DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on June 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 10 and 11, which previously recited a “Mounting Device System”, have been amended to recite the “mounting device of claim 1”, thereby making them depend from the elected group. This argument is found persuasive. Claims 10 and 11 are hereby rejoined with the elected invention group and examined below.
Applicant did not present arguments regarding claims 12-14 and, as such, Applicant’s non-election of claims 12-14 is treated herein as an election without traverse. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
In summary, claims 1-11 are examined herein and claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the connecting part and base part consists of”, which should be “the connecting part and base part consist of”;
Claim 8 recites “the connecting part and base part comprises”, which should be “the connecting part and base part comprise”; and
Claim 9 recites “larger or equal to” and “smaller or equal to”, which respectively should be “larger than or equal to” and “smaller than or equal to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it refers to “the loss of ignition of the porous material", which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because the recited porous material has not been established to have “a loss of ignition”. Additionally, as no test parameters (e.g. “ignition temperature” or heating time) are claimed or disclosed, it is not clear how to determine if a material or device demonstrates a “loss of ignition” that meets what was intended to be required by the claim. Appropriate explanation and correction are required.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it recites “the supporting part comprises an angle of larger or equal to -30° and smaller or equal to 35° with respect to a flat surface”. This limitation is indefinite, first, because it recites “the supporting part” without having established that “a supporting part” is present. As such, “the supporting part” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Second, as the claimed product is not recited to have a flat surface and as the claim does not establish what surface constitutes “a flat surface” or recite a location of “a flat surface”, it is not possible to determine with respect to what surface (or which direction is considered “flat”) the “supporting part” should have an angle in the recited range. For the sake of compact prosecution, any portion of the device that can be considered “a supporting part” and that can be considered to be oriented at an angle of -30° and smaller or equal to 35° with respect to any surface, hypothetical or otherwise identified, is considered herein to meet the claim requirement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is not clear if the “configured to be attached to a dental prosthesis body” of line 2 is a further narrowing of the “adapted to be temporarily connectable ex-vivo to an unfinished dental prosthesis body” of claim 1, if the limitation is intended to establish that the device is connected to a dental prothesis body that has been finished in addition to the unfinished device referred to in claim 1, or something else.
Second, the recited “inner attachment part is adapted to extend into the void volume of the dental prosthesis body” of line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite because the recited “a dental prosthesis body” has not been established to include “a void volume”.
Third, it is not clear if the “inner” of “inner attachment part” refers to the claimed device or to a hypothetical dental prosthesis body because Figure 1 appears to show the “inner attachment part”, 4, as being on the exterior of the depicted device. For the sake of compact prosecution, “inner” and “outer” are considered herein to only be names of the corresponding “parts” rather than as referring to their location within/on the claimed mounting device.
Third, the recited “adapted to match the lower circumferential contour line of the dental prosthesis body, wherein the length difference between the lower contour line of the dental prosthesis body and the outer supporting part of the connecting part is smaller or equal to 10% with respect to the length of the dental prosthesis body lower circumferential contour line” of lines 5-8 is lacks antecedent basis because the recited “dental prothesis body” has not been established to have “a lower contour line”.
Fourth, it is not clear how similar or different to a contour the “outer supporting part” must be to be considered “matching” that contour. It is also not clear in what manner the part and contour are to “match”, as recited in line 5.
Fifth, and most importantly, claim 10 is generally indefinite because it refers to and recites a product whose shape depends on that of hypothetical dental prothesis, which has not been established to have a specific shape, size, or structure. As such, it is not possible to determine what specific shape is required of the recited “mounting device”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as requiring the mounting device of claim 1 to have a connecting part that comprises an inner attachment part and an outer supporting part that are capable of being used/positioned as claimed on any structure that could be used or identified as a “dental prosthesis body”.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it depends from claim 10, which is indefinite for the reasons just discussed, and because the recited “attachment part surface is contoured to contact at least in part the inner surface of the dental prosthesis body” of lines 2 and 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite because “the dental prothesis body” has not been established to have “an inner surface”. Note: “the void volume” of the dental prosthesis body of claim 10 could reasonably be considered to refer to a volume of pores or any other type of opening that might be present in the prosthesis body.
As with claim 10 above, claim 11 is also generally indefinite because it refers to and recites a product whose shape depends on that of hypothetical dental prothesis, which has not been established to have a specific shape, size, or structure. As such, it is not possible to determine what specific shape is required of the recited “mounting device”.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as requiring the mounting device of claim 10 to have an attachment part that is contoured in some way such that it is capable of being used/positioned as claimed on any structure that could be used or identified as a “dental prosthesis body”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chun (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0251608). Evidence for claim 4 is presented by Chemical Book (Chemical Book, “Calcium Silicate”, 2017, p. 1-2).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-11, Chun teaches components (i.e. “devices”) having a porosity of 40 and 60 % and thermal conductivities falling in the range of 0.05 to 0.75 W/mK at 800 °C (par. 45, Fig. 4).
As Chun’s components may be brick-shaped or may be a castable, and are not taught to comprise a different material in different regions, each necessarily has an upper region (i.e. “upper connecting part”) and a lower region (i.e. “lower base part”), which consist of the same porous material (par. 110). Being brick-shaped (see, for example, 606A-H in Fig. 6), Chun’s components have a circumferential outer edge, which may be considered the “supporting part”, that is oriented at 0 ° with respect to a hypothetical flat surface (par. 110, Fig. 6).
The requirements that the device, its upper and lower “parts”, or any other “parts” are to be connected, are connectable, are adapted to be connectable, are to support, are to extend into a void, or are to “match” volumes, surfaces, or parts to a “dental prosthesis body” or portion of a dental prosthesis body at a given time or in a given manner are statements of intended use. As no specific type, shape, or structure of a “dental prothesis body” is recited in the claims, Chun’s components meet the claim requirements because they are capable of being used with a hypothetical “dental prothesis body”, as claimed, that hypothetically has a shape that corresponds to/is capable of interacting with Chun’s product in the manners that are clamed.
Regarding claim 3, as Chun makes no disclosure of the taught material having a loss of ignition or of containing an organic material that might burn away during heating, the material is presumed to demonstrate a loss of ignition of 0 %.
Regarding claim 4, Chun teaches that the porous components discussed above, one of which has a porosity of 60 %, are calsil (par. 45). As evidenced by Chemical Book, which discloses that calsil has a density of 2.9 g/mL (p. 1), the calsil component with a porosity of 60 % has a density of 1.16 kg/m3.
Regarding claim 6, as no actual structure of an “orientation marker” is claimed, the requirement that a part of the recited device is an “orientation marker” is a statement of intended use. One of the corners on the lower surface of Chun’s brick-shaped component may be considered an “orientation maker” because it is capable of being used to “mark” the orientation of the component.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0311650) in view of Li (CN 2013601525A), as evidenced by Sandoval (Sandoval, et al. J. Euro. Ceram. Soc. 2021, vol. 41, p. 6687-6696).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-11, Stephan teaches a device comprising a base (10, i.e. “lower base part”) and a superstructure (20, i.e. “upper connecting part”), both of which consist of the same porous material (par. 12, 29, Fig. 1). As no actual shapes are recited, at least part of the superstructure (20, i.e. “connecting part”) and base may be considered the “inner attachment part” (e.g., the pointed end of item 20) and the “outer supporting part” (e.g. the portion of the base, 1, extending along and including the curved surface positioned at the interface of the base, 1, and the superstructure, 20). As shown in Figure 1, the portion of the base, 1, adjacent the curved surface has a circumferential outer edge that tilts at an angle in the range of -30 to 35 ° with respect to at least some hypothetical surface (e.g. a surface extending parallel to the length of the bore, 30) (Fig. 1).
The requirements that the device, its upper and lower “parts”, or any other “parts” are to be connected, are connectable, are adapted to be connectable, are to support, are to extend into a void, or are to “match” volumes, surfaces, or parts to a “dental prosthesis body” or portion of a dental prosthesis body at a given time or in a given manner are statements of intended use. As no specific type, shape, or structure of a “dental prothesis body” is recited in the claims, Stephan’s device and its parts meet the claim requirements because they are capable of being used with a hypothetical “dental prothesis body”, as claimed, that hypothetically has a shape that corresponds to/is capable of interacting with Stephan’s product in the manners that are clamed.
The teachings of Stephan differ from the current invention in that the porosity and thermal conductivity of the material making the recited device are not disclosed. However, Stephan does teach that the material of the device may be made of quartz (i.e. silica) and or metal oxides, that the device should have pores with sizes of up to 20 µm, and that the device may support a formed ceramic body, which may be further sintered at temperatures of up to 1600 °C (par. 11, 22, 26). Li further teaches that porous mullite materials are refractories that can improve thermal efficiency due to their high porosity, high strength, low bulk density, and low thermal conductivity (par. 5). Li also teaches his own porous mullite material made from recycled porcelain and clay, both of which comprise silica and metal oxides, that has a porosity in the range of 45 to 65 %, pores with sizes up to 15 µm, and a thermal conductivity of about 0.257 to 0.342 W/mK (par. 16). Li’s specific mullite material is beneficial because it is environmentally friendly and offers high compressive strength, high volume stability, low bulk density, and low thermal conductivity (par. 17). Li also teaches that the material is useful as a refractory (par. 2, 9), thereby showing that it can be handled in high-temperature environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Li’s porous mullite material as the porous material forming Stephan’s device because it comprises materials and has pore sizes taught acceptable by Stephen, is environmentally friendly, is useful in high-temperature environments, such as where sintering may be performed, and offers high compressive strength, high volume stability, low bulk density, and low thermal conductivity.
Although Li does not explicitly teach the thermal conductivity of his material at 800 °C, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Li does teach the thermal conductivity at 300 °C (par. 16). Sandoval further teaches that the thermal conductivity of crystalline solids generally decreases as temperature increases and demonstrates two cellular mullite materials that have thermal conductivities that decreased slightly between 300 and 800 °C and one that increased slightly at temperatures over 300 °C (p. 6694; right col.; Fig. 7). In all cases, the thermal conductivity varied by less than 0.5 W/mK as the temperature rose above 300 °C (Fig. 7). Therefore, as evidenced by Sandoval teachings, Li’s cellular mullite material is expected to behave similarly at elevated temperatures, including by maintaining a thermal conductivity within the recited range. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the porous mullite material of Stephan and Li to vary in thermal conductivity as little as possible with elevating temperatures, including by varying by a value that results in a thermal conductivity that is still in the recited range at 800 °C or even 1600 °C, so that the material may behave in (and conduct heat) in as uniform and predictable of a manner as possible, including over the entire range of sintering temperatures (i.e. up to 1600 °C, discussed above) taught by Stephan.
Regarding claim 2, Li’s porous mullite material is made from 65 to 95 wt. % of a porcelain material, which comprises at least 55 wt. % Al2O3 and at least 38 wt. % SiO2, and 5 to 35 wt. % of clay, which comprises at least 40 wt. % Al2O3 and 55 wt. % SiO2 (par. 10-12). Based on the proportions and Li’s teaching that his formed mullite material contains at least 50 wt. % Al2O3 (par. 16), Li’s material with 65 wt. % porcelain is calculated to include at least 50 wt. % Al2O3 and at least about 44 % SiO2 and Li’s material with 95 wt. % porcelain is calculated to include at least about 55 wt. % Al2O3 and at least about 39 wt. % SiO2. Therefore, the claimed porous material composition is overlapped and rendered obvious by Li. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, as Stephan and Li make no disclosure of the taught material having a loss of ignition or of containing an organic material that might burn upon heating, the material is presumed to demonstrate a loss of ignition of 0 %.
Regarding claim 4, Li’s porous mullite material has a density of 0.83 to 1.18 g/cm3 (i.e. 830 to 1180 kg/m3) (par. 16).
Regarding claim 6, as no actual structure of an “orientation marker” is claimed, the requirement that a part of the recited device is an “orientation marker” is a statement of intended use. The right-angle edge or entrance to the bore (30) on the end of Stephan’s base (10) may be considered an “orientation maker” because they are capable of being used to “mark” the orientation of the component.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in Figure 1, Stephan’s device includes a bore (30, i.e. “channel”) that extends from the bottom (i.e. the end of item 10) to what may be considered the “top” part (i.e. into the distal end of item 20) of the device (Fig. 1). Stephen further teaches that the device has porosity that allows suction to occur from its inside bore, outwardly to the surface (par. 29, 30). As such, the interconnected porosity further creates channels that extend from the bore, which starts at the bottom of the device, to the outer, “top”, surface of the device.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittmann (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0309540) in view of Li, as evidenced by Sandoval.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-11, Dittmann teaches a device (102) comprising a lower base part (117) and an upper connecting part (110, 120) (Figs. 1-4), both of which consist of the same porous material (Figs. 1-4, par. 25, 29-31, 41-44). As no actual shapes are recited, at least part Dittmann’s structure may be considered the “inner attachment part” (e.g., the surfaces labeled 109 and 120, or the surfaces labeled 128) and the “outer supporting part” (e.g. the ring shape defined by 113) (Figs. 3 and 4). As shown in Figure 1, the upper connecting part (i.e. which can be considered the whole top surface) of Dittmann’s device has a circumferential outer edge that tilts at an angle in the range of -30 to 35 ° with respect to at least some hypothetical surface (e.g. a surface extending parallel to the length of a channel, 30).
The requirements that the device, its upper and lower “parts”, or any other “parts” are to be connected, are connectable, are adapted to be connectable, are to support, are to extend into a void, or are to “match” volumes, surfaces, or parts to a “dental prosthesis body” or portion of a dental prosthesis body at a given time or in a given manner are statements of intended use. As no specific type, shape, or structure of a “dental prothesis body” is recited in the claims, Dittmann’s device and its parts meet the claim requirements because they are capable of being used with a hypothetical “dental prothesis body”, as claimed, that hypothetically has a shape that corresponds to/is capable of interacting with Dittmann’s product in the manners that are clamed.
The teachings of Dittmann differ from the current invention in that the porosity and thermal conductivity of the material making the recited device are not disclosed. However, Dittmann does teach that the device may be made of high-strength oxide elements and ceramics comprising alumina, that the device should have an open porosity of at least 25 % and a density of no greater than 1.6 g/cm3 , and that the device is intended to be used in sintering operations at temperatures in the range of 1300 to 1650 °C (Abstract; par. 27, 62, 77, 79). Li further teaches that porous mullite materials are refractories that can improve thermal efficiency due to their high porosity, high strength, low bulk density, and low thermal conductivity (par. 5). Li also teaches his own porous mullite material made from recycled porcelain and clay, both of which comprise silica and metal oxides, that has a porosity in the range of 45 to 65 %, a density in the range of 0.83 to 1.18 g/cm3 (i.e. 830 to 1180 kg/m3), and a thermal conductivity of about 0.257 to 0.342 W/mK (par. 16). Li’s specific mullite material is beneficial because it is environmentally friendly and offers high compressive strength, high volume stability, low bulk density, and low thermal conductivity (par. 17). Li also teaches that the material is useful as a refractory (par. 2, 9), thereby showing that it can be handled in high-temperature environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Li’s porous mullite material as the porous material forming Dittmann’s device because it is a refractory with a porosity and density consistent with Dittmann’s teachings, is environmentally friendly, is useful in high-temperature environments, such as where sintering may be performed, and offers high compressive strength, high volume stability, low bulk density, and low thermal conductivity.
Although Li does not explicitly teach the thermal conductivity of his material at 800 °C, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, Li does teach the thermal conductivity at 300 °C (par. 16). Sandoval further teaches that the thermal conductivity of crystalline solids generally decreases as temperature increases and demonstrates two cellular mullite materials that have thermal conductivities that decrease slightly between 300 and 800 °C and one that increased slightly at temperatures over 300 °C (p. 6694; right col.; Fig. 7). In all cases, the thermal conductivity varied by less than 0.5 W/mK as the temperature rose above 300 °C (Fig. 7). Therefore, as evidenced by Sandoval’s teachings, Li’s cellular mullite material is expected to behave similarly at elevated temperatures, including by maintaining a thermal conductivity within the recited range. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the porous mullite material of Dittmann and Li to vary in thermal conductivity as little as possible over a wide range of temperatures, including by varying by a value that results in a thermal conductivity that is still in the recited range at 800 °C or even 1650 °C, so that the material may behave in (and conduct heat) in as uniform and predictable of a manner as possible, including over the entire range of sintering temperatures (i.e. up to 1650 °C, discussed above) taught by Dittmann.
Regarding claim 2, Li’s porous mullite material is made from 65 to 95 wt. % of a porcelain material, which comprises at least 55 wt. % Al2O3 and at least 38 wt. % SiO2, and 5 to 35 wt. % of clay, which comprises at least 40 wt. % Al2O3 and 55 wt. % SiO2 (par. 10-12). Based on the proportions and Li’s teaching that his formed mullite material contains at least 50 wt. % Al2O3 (par. 16), Li’s material with 65 wt. % porcelain is calculated to include at least 50 wt. % Al2O3 and at least about 44 % SiO2 and Li’s material with 95 wt. % porcelain is calculated to include at least about 55 wt. % Al2O3 and at least about 39 wt. % SiO2. Therefore, the claimed porous material composition is overlapped and rendered obvious by Li. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, as Dittmann and Li make no disclosure of the taught material having a loss of ignition or of containing an organic material that might burn with heating, the material is presumed to demonstrate a loss of ignition of 0 %.
Regarding claim 6, although Dittmann does not explicitly teach orientation markers being present in the recited location, which might be considered a difference from the current invention, as no actual structure of an “orientation marker” is claimed, the requirement that a part of the recited device is an “orientation marker” is a statement of intended use. The right-angle edge on the bottom of Dittmann’s base may be considered an “orientation marker” because it is capable of being used to “mark” an orientation.
Dittmann further teaches that identification insignia can be positioned on a variety of surfaces on his support and can facilitate indexing of loci to facilitate accurate positioning (par. 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include identification insignia in one or more of a variety of locations on Dittmann’s device, including on the lower base part, because Dittmann teaches that such indicia may be placed on a variety of different surfaces and in order to facilitate indexing of loci to facilitate accurate positioning of the support or structures with which it interacts. Such insignia qualify as “orientation markers” because they are capable of being used to “mark” orientations.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in Figure 4, Stephan’s device includes channels (115) that extend from the bottom surface (i.e. “bottom”) to the top surface (i.e. “top”) of the device (Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights