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
Applicant amendment filed 12/30/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 15, 17, and 19-25 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 15, the claim term “a focusable heat source” has been interpreted with the scope defined in P 7, ln 19-25 of applicant specification “the heat input of the heat source is locally focusable on an object, here the hollow-cylindrical mold. That is to say, the heat input can be focused by the heat source on a part-region of the hollow-cylindrical mold”. Furthermore, applicant further disavows the scope of an oven as a focusable heat source
In claim 18, the claim term “a successive heat transfer” has been interpreted with the scope defined in P 7, ln 5-12 of applicant specification “the heat input first takes place for a specific period of time in a region of the substantially hollow-cylindrical mold. The heat input then takes place for a specific period of time in a second region of the substantially hollow-cylindrical mold which in particular is adjacent to the first region.”
In claims 23-24, the claim term “arranged to be vertically adjustable” has been interpreted with the scope defined in P8, ln 37-P9, ln 11 of applicant specification, “either the heat source is arranged to be movable relative to the hollow-cylindrical mold, the hollow-cylindrical mold is arranged to be vertically adjustable relative to the heat source, or both the heat source and the hollow-cylindrical mold are arranged to be vertically adjustable relative to one another”.
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 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 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(s) 15, 19, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (US 2016/0128812 of record) hereinafter Nakayama as evidenced by "Plastics - Thermal Conductivity Coefficients", 2016 (of record) hereinafter Plastics in view of Dreve (DE 2007900 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) and Di Meo et al. (EP0118079 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Di Meo.
Regarding claim 15, Nakayama teaches:
A method of producing dental composite blocks ([0011]) comprising the steps of:
- providing a substantially hollow cylindrical mold ([0022 0029]);
- providing a curable composite material ([0016-0018, 0022]);
- providing a heat source ([0022, 0026]);
- placing the curable composite material into the substantially hollow cylindrical mold ([0022]); and
- curing the introduced curable composite material by means of a heat transfer of the heat source to the substantially hollow cylindrical mold ([0022]), whereby the composite material does not move relative to the substantially hollow cylindrical mold ([0022]).
Nakayama does not explicitly recite wherein the wall of the substantially hollow cylindrical mold is configured to have a thermal conductivity in the range of 0.05 to 12 W/(m x K)
However, Nakayama teaches that the mold may be formed from acrylic resin ([0023-0024]). Acrylic resin has a thermal conductivity of 0.20 W/(m x K) as evidenced by Plastics.
Nakayama does not teach a focusable heat source.
In the same field of endeavor regarding curing of heat treatable material, Dreve teaches a focusable heat source for the motivation of achieving uniformly polymerized dental products (Fig 2-3: container 1, bath 2; [0027, 0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat source as taught by Nakayama with the focusable heat source as taught by Dreve in order to achieve uniformly polymerized dental products.
Nakayama teaches the curing the material in the substantially hollow cylindrical mold by exposing the mold and material to a heat source.
Dreve further teaches effecting a relative movement between the focusable heat source and the molding material, a speed of said movement being selected so as to control a heat input to the mold ([0052]; the table 17 lowers into the bath 2 at an implicit speed which inherently determines the rate at which heat energy is transferred from the bath to the molding material 17’), and wherein the heat input is locally focused by the focusable heat source on the molding material layer by layer (as the table 17 is lowered into bath 2, each layer of the molding material 17’ that is subsequently submerged is exposed to the heat energy of the bath 2 analogous to applicant Fig 3).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Nakayama in view of Dreve teaches effecting a relative movement between the focusable heat source and the substantially hollow cylindrical mold, a speed of said movement being selected so as to control a heat input to the substantially hollow cylindrical mold, and wherein the heat input is locally focused by the focusable heat source on the molding material layer by layer
Nakayama in view of Dreve does not teach the composite material is cured layer by layer in a plurality of regions successively.
In the same field of endeavor regarding curing of heat treatable material, Di Meo teaches a composite material is cured layer by layer in a plurality of regions successively using a microwave hardening zone for the motivation of ensure the hardening of the synthetic binder (Fig 1: section B; [0005, 0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the successive heating as taught by Nakayama in view of Dreve to successively cure the composite material as taught by Di Meo in order to ensure hardening of the synthetic binder.
Regarding claim 19, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo further teaches wherein the wall of the substantially hollow cylindrical mold has a thermal conductivity in the range of 0.14 to 1.2 W/(m x K). See rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama further teaches wherein the substantially hollow cylindrical mold, is configured to have substantially the dimensions of a dental composite block ([0029]; the formed dental block inherently takes the shape of the negative space of the mold).
Regarding claim 22, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama further teaches wherein the composite material comprises > 40% by weight filler (Table 1: Paste 1-4).
Regarding claim 23, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama further teaches wherein the heat source and the substantially hollow cylindrical mold are arranged to be adjustable in height ([0025-0026]; Nakayama teaches the mold and the heat source are separate components. Separate components may be moved relative to each other in any direction).
Regarding claim 24, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Dreve further teaches wherein the heat source or the substantially hollow cylindrical mold is arranged to be adjustable in height (Fig 2-3; [0047]).
Regarding claim 25, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama further teaches heating a mold to a curing temperature is between 60-200°C ([0025, 0028]). Dreve teaches lowering an article to be cured into a heated bath that may have a temperature of above 100°C ([0018-0019, 0047, 0052]). Therefore the prior art in combination teaches wherein the curing of the introduced, curable composite material is effected by means of a successive heat transfer of the focusable heat source to the substantially hollow cylindrical mold.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mielecke (US 2015/0351875 of record).
Regarding claim 17, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama further teaches compressing the introduced curable composite material in the substantially hollow cylindrical mold, wherein compressing of the introduced, curable composite material in the substantially hollow cylindrical mold, is carried out by gravitation, sedimentation or pressing ([0025]).
Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo does not teach compressing the introduced curable composite material in the substantially hollow cylindrical mold without air.
In the same field of endeavor regarding dental blocks, Mielecke teaches compressing a curable composite material in a vacuum for the motivation of preventing bubble formation ([0079-0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the compressing step as taught by Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo to be performed in a vacuum as taught by Mielecke in order to prevent bubble formation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Craig et al. (US 2014/0162216 of record).
Regarding claim 20, Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo teaches the method of claim 15.
Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo does not teach wherein a holder for further processing the composite material into a dental restoration is attached to the cured composite material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding of dental blocks, Craig teaches attaching mounting stub to a dental block for the motivation of facilitating affixation of the block in a milling machine as the block is milled by the machine ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Nakayama as evidenced by Plastics in view of Dreve and Di Meo with the attachment of a mounting stub as taught by Craig in order to facilitate affixation of the block in a milling machine as the block is milled by the machine
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Di Meo teaches away from conductive wall heating and therefore cannot be combined with references teaching the use of a mold having thermal conductivity. First, Di Meo recognizes the heat transfer through mold walls as a potential disadvantage in that conducting heat through walls of a mold “can require relatively long heating tunnels, particularly when the profile to be manufactured has a large section” ([0003]; emphasis added). Of note is the author’s choice of the word “can” as opposed to “must”. Rather than a teaching away from conductive heating in all cases, Di Meo recognizes that the heating tunnel, i.e., the time/amount it takes to heat the binder material, depends on the size of the profile to be manufactured, which can in certain cases lead to the disclosed disadvantages. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. To the contrary, Di Meo relies on a certain level of conductive wall heating as Di Meo teaches preheating of the walls of the treatment section 31 to promote the start of hardening ([0022]). Furthermore, the examiner notes that the passage discussing the disadvantages of thermal wall heating are particularly directed to “walls consisting of a metal cube” ([0003]). Nakayama discloses suitable material for the mold that specifically excludes metal ([0011]). Therefore, rather than teaching away from each other, the references share a similar preference to non-metal walls. Furthermore, even if one of ordinary skill in the art was to consider the cited passage to be a teaching away of conductive wall heating entirely, then one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the microwave radiation of Di Meo would be an improvement over the conductive wall heating of the other prior art references and modify accordingly, rather than simply completely dismiss the body of the prior art as a whole. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." See MPEP 2141.03.
Applicant argues that Di Meo does not teach “layer by layer” curing. Applicant argues that Di Meo teaches curing “in the mass” as it passes through the tube, which is different than layer by layer curing. Applicant argues that curing “in the mass” means that all the material in the tube is cured homogenously while avoiding thermal gradients. However, rather than a teaching away, the discussion of “in the mass” appears to instead stem from an issue of translation. A machine translation of the first sentence of [0029] (Copilot translation accessed 02/27/2026) is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above translation appears to be referring to generally heating the product in large amounts, and not to a specific manner of heating, i.e., homogenous heating of the entire mass as argued by the applicant. This is further supported by the fact that applicant’s characterization of homogenous heating to avoid thermal gradients is in direct contradiction from what is taught by Di Meo. As cited in the art rejection, [0016] of Di Meo teaches that the mold is composed of three sections A, B, and C. The purpose of section B is to ensure the hardening of the synthetic binder via microwave heat treatment ([0016]), and section C allows cooling. Section A is not disclosed to be heated or cooled. Therefore there clearly exists a temperature gradient formed between the material transported through sections A, B, and C, where the binder material is hardened/cured as it passes through section B, i.e., successive curing layer by layer.
Applicant again argues that there is no selection of speed in Dreve. Applicant concedes that there is inherently a speed when the table is lowered. Applicant argues that this speed is not a controlled process parameter selected by an operator and that such a speed is not deliberate. However, the examiner notes that the claim recites “a speed of said movement being selected so as to control a heat input to the substantially hollow cylindrical mold”. None of the above features that are argued to be lacking are included in the claim language, or even the specification. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant again argues that there is no selection of speed in Dreve. Applicant concedes that there is inherently a speed when the table is lowered. Applicant argues that this speed is not a controlled process parameter selected by an operator and that such a speed is not deliberate. The above interpretation of the scope of the selected speed, which is not supported by applicant disclosure or claims, certainly falls under the scope of “selected”. However, the scope of the claim language is much broader and it is not limited to only that posed above scope. The examiner notes that the claim recites “a speed of said movement being selected so as to control a heat input to the substantially hollow cylindrical mold”. Applicant specification recites “the speed of the movement can be used to control the heat input to the mold and thus the curing of the composite material.” Neither the claim nor the instant disclosure supports such an interpretation of the claimed subject matter as argued by applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner notes, as in the previous office actions, that the instant specification contains no disclosure of controlling the speed of the movement deliberate or otherwise. As in the previous office actions, the examiner notes that a recitation that the speed of the movement controls the heat input to the mold is distinct from controlling the speed of the movement to control the heat input to the mold. One is a description of the factors that affect the heat input, while the other is a positive recitation of a deliberate manipulation of the speed to control the heat input to the mold. The examiner notes that the scope of the disclosed subject matter merely discloses that the speed of the movement in some broad unspecified manner controls the heat input to the mold. As an analogy, factoring for the force of gravity to control a process is much different from manipulating gravity itself. The examiner further notes that even if controlling of the speed itself was found to be supported by the instant disclosure, there is also no recitation on how the speed is specifically controlled, e.g., how the speed is selected, whether the speed is increased or decreased, etc. Therefore any argument that the prior art does not teach a specific method of controlling of the speed of the movement in either the claims or the disclosure cannot possibly be true. Given the above, due to the breadth of the claim and the disclosure regarding the speed of the movement, any teaching of the speed, including an implication, by the prior art can be considered a selection of the speed. Furthermore, even if interpreted under the scope as posed by applicant, the speed of decent of the table, rather than arbitrary, depends on the construction of the apparatus. As the apparatus does not spontaneously manifest itself from the ether, the construction of the apparatus is a deliberate design choice by a designer, and when executed, results in a speed that inherently depends on the design of the apparatus. Therefore, even if the inappropriately narrow scope of the applicant is applied, the prior art still meets the limitations of the claim.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741