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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Claim 1 as amended contains a contribution over the prior art in view of Theelke. This is not found persuasive because Claim 1 is rejected in view of Rothbrust as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is 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 3 depends upon claim 1, and recites wherein in the composite material, a content ratio of the fine particles of the inorganic oxide held in the pores of the microporous preliminarily sintered body is 0.09 to 10% by mass based on a total mass of the microporous preliminarily sintered body and the fine particles of the inorganic oxide. Rothbrust in view of Jahns and Adilstam does not disclose or make obvious the composite material, a content ratio of the fine particles of the inorganic oxide held in the pores of the microporous preliminarily sintered body is 0.09 to 10% by mass based on a total mass of the microporous preliminarily sintered body and the fine particles of the inorganic oxide because Rothbrust in view of Jahns and Adilstam does not disclose the mass% of inorganic oxide held in the pores.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothbrust et al. (US20080118894, hereinafter referred to as Rothbrust) in view of Jahns et al. (US20170216000, hereinafter referred to as Jahns) and Adilstam et al. (US20080213725, hereinafter referred to as Adilstam).
Regarding claim 1, Rothbrust discloses a zirconia (see Rothbrust at [0026], disclosing the open-pore, crystalline oxide ceramic shaped part obtained by presintering contains substantially oxides or oxide mixtures of the elements zirconium or aluminum or mixtures of these elements.) dental mill blank, comprising a milling target part composed of a composite material (see Rothbrust at [0019], disclosing an inorganic-inorganic composite material which contains components of oxide ceramics and of infiltration substances and the main use of which is in the dental sector. See also Rothbrust at [0049], disclosing the open-pore oxide ceramic shaped part can be produced in prepressed form and the desired shape. It is possible to carry out milling), the composite material comprising: a matrix comprising a preliminarily sintered body of crystalline zirconium oxide powder comprising a stabilizer and an aluminum oxide additive (see Rothbrust at [0026], disclosing the open-pore, crystalline oxide ceramic shaped part obtained by presintering contains substantially oxides or oxide mixtures of the elements zirconium or aluminum or mixtures of these elements.); and fine particles of an inorganic oxide, provided that zirconium oxide, an inorganic oxide functioning as a stabilizer, and aluminum oxide are excluded (see Rothbrust at claim 26, disclosing the infiltration substance contains ionogenic compounds, preferably Ce, Mn, V, Fe or mixtures of said elements.), having a relative density of 45 to 65% (see Rothbrust at [0024], disclosing an open-pore oxide ceramic acquires a density of 10 to 90% of the theoretical density, 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), and having pores opened outward (see Rothbrust at [0024], disclosing crystalline open-pore oxide ceramic. Examiner notes open-pores open outward.), and the fine particles of the inorganic oxide are held in the pores of the microporous preliminarily sintered body (See Rothbrust at [0017], disclosing the starting point for production is an open-pore crystalline oxide ceramic shaped part, the pores of which are filled at room temperature in vacuo, preferably in the range from 2 to 90% of the thickness of the open-pore oxide ceramic, with an infiltration substance.),
While Rothbrust discloses porosity (see Rothbrust at [0044]), Rothbrust is silent as to the pore size and therefore does not disclose the preliminary sintered body is a microporous preliminary sintered body. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the arts would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate pore size for the sintered body.
Adilstam is directed towards a dental installation (see Adilstam at the Title) which is a substrate ... with a first porosity (see Adilstam at the Abstract). Adilstam discloses liquid has the ability to be sucked by capillary force into the first pore formation (see Adilstam at the Abstract). Adilstam discloses particles are allocated a size and/or shape determining the pore formation, and the particles thus forming as pore formers are chosen (see Adilstam at [0010]). Adilstam discloses as pore formers, it is possible to use particles of, for example, graphite with sizes in the range of 0.1-100 μm (see Adilstam at [0011]), which corresponds with pore sizes within the micrometer range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the invention of Rothbrust to select pore formers within the size disclosed by Adilstam with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming micropores as disclosed by Adilstam in order to suck liquid by capillary force into the pores as taught by Adilstam.
While Rothbrust discloses stirred sol to be sucked into the reduced-pressure chamber, and penetration takes place over a very short time (see Rothbrust at [0044]), Rothbrust does not disclose the fine particles of an inorganic oxide is 2 nm to 100 nm because Rothbrust does not disclose the size of the particles in the sol. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date would naturally look to the prior art to determine an appropriate particle size for infiltration with a sol when practicing the invention of Rothbrust.
Jahns is directed towards a dental mill blank comprising a porous zirconia material (see Jahns at the Abstract). Jahns discloses “Sol” refers to a continuous liquid phase containing discrete particles having sizes in a range from 1 nm to 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when practicing the sol infiltration of Rothbrust to use a sol with particles within the overlapping claimed range of Jahns with a reasonable expectation of successfully infiltrating the zirconia pores with a sol containing the particles.
Regarding claim 2, Rothbrust in view of Adilstam make obvious pores from a size of 0.1 µm to 100 µm, which corresponds to 100nm to 100,000 nm as detailed by the rejection of claim 1 above, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Rothbrust in view of Jahns make obvious particles with a size of 1nm to 100nm as detailed by the rejection of claim 1 above, which provides a range of particles within a range smaller than the pore size of Rothbrust in view of Adilstam.
Conclusion
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