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 .
The amendment of 9/9/25 has been entered. Claims 8-12 are pending.
Rejections
1. 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.
2. Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Application Publication No. 2012/0251979 Karim et al. in view of US Pat. Application Publication No. 2003/0134934 Kojima et al. and JP 2000-344786 Otsuki et al., the machine English translation provided by the examiner is referenced below unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 8 and 12:
Karim discloses a machinable abutment-integrated prosthetic block which is formed by integrating an abutment and a crown block made of a material requiring no heat treatment after machining. It is noted that Karim does not require any heating after machining of their abutment-integrated prosthetic block. See the entirety of the Karim document, including the abstract, Fig. 2, noting that item 150 is the abutment, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, and paragraphs [0009], [0013]-[0014], [0016], [0017], particularly noting the use of the machinable abutment-integrated prosthetic block of Karim as a crown which makes it a crown block, [0019]-[0023], [0025], particularly noting the use of the machinable abutment-integrated prosthetic block of Karim as a crown which makes it a crown block, [0026], [0035], noting particularly the description of item 150 as the abutment, [0052], [0053], [0054], noting that the ceramic mill blank may be fired after milling and noting that “may” does not require firing after milling, [0054]-[0072], [0073], [0076], noting the use of dental adhesives that are known to have good adhesion to dental restoration materials to adhere the abutment to the block, [0078], noting the use of fillers in the adhesives, [0079], and the remainder of the document.
The polymer-ceramic mill blanks of Karim and their teaching that heating after milling is not required meets the limitations of the instant claim 8.
Karim, paragraph [0058], teaches that their polymer-ceramic composites may use polymethyl methacrylate as the polymer and encompasses other acrylic polymers. Karim, paragraph [0060] teaches the use of silica as filler in their polymer-ceramic composites.
Karim, paragraph [0083], teaches using titanium to make their abutment, which falls within the scope of the instant claim 8.
Karim discloses attaching the abutment to the crown block using adhesive. See Karim, paragraph [0076]. The method of making the crown block having an abutment of Karim falls within the scope of the instant claim 8 method except that Karim does not disclose the instantly claimed adhesive composition. Karim discloses method steps meeting each of the steps S1 to S6 except that the instantly claimed adhesives are not disclosed by Karim.
The instantly claimed adhesive composition is not disclosed by Karim.
Kojima discloses an adhesive for bonding teeth to restoration material which does not require a pre-treatment. See Kojima, paragraph [0009]. Kojima teaches that their adhesives have superior adhesive properties to a tooth structure and a dental restoration material. The ordinary skilled artisan would understand that, if the adhesive can bond to the dental restoration material well, it can bond the dental restoration material to other substrates than a tooth structure if it can bond to that other substrate. Kojima exemplifies adhesive compositions containing monomers of the instant claims 1, 2, and 8 at paragraph [0035], Table 1, noting Ex. 1. Ex. 1 contains MDP, HEMA, TEGDMA, and UDMA as well as OX50 which is taught as being an aerosil, i.e. a silica, in the notes of Table 1. The exemplified adhesive composition of Kojima therefore falls within the scope of the instantly claimed adhesives of the instant claims.
Kojima teaches curing their adhesives with light at the abstract and paragraph [0022].
Otsuki teaches that dental adhesives containing phosphoric acid containing monomer, including MDP, are useful for applications to metal and ceramic at paragraph [0001]. Otsuki teaches that the phosphate monomer gives high adhesion and adhesion durability even in a wet environment in the oral cavity to these materials at paragraph [0002]. See Otsuki, paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0025], and [0032]-[0034], noting the MDP monomer, page 13, lines 16-23 and page 14, lines 1-23.
Otsuki, page 14, lines 15-23, particularly lines 16 and 20, teaches curing of their adhesives with heat or with UV radiation using the initiators of page 14, lines 20-21. Kojima, paragraph [0022] teaches the use of the UV radiation initiators of Otsuki.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to perform the instantly claimed methods without subsequent heating of the crown block by adhering the abutment of Karim to their crown block using the instantly claimed adhesive because Karim teaches that the abutment may be adhered to the block with adhesives which are known to have good adhesion to dental restoration materials, Kojima discloses the instantly claimed adhesives and teaches that they are known to have good adhesion to dental restoration material, as discussed above, Otsuki teaches that dental adhesives containing phosphoric acid monomer, including MDP, are useful for applications to metal and ceramics and that the phosphate monomer gives high adhesion and adhesion durability even in a wet environment in the oral cavity, as discussed above, and the bonded abutment to the block of Karim using the adhesive of Kojima would have been expected to have the properties of the abutment/block of Karim coupled with the excellent adhesive bond and adhesion durability between the abutment and the block and the other adhesive properties of the adhesives of Kojima and Otsuki.
Regarding claim 10:
Karim, paragraph [0048], teaches that the supragingival end of the abutment is roughed with sandblasting. Karim teaches that this roughening increases the bond strength between the abutment and the mill blank. The ordinary skilled artisan would understand that the roughening increases surface area and thereby increases the number of chemical bonds between the adhesive and the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to roughen the opening in the mill blank of Karim in which the abutment is inserted by sandblasting and to roughen the surface of the abutment which touches the mill blank with sandblasting to increase the roughness and surface areas of both substrates to thereby obtain a better adhesive bond at each substrate surface, as would have been expected by the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the instantly claimed invention from the teachings of Karim, paragraph [0048]. This meets the requirements of the instant claim 10.
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
As discussed above, Kojima only teaches curing their adhesives with radiation and only exemplifies visible light. Otsuki shows that it is known to cure similar adhesive compositions using heat or UV radiation and discloses photoinitiators that Kojima also uses, as noted above. The UV light falls within the scope of the instant claim 11. Otsuki does not describe the temperature of their heat curing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to cure the adhesives of Kojima using the methods of either of the instant claims 11 and 12 because they are both known for curing similar adhesive compositions to those of Kojima, noting the above discussed teachings of Otsuki, UV light encompasses the wavelengths of the instant claim 11, it is within the ability of the ordinary skilled artisan to choose the amount of heat, e.g. temperature, which gives a sufficiently fast cure while not damaging the cured article and which includes the temperatures of the instant claim 12, and the particulars of the instant claims 11 and 12 would have been expected to give only predictable results to the articles and methods of the above cited prior art.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
3. The following response is in reply to the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of paragraph 2 above:
In their response of 9/9/25:
The applicant argues “The claimed invention provides significant technical advantages that distinguish the claimed invention from conventional dental prosthetic manufacturing approaches. As described in paragraph [0063] of the specification, the method of the claimed invention enables severe machining such as CAD/CAM processing in a block state where the abutment is integrated with the crown, allowing the manufacture of artificial teeth suitable for individual patients while requiring no additional heat treatment after machining. Since the implantation procedure can be finished by implanting an abutment-integrated crown after machining, the treatment time for implant restoration can be shortened, thereby enabling a one-day prosthesis procedure.
The claimed method achieves this advantageous result through the specific combination of crown block materials (PMMA, ceramic-resin composite, zirconia, and crystallized glass), abutment materials (titanium, titanium alloys, and zirconia), and a precisely defined adhesive composition comprising (a) two or more compounds selected from Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and UDMA, (b) two or more compounds selected from HEMA, PMDM, and 10-MDP, (c) inorganic fillers selected from barium silicate and silicon dioxide, and (d) photoinitiator or thermal initiator. This specific material combination, processed according to the claimed sequential steps, provides the necessary bonding strength and structural integrity to eliminate the need for post-machining heat treatment while maintaining clinical durability.
On page 3 of the outstanding Office Action, it is alleged that the method of making the crown block having an abutment of Karim falls within the scope of the instant claim 8 method except that Karim does not disclose the instantly claimed adhesive composition.
In this regard, Karim discloses a dental mill blank with an integrated abutment, but Karim's approach is fundamentally different from the claimed invention. Karim teaches integrating a preformed abutment into a mill blank material, but Karim’s examples demonstrate a completely different bonding methodology. In Karim's Examples 1 and 2, ceramic materials (VM9 Base Dentine ceramic powder, Finesse Porcelain) are applied to the abutment and then subjected to high-temperature firing at 900°C and 780°C respectively. This high-temperature ceramic firing process is directly contrary to the feature of eliminating heat treatment after machining of the claimed invention.
Moreover, Karim focuses on ceramic-to-ceramic bonding using traditional dental porcelain materials that require high-temperature sintering. Karim does not teach or suggest the specific adhesive composition of the claimed invention, which comprises the precise combination of (a) structural monomers (Bis-GMA/TEGDMA/UDMA), (b) adhesive monomers (HEMA/PMDM/10-MDP), (c) inorganic fillers, and (d) a photoinitiator or a thermal initiator that enables room-temperature curing.
While Kojima and Otsuki teach various dental adhesive components, they address conventional tooth-restoration bonding applications and do not contemplate the specific technical objectives addressed by the claimed invention.
Karim's high-temperature ceramic approach actually teaches away from the claimed invention's objective of enabling same-day procedures without post-machining heat treatment. The combination of Karim with Kojima and Otsuki would not provide motivation to eliminate Karim's high-temperature processing, since Karim presents this as an essential step for achieving proper bonding.
The claimed method's ability to achieve structural integration at room temperature through the specific adhesive composition represents an unexpected result that enables immediate clinical use after CAD/CAM processing, which could not have been predicted from the high-temperature ceramic bonding approach taught by Karim.
As such, claim 8 of the present application, as amended, would not have been obvious over Karim, Kojima, and Otsuki. As claim 8 is now allowable, its dependent claims are also in condition for allowance. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.” These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated in the above rejection and for the teachings of the above cited prior art. It would have been expected that the same performance as can be achieved by the instantly claimed invention would have been performed by applying adhesive to the threaded abutment of Karim and screwing it into the treaded hole in the crown block. This would have been expected to give the stability of the mechanical screw structure coupled with the added security of the adhesive which is acting as threadlocker in this case. The adhesive cure does not require further heating of the crown block just as Karim’s examples 3 and 4 do not further heat the crown block. Karim is valid for all that it teaches and is not limited to its Examples 1 and 2 which are one particular embodiment of their inventions. See Karim, paragraph [0076] which does not require further heating of the crown block when the adhesives are used to bond the abutment to the crown block. No unexpected results are seen stemming from the instantly claimed materials and adhesive compositions which are demonstrated in a manner commensurate in scope with the instant claims and which compare to the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention [R-08.2012]. The remainder of the applicant’s arguments address limitations which are not required by the instant claims and are therefore not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons stated above, the reasons stated in the above rejection, and for the full teachings of the above cited prior art as they would have been understood by the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the instantly claimed invention. The above rejection is therefore maintained.
Conclusion
4. 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.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert S Jones, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1121. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PATRICK D NILAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762