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 1-13 in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art cited does not teach or suggest all the eleme. This is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that Thiel teaches ceramic materials. However, Thiel teaches that plastic material, including acrylic-based plastic material, is suitable ([0022]). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123(II).
Applicant argues that Thiel does not teach patterned layers. However, Thiel teaches a molded member comprising at least a first component and a second component, the second component is arranged within the first component to form an interface in such a way that said interface represents a surface curved in space ([0018]). The first and second components have a patterned surface that are then molded together to form a final molded product ([0063-0065]).
Applicant argues that Thiel does not teach the second material is formed by pressing. While the specific example of the process disclosed in [0062-0065] does not explicitly recite a first and second component, taking into account the broader disclosure of [0039-0043] which discusses press forming and combining of the first and second components, it is clearly implied the process of [0062-0065] is an embodiment of the one disclosed in [0039-0043] and that molded member A comprises the first component and molded member B comprises the second component.
Applicant argues that Thiel does not disclose “separate molds”. The examiner notes that applicant the actual term used in the office action is “separate moldings”, which refer to molded parts A and B, two distinctly separate moldings as taught in [0062-0065] of Thiel.
Applicant argues that cup 40 of Thompson is the structured surface and not housing 30. Applicant appears to be arguing that cup 40 is not heated by the heater in housing 30. However, cup 40 makes direct contact with housing 30 to form a seal, and logically, thermal conduction would occur between the two ([0025-0029]). Furthermore, Thompson explicitly teaches that the heating element applies heat to housing 30 in order to initiate curing of the material inside the cup 40 ([0025-0029]). Again, heat must logically be conducted through the intermediate cup 40 for this to occur.
Applicant argues that the material of Thompson is cured in the mold and therefore it is no longer possible to bond two preformed plastics by pressure molding. Applicant has provided no evidence of this assertion beyond attorney arguments. Furthermore, Thiel teaches that two molded parts A and B can be molded together into a compound unit C using heat and pressure ([0065]). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Ito teaches casting and not compression molding. However, Ito [0106] explicitly recites “a pressing force generating device is used to press the molten resin 12 which exists between the cavity surface of the lower metal mold 21 and the cavity surface of the upper metal mold 24, thereby arranging the shape of the molten resin 12 to follow the shape of a closed space defined by and between the two closed cavities (compressing step)”.
Finally, the subject matter identified as the same or corresponding technical feature between groups I-III, i.e., claim 1, is taught or suggested in its entirety in the art rejection below. Therefore, Groups I-III are considered to lack the same or corresponding special technical features required by unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/26/2025.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2 and 4-12, variations of the phrase "preferably" and/or “particularly preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations prefaced with any variation of the above phrases are interpreted to be optional.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations prefaced with any variation of the above phrase are interpreted to be optional.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the third PMMA- based compound or of the plurality of further PMMA-based compounds". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel et al. (US2014/0106308 of record) hereinafter Thiel in view of Thompson (US2013/0249132 of record) and Ito et al. (US2008/0093764 of record) hereinafter Ito.
Regarding claim 1, Thiel teaches:
A method for producing a plastics body with patterned layers for producing dental prostheses, wherein the method is characterized by comprises the following steps:
A) providing a first compound and a second compound, wherein the first compound is uncured and has a first coloration and wherein the second compound is uncured and has a second coloration, wherein the second coloration of the second compound differs from the first coloration of the first compound ([0018-0019, 0039-0044]);
B) providing a first patterned pressing surface ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]);
C) pressing the first compound with the first patterned pressing surface, wherein a patterned surface of the first compound is obtained in this manner ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]);
D) subsequently detaching the first pressing surface from the patterned first compound, wherein the patterned surface of the first compound is retained ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]); and
F) pressing the second compound with the second patterned pressing surface, wherein a patterned surface of the second compound is obtained in this manner ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]);
G) subsequently detaching the second pressing surface from the patterned second compound, wherein the patterned surface of the second compound is retained ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]);
H) subsequently laying the patterned second compound on the patterned first compound, such that the patterned surface of the second compound is oriented toward the patterned surface of the first compound ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]); and
I) subsequently compression molding the first patterned compound with the second patterned compound, such that a solid bond is created between the first compound and the second compound ([0039-0044, 0056-0058]).
Thiel does not teach the first and second compound are PMMA-based,
B) heating a first patterned pressing surface to a temperature of between 90°C and 150°,
E) heating the first patterned pressing surface to a temperature of between 90°C and 150°C or heating of a second patterned pressing surface to a temperature of between 90°C and 150°C;
F) pressing the second PMMA-based compound with the heated first patterned pressing surface or the heated second patterned pressing surface, wherein a patterned surface of the second PMMA-based compound is obtained in this manner.
However, Thiel teaches that the first and second patterned compounds are formed by separate moldings of an acrylate-based plastic material ([0022, 0039-0044, 0056-0058]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding of dental products, Thompson teaches molding PMMA-based dental products having a desired shape ([0020-0021, 0027-0029]) by heating a first patterned pressing surface ([0007-0008, 0025-0029]), pressing the PMMA-based compound with the heated patterned pressing surface ([0025-0029]), wherein a patterned surface of the PMMA-based compound is obtained in this manner ([0028-0029]), and subsequently detaching the pressing surface from the patterned PMMA-based compound, wherein the patterned surface of the PMMA-based compound is retained ([0021, 0030]) for the motivation of decreasing the cooking of the acrylic during curing, decreasing any thermal expansion during the curing, minimizing any polymerization shrinkage, decreasing the porosity of the acrylic by increasing the evaporation of the polymer and compressing air bubbles created during mixing ([0024]).
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 molding of the first and second patterned compound as taught by Thiel with the molding as taught by Thompson in order to decrease the cooking of the acrylic during curing, decrease any thermal expansion during the curing, minimize any polymerization shrinkage, decrease the porosity of the acrylic by increasing the evaporation of the polymer and compressing air bubbles created during mixing.
Thompson teaches heating of the patterned pressing surface ([0026]), but is silent as to the specific temperature. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other methods of PMMA molding to solve the problem of what temperature to heat the patterned pressing surface.
In the same field of endeavor regarding molding, Ito teaches molding PMMA ([0127]) by heating a patterned pressing surface (Fig 2: lower metal mold 21, upper metal mold 24; [0104]) to a range of heating temperatures that overlap with the claimed range ([0114]; 130°C or higher) for the motivation of restricting thermal degradation and reducing the dimensional variation of the molten resin due to the thermal expansion and shrinkage of the molten resin ([0115]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the heating temperature as taught by Ito that overlaps with the claimed range in order to restrict thermal degradation and reduce the dimensional variation of the molten resin due to the thermal expansion and shrinkage of the molten resin.
Regarding claim 2, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel further teaches step J) curing the patterned first PMMA-based compound and the second PMMA-based compound compression molded therewith, ([0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito does not explicitly recite wherein pressing of the first PMMA-based compound in step C) with the heated first patterned pressing surface and pressing of the second PMMA-based compound in step F) with the first patterned pressing surface or with the second heated patterned pressing surface proceeds with a pressure of between 10 kN/m2 and 500 kN/m2.
However, Ito teaches a range of pressing pressure that overlaps with the claimed range ([0118]; 10MPa or less).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pressing pressure as taught by Ito that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito does not explicitly recite wherein pressing of the first PMMA-based compound in step C) with the heated first patterned pressing surface and pressing of the second PMMA-based compound in step G) with the heated first patterned pressing surface or with the heated second patterned pressing surface proceeds for a period of between 1 s and 50 s.
However, a skilled artisan would know how to manipulate known process parameters, in this instance the period of time for performing the pressing steps. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the pressing steps as taught by Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito to perform pressing for a period of between 1 s and 50 s since it is obvious to manipulate known process parameters
Regarding claim 8, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thompson further teaches wherein the first patterned pressing surface and/or the second patterned pressing surface is or are heated during pressing ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito dose not explicitly recite wherein a pressure of between 10 kN/m2 and 500 kN/m2, is applied for the compression molding in step I).
However, Ito teaches a range of pressing pressure that overlaps with the claimed range ([0118]; 10MPa or less).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the pressing pressure as taught by Ito that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Ito does not teach wherein the first patterned pressing surface and/or the second patterned pressing surface consist of silicone or are coated with silicone or consist of a metal ([0132]).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagenbuch et al. (US11517407 of record) hereinafter Hagenbuch.
Regarding claim 9, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito does not explicitly recite wherein the first patterned pressing surface and/or the second patterned pressing surface have patterns with a profile height of between 1 mm and 5 mm.
In the same field of endeavor regarding dental products, Hagenbuch teaches a dental block having transition zones between layer having crests and valleys with a height of about 1.25 mm for the motivation of producing an aesthetically pleasant result (Fig 1b: crests 32, valleys 34; col 2, ln 21-46; col 5, ln 60-64; col 6, ln 14-17).
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 patterns as taught by Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito with the crest and valley as taught by Hagenbuch in order to produce an aesthetically pleasant result.
Regarding claim 11, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito wherein the first patterned pressing surface and/or the second patterned pressing surface have a honeycomb pattern or a plurality of peaks projecting from the pressing surface or a plurality of pyramidal or conical protrusions projecting from the pressing surface, wherein the projecting peaks or the projecting pyramidal or conical protrusions are preferably arranged periodically in the pressing surface.
In the same field of endeavor regarding dental products, Hagenbuch teaches a dental block having transition zones between layer having crests and valleys with a height of about 1.25 mm for the motivation of producing an aesthetically pleasant result (Fig 1b: crests 32, valleys 34; col 2, ln 21-46; col 5, ln 60-64; col 6, ln 14-17).
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 patterns as taught by Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito with the crest and valley as taught by Hagenbuch in order to produce an aesthetically pleasant result.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lautenschlager et al. (US5902839) hereinafter Lautenschlager.
Regarding claim 13, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 1.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito does not teach wherein the PMMA-based compounds have a viscosity of between 1 Pa-s and 1000 Pa-s at their time of use and at a temperature of 20°C.
In the same field of endeavor regarding PMMA-based compounds, Lautenschlager teaches a PMMA-based compound with a viscosity in the claimed range for the motivation of providing a liquid premix which may be easily intermixed by the end user (Fig 3; col 3, ln 3-5; col 8, ln 36-64; although not explicitly stated, temperature is assumed to be standard/room temperature, i.e. approximately 20°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the PMMA based compounds as taught by Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito with the PMMA-based compound as taught by Lautenschlager in order to provide a liquid premix which may be easily intermixed by the end user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 2.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito does not teach pressing an uncured third PMMA-based compound proceeds with two heated patterned pressing surfaces arranged opposite one another, wherein a patterned surface is consequently obtained on both sides of the third PMMA-based compound, wherein the third PMMA-based compound has a third coloration which differs from the first coloration of the first PMMA-based compound and from the second coloration of the second PMMA-based compound,
subsequently detaching the pressing surfaces from the third PMMA-based compound patterned on both sides, wherein the two patterned surfaces of the third PMMA-based compound are retained, wherein
in step H) the patterned third PMMA-based compound is arranged between the patterned second PMMA-based compound and the patterned first PMMA-based compound, such that the patterned surfaces lie against one another, and wherein
in step I) subsequent compression molding of the first patterned PMMA-based compound with the second patterned PMMA-based compound and with the third patterned PMMA-based compound arranged therebetween proceeds such that a solid bond is created between the first PMMA-based compound, the second PMMA-based compound and the third PMMA-based compound.
Jahns et al. (US2012/0175801) hereinafter Jahns teaches forming dental products having multiple layers and iteratively forming each layer using compression molding (Fig 1; [0060-0063]).
However, Jahns differs from the claimed invention in that the layers are all formed within the mold 52 and therefore does not teach subsequently detaching the pressing surfaces from the third PMMA-based compound patterned on both sides. When forming layer 75, one of the pressing surfaces, positive portion 56, is detached, but the other pressing surface, first layer 65, stays attached to the second layer 75. Third layer 85 is then formed on second layer 75.
Therefore the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the above limitations.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Claim 6 is indicated for allowable subject matter due to dependence on claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito teaches the method of claim 2.
Thiel in view of Thompson and Ito in step H) overall a plurality of further PMMA-based compounds are arranged between the first patterned PMMA-based compound and the patterned second PMMA-based compound, wherein the colorations of adjacent PMMA-based compounds of the first, second, and plurality of PMMA-based compounds preferably differ from one another, wherein
before step H) each of the plurality of further PMMA-based compounds is patterned with two heated patterned pressing surfaces arranged opposite one another, wherein a patterned surface is consequently obtained on both sides of the plurality of further PMMA- based compounds, and the pressing surfaces are subsequently detached from the plurality of further PMMA-based compounds patterned on both sides, wherein the two patterned surfaces of the plurality of further PMMA-based compounds are retained, and
in step I) subsequent compression molding of the first patterned PMMA-based compound with the second patterned PMMA-based compound and with the plurality of further patterned PMMA-based compounds arranged therebetween proceeds such that a solid bond is created between the first PMMA-based compound, the second PMMA-based compound and the plurality of further PMMA-based compounds arranged therebetween.
Jahns teaches forming dental products having multiple layers and iteratively forming each layer using compression molding (Fig 1; [0060-0063]).
However, Jahns differs from the claimed invention in that the layers are all formed within the mold 52 and therefore does not teach subsequently detaching the pressing surfaces from the third PMMA-based compound patterned on both sides. When forming layer 75, one of the pressing surfaces, positive portion 56, is detached, but the other pressing surface, first layer 65, stays attached to the second layer 75. Third layer 85 is then formed on second layer 75.
Therefore the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the above limitations.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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 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 at 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 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741