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 of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement &
Drawings
No IDS or drawings have been filed to date in this application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long, covering two paragraphs. An abstract of the disclosure should generally be limited to a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The TITLE of the invention should read:
METHOD FOR PREPATING ZIRCONIA MILL BLANK HAVING ΔCTOTAL OF 5.0 OR LESS
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1
In general, a preamble describing the intended use of an invention does not limit the claim. It is the Primary Examiner' s position that the preamble of claim 1 reciting “preparing . . . a zirconia mill blank for dental cutting and machining having one or more of translucency gradation, color gradation and strength gradation after perfect sintering,” does not carry patentable weight because: (1) a particular phrase from the preamble does not provide an antecedent basis in the claim body; (2) the preamble is not essential to understand elements, terms, or limitations in the claim body; (3) the preamble does not recite additional structure underscored as important by the specification; (4) the preamble has not yet been relied upon during prosecution to distinguish the invention over the prior art; and/or (5) the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the claimed steps of the claimed invention. See Catalina Marketing International, Inc., v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 62 USPQ2d 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Moreover, while the metes and bounds of the claimed “perfect sintering” processing step are not clear, the instant specification discloses a “zirconia perfect sintered body . . . has very high hardness and therefore cannot be cut and machined using a dental CAD/CAM system.” Spec. at [0003]. Consequently, the Primary Examiner interprets “perfect sintering as any sintering process that results in a Zr body that cannot be cut or machined using a dental CAD/CAM system.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “impregnation solution” should read impregnation solutions.
Moreover, in claim 6, the end of the claim should read - - contains any one or more of aluminum ion, gallium ion, and indium ion - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are 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.
The limitation “total metal ion concentration (mass %)” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (i.e., mass % is only one way to measure concentration).
Claims 2-11 are similarly rejected by virtue of their incorporation of this indefinite subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, obvious over US 2018/0028293 A1.
Claim 1
US 293 teaches a process for manufacturing a calcined, colored dental body [0002]. The process comprises a step of impregnating a zirconia calcined body [0022] with two types of impregnating coloring [0024] solutions, e.g., a coloring liquid 1 comprising water and iron oxide having 0.2 wt.-% iron oxide, and a coloring liquid 2 consisting of water and cobalt oxide having 0.01 wt-% [0034], followed by drying. Here, ΔCTotal = 0.19 ≤ 5.0. US 293 additionally teaches that the coloring materials may in addition to Fe and Co, contain Zr (see listing of specific examples of coloring material ending “and/or” which clearly encompasses or envisions the inclusion of any one or more of the items of the list in either or both of the coloring liquids) [0024].
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize, either in place of or in addition to, the specific coloring liquids 1 and 2, a coloring liquid including Zr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the desire and expectation of imparting a desired color to the Zr calcined body. It is preferable that the coloring liquid be 0.0001 to 30 % [0027], so one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully utilizing a wt.-% where ΔCTotal ≤ 5.0. Moreover, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence such concentration is critical. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Since the concentration of the coloring material affects, intra alia, the color imparted to the Zr body, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of Zr in the coloring liquid by routine experimentation. Id.
Claim 2
US 293 further teaches drying the calcined Zr body impregnated with the coloring liquid [0027, 0036]. In the alternative, US 293 teaches a subsequent “main calcination” at 1100 -2100 °C, which is a significantly high temperature sufficient to evaporate any residual liquid carrier disclosed in [0019, 0026].
Claim 3
The teaching of US 293 is detailed above. US 293 does not disclose “a step of degreasing the zirconia calcined body impregnated with the impregnating solution.” In other words, US 293 does not disclose degreasing after impregnation with the coloring liquid, as required by the language of claim 3. See TALtech Ltd. v. Esquel Apparel, Inc., 279 Fed. Appx. 974, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
US 293 does however teach impregnating after a temporary calcination (i.e., “a temporary calcined body”) as well as a “main calcination” at 1100 -2100 °C, subsequent to impregnating [0019]. It is the Primary Examiner’s position that this final “main calcination (which the Primary Examiner interprets more properly as sintering) is sufficient to degrease the impregnated Zr body. Here, US 2020/0170735 A1 is cited as a teaching reference that temperatures in the range of 300 – 800 °C are sufficient to degrease a Zr mill blank (i.e., a Zr body) [0080].
Claim 4
US 293 teaches transition metals, including Fe and Co [0024].
Claim 5
US 293 also teaches rare earth metals, including Pr, Nd, Eu, Tb, Dy, and Er [0024].
Claim 6
US 293 does not explicitly teach that the coloring solution contains an ion of Al, Ga, and/or In. Nevertheless, this reference teaches the “coloring material is not limited particularly as long as it colors ceramics and the color remains” [0023]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize, as the metal, any metal known in the art for coloring a ceramic, including Al, Ga, and/or In. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully coloring the Zr body.
Claim 7
US 298 teaches that the metal ion can be Zr [0024] and that the metal ion is incorporated into the coloring liquid via its metal salt, which can be a nitrate salt [0023]. While US 298 does not specifically teach zirconyl nitrate, US 298 clearly envisions the use of a nitrate salt of Zr and, since zirconyl nitrate is known to be highly soluble in water and US 298 teaches that the carrier for the coloring liquid can be water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this salt for its ease of dissolving in preparing the solution. See the attached information sheet from American Elements on the properties of this compound.
Claims 8-11
US 293 does not explicitly teach that the coloring solution contains any of these additional compounds. Nevertheless, this reference teaches the “liquid for coloring is not limited as long as it may be dispersed with a coloring material and may have high wettability” [0026]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize, as the carrier liquid, any compound known in the art for metal ion dispersibility and wettability, including urea, glycol, or hydroxy acids such as citric acid, malic acid, and/or lactic caid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully coloring the Zr body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
29 October 2025