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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 is directed towards the sintered body according to Claim 1, wherein a proportion of tetragonal phase in a crystal structure of the sintered body is 75% or more.
Claim 14 is directed towards the sintered body according to Claim 1, wherein an average size of crystal grains of the zirconia is 2 µm or less.
The closest prior art is Reusch et al. (WO2016026580A1, hereinafter referred to as Reusch). Reusch is directed towards stabilized zirconia (see Reusch at the Abstract). However, Reusch fails to disclose or make obvious the sintered body according to Claim 1, wherein a proportion of tetragonal phase in a crystal structure of the sintered body is 75% or more per instant claim 13. Additionally, Reusch fails to disclose or make obvious the sintered body according to Claim 1, wherein an average size of crystal grains of the zirconia is 2 µm or less.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 12, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reusch et al. (WO2016026580A1, hereinafter referred to as Reusch).
Regarding claim 1, Reusch discloses a sintered body (see Reusch at Page 20, line 36, disclosing a final-sintered state) comprising zirconia (see Reusch at the Abstract, disclosing zirconia), the zirconia including: a stabilizer element dissolved therein (see Reusch at the Abstract, disclosing stabilized zirconia); and a lanthanoid element dissolved therein, the lanthanoid being terbium (see Reusch at Page 14, lines 14-19, disclosing exemplary coloring oxides include ... terbium), wherein a content of monoclinic zirconia after a hydrothermal treatment at 140°C for 24 hours is less than 25% (see Reusch at Pages 11-12, lines 35-36 and 1, disclosing the cubic stabilized zirconia compositions ... comprise up to 3 wt.% monoclinic crystals.) While Reusch does not explicitly disclose the content of monoclinic zirconia after a hydrothermal treatment at 140°C for 24 hours is less than 25%, Examiner notes the content of monoclinic zirconia after a hydrothermal treatment is a function of the initial monoclinic content, as well as the stabilizer element content per [0068] of the instant specification which states "the content of the stabilizer element is preferably 2 mol% or more... and is preferably 15 mol% or less ... when the content of the stabilizer element falls within the above range, the fracture of the sintered body during production or under hydrothermal conditions may be reduced." Because the zirconia sintered body of Reusch has up to 3 wt.% monoclinic crystals and a stabilizer, the zirconia sintered body of Reusch would inherently possess the claimed monoclinic content after hydrothermal treatment. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph), and the sintered body includes a spinel compound (see Reusch at Page 14, line 8, disclosing the coloring pigments may be doped spinels.), the spinel compound including aluminum (Examiner notes the formula for spinel is MgAl2O4, and therefore spinel includes aluminum) and a coloring agent (see Reusch at Page 14, line 8, disclosing the coloring pigments may be doped spinels.).
Regarding claim 2, Reusch discloses the stabilizer element is one or more selected from the group consisting of yttrium, cerium, magnesium and calcium (see Reusch at Page 5, line 23, disclosing 5 wt.% to 35 wt.% yttrium oxide.).
Regarding claim 3, Reusch discloses the stabilizer element is yttrium (see Reusch at Page 5, line 23, disclosing 5 wt.% to 35 wt.% yttrium oxide.).
Regarding claim 4, Reusch discloses a content of the stabilizer element in the zirconia is 2 mol% or more (see Reusch at Page 5, lines 22-23, disclosing 65 wt.% to 95 wt.% zirconium oxide, and from 5 wt.% to 35 wt.% yttrium oxide. Examiner notes this provides a mol% range of yttria stabilizer from 2.79 mol% to 22.71 mol%, all of which are within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Reusch discloses the coloring element is one or more selected from the group consisting of manganese, nickel, cobalt and iron (see Reusch at Page 14, lines 14-19, disclosing exemplary coloring oxides include ... iron ... cobalt ... nickel ... [and] manganese.).
Regarding claim 9, Reusch discloses the coloring element is nickel (see Reusch at Page 14, lines 14-19, disclosing exemplary coloring oxides include ... nickel).
Regarding claim 10, Reusch discloses the sintered body including aluminum oxide (see Reusch at Page 14, line 8, disclosing the coloring pigments may be doped spinels. Examiner notes spinel is MgAl2O4, and therefore spinel includes aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 12, Reusch discloses the sintered body having a structure including crystal grains of the zirconia as a matrix (see Reusch at Page 20, line 4, disclosing polycrystalline zirconia) and crystal grains of the spinel compound (see Reusch at Page 14, line 8, disclosing the coloring pigments may be doped spinels.).
Regarding claim 15, while Reusch does not explicitly disclose a measured density of the sintered body is 5.45 g/cm3 or more because Reusch does not disclose the density, the density of a sintered zirconia body is a function of the composition. Because the composition of Reusch is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition as detailed in the rejections here, the sintered body of Reusch would inherently possess the claimed density.
Regarding claim 17, while Reusch does not explicitly disclose a difference ΔE between color tones of the sintered body before and after a hydrothermal treatment at 140°C for 24 hours is 0 or more and 2.0 or less, this is a property which depends upon the composition, specifically the lanthanoid content, as evidenced by the comparative example in [0218]-[0222] and Table 2 of the instant specification, which shows the primary difference between examples 1-8 and the comparative example is the content of the lanthanoid element. Because the composition of Reusch is substantially identical to the instantly disclosed composition, specifically the lanthanoid content, the zirconia sintered body of Reusch would inherently possess the claimed property. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 18, Reusch discloses a member comprising the sintered body (see Reusch at the Abstract, disclosing crowns, bridges, inlays, onlays, veneers, facings, crown frameworks, bridged frameworks, implants, abutments, copings or orthodontic appliances. Examiner notes all of these are members.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reusch.
Regarding claim 7, Reusch makes obvious a content of the lanthanoid element is 0.1 mol% or more (see Reusch at Page 14, line 1, disclosing 0.01 wt.% to 5.5 wt.% coloring oxides. Reusch discloses at Page 14, lines 14-19, that exemplary coloring oxides include oxides of ... terbium. Examiner notes terbium oxide is Tb4O7. Superaddition of 0.01 wt.% to 5.5 wt.% of Tb4O7 to the zirconia and yttria disclosed in lines 22-23 of page 5 of Reusch and detailed above provides a mol% range of Tb4O7 of from above 0 mol% Tb4O7 to approximately 0.92 mol% Tb4O7, which overlaps with the claimed range.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05)..
Regarding claim 11, Reusch makes obvious a content of the aluminum oxide is 0.5% by mass or more and 25% by mass or less (see Reusch at Page 14, line 1, disclosing 0.01 wt.% to 5.5 wt.% coloring pigments. Reusch at Page 14, line 8, discloses the coloring pigments may be doped spinel. Examiner notes this range overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 16, Reusch does not disclose a chromaticity index a*: -20 ≤ a* ≤ 2 and a chromaticity index b*: -20 ≤ b* ≤ 30, however, per MPEP 2144.04(I), changes in aesthetic design are obvious. Reusch discloses reddish-brownish ... reddish-yellowish ... reddish-grey (see Reusch at page 9, lines 27-31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the last paragraph of page 8 of the Remarks filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as amended to recite terbium have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 over Yamauchi has been withdrawn.
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 CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights