 Schmidt and , as suggested by Balasubramanian, as this density had proven successful at creating ceramic dental restorations. Moreover, combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I A.
As to claim 26, Schmidt does not explicitly state in step (a) the oxide ceramic material is densely sintered to a relative density of at least 97%, based on the true density of the oxide ceramic material.
Balasubramanian teaches a method of sintering ceramic bodies [Abstract] and the oxide ceramic material is densely sintered to a relative density of at least 97%, based on the true density of the oxide ceramic material [0049, 0030] for use as dental restorations[0007]. 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 Schmidt and obtained a relative density of at least 97%, as suggested by Balasubramanian, as this density had proven successful at creating ceramic dental restorations. Moreover, combining prior elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2143 I A.
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 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
Prosecution Insights