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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 05/29/2026. Currently claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Sakamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0267215 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Sakamoto”, in view of Yamashita et al. (JP 2018 002495 A), hereafter, referred to as “Yamashita”.
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches in (para. [0049]) indicating that "NORTTAKE KATANA (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria as the stabilizer) used in example 1 is a commercially available zirconia pre-sintered body that contains yttria as a stabilizer. In addition, Sakamoto teaches the firing of this pre-sintered body in an air furnace (para. [0020]), and table 1 disclosing a firing schedule of example 1. Therefore, Sakamoto teaches a method for producing a zirconia sintered body by sintering a zirconia pre-sintered body that contains yttria in an air furnace. Here, in view of the term "air furnace", it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the firing is carried out at atmospheric pressure in an oxidizing atmosphere. Furthermore, in view of table 1, a temperature of 1560°C is maintained during the period between 32 minutes and 39 minutes after the start of firing, and it is therefore considered that firing is carried out for 7 minutes at 1560°C.
But Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach a coloring clement, however, Sakamoto indicates that "color formation by a composite oxide included in the zirconia molded body or the zirconia pre-sintered body is promoted" (para. [0014]), and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this commercially available zirconia pre-sintered body contains a coloring element.
Additionally, Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach in Example 1 a heat treatment step. However, the description of the instant application indicates that ''in the heat treatment, the heat treatment temperature is maintained at any temperature between 600°C and 1200°C", indicating that "the heat treatment temperature may be a fixed temperature, but may have a temperature range", indicates that the temperature range of the heat treatment temperature is "± 50°C" (para. [0008] [0076]), and indicates that ''the holding time at the heat treatment temperature is, for example, 1 minute or longer" (see paragraph [0078]). Therefore, in view of these statements, the “heat treatment step" in the instant application involves maintaining a firing temperature and then gradually cooling. However, as Sakamoto teaches firing the pre-sintered body at 1560°C and then lowering the temperature to 1100°C at a rate of 50°C/min, it is understood that the temperature is gradually lowered from 1200°C to 1100°C over a period of 2 minutes, and that this is a heat treatment in which a temperature of 1150°C±50°C is maintained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that Sakamoto teaches a heat treatment process, wherein the heat treatment is at 600°Cor higher, and 1200°C or lower.
But Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach that the holding time at the temperature of the heat treatment is 3 minutes of longer. However, Yamashita teaches in Example 1 of mixing a zirconia powder containing 3 mol %, of yttria with neodymium oxide (para. [0077]), teaching to carrying out primary sintering at 1450°C in air and then carrying out a hot isostatic pressing (HIP) treatment at 1750°C (para. [0080]), and teaching lowering the temperature to room temperature and then heat treating the HIP-treated body for 1 hour at 1000 °C in air to obtain a zirconia sintered body (para. [0082]-[0083]). Yamashita further teaches that by carrying out "an annealing step" in which a sintered body is heat treated after a temperature-lowering step, "it is possible to further increase the translucency of the sintered body" (para. [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Yamashita, and use a known technique of heat treatment that would enhance the translucency of the sintered body (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 143). Since both the references deal with zirconia with coloring element, and performing the sintering in an oxidizing environment, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claim 2, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element (para. [0014]) is a sintered body in the state of having been sintered by atmospheric pressure sintering (equivalent to an air furnace (para. [0020])).
Regarding claim 3, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element (para. [0014]) is a sintered body in the state of having been sintered in an oxidizing atmosphere (equivalent to an air furnace (para. [0020])).
Regarding claim 4, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that during the heat treatment, the sintered body is held at a heat treatment temperature of 600° C or higher and 1200° C or lower (Table 1). Further to that, Yamashita teaches heat treating the HIP-treated body for 1 hour at 1000 °C in air to obtain a zirconia sintered body (para. [0082]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 5, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto, in view of Yamashita teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the temperature range of the heat treatment is within a temperature range of ±50° C.
Regarding claim 6, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto, in view of Yamashita teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that a holding time at the temperature of the heat treatment is shorter than 2 hours.
Regarding claim 7, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto, in view of Yamashita teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the atmosphere of the heat treatment is an oxidizing atmosphere.
Regarding claim 8, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto, in view of Yamashita teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the heat treatment includes placing the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element in a firing furnace heated to the temperature of the heat treatment to thereby subject the sintered body to the heat treatment.
Regarding claim 9, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto, in view of Yamashita teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the method further comprising, before the heat treatment, sintering colored zirconia in an oxidizing atmosphere to thereby obtain the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element.
Regarding claim 10, as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto, in view of Yamashita teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the heat treatment includes cooling the sintered body held at a sintering temperature to the temperature of the heat treatment and holding the sintered body at the temperature of the heat treatment to perform the heat treatment.
Regarding claim 11, Sakamoto teaches a method for producing a zirconia sintered body by sintering a zirconia pre-sintered body ("NORTTAKE KATANA (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria as the stabilizer)) in example 1 in an air furnace.
But Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach the difference in lightness or the difference in chroma between a sintered body obtained in a heat treatment step and a coloring element-containing zirconia sintered body supplied to this step.
However, Sakamoto teaches that it is possible to obtain a zirconia sintered body which exhibits suitable translucency, has excellent color tone, is suitable for use as a dental product, and suppresses an increase in lightness compared to sintered bodies obtained by general filing (a total firing time of 373 minutes; Table 6) despite having a short total firing time of 50 minutes or less (para. [0065]; tables 6 and 8), thereby teaching to optimize the lightness and chroma at desired level for the article. Therefore, the difference in lightness to be 5 or less and the chroma is at least 0.3 higher" or "the difference in lightness to be more than 5 and the difference in chroma is 10 or less" would be a matter of optimization performed under regular experimentation. Additionally, Yamashita also teaches that by carrying out "an annealing step" in which a sintered body is heat treated after a temperature-lowering step, "it is possible to further increase the translucency of the sintered body" (para. [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, Sakamoto teaches a method for producing a zirconia sintered body by sintering a zirconia pre-sintered body ("NORTTAKE KATANA (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria as the stabilizer)) in the Examples. Although Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach a coloring clement, however, indicates that "color formation by a composite oxide included in the zirconia molded body or the zirconia pre-sintered body is promoted" (para. [0014]). Additionally, Sakamoto also teaches that oxides of Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Ce, Pr, Tb, Er, and the like, as pigments (para. [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, that based on the teaching of Sakamoto, the coloring element is at least one selected from the group consisting of iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), erbium (Er), terbium (Tb) and ytterbium (Yb).
Regarding claims 13-14, Sakamoto teaches that the zirconia contains a stabilizing element; by teaching in (para. [0049]) that "NORTTAKE KATANA (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria (yttrium oxide) as the stabilizer) used in example 1 is a commercially available zirconia pre-sintered body that contains yttria (yttrium oxide) as a stabilizer.
Regarding claim 15, Sakamoto teaches that the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element contains alumina (Al2O3) (para. [0042]).
Responses to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered, but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Because the rejections are being maintained on the independent claim, and since there is no substantive arguments on the rejections against the references applied against rest of the dependent claims, these rejections are being maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights