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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks, filed 04/30/2026 in reply to the non-final Office action mailed 10/31/2025 (“non-final action”), are noted with appreciation.
The substantive amendment to independent claim 1 has support in originally filed claim 7.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 remain pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-21 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments presented in the remarks have been fully considered.
Specification
The objection to the abstract and the title in the non-final action is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 4-6 and 8-10 in the non-final action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-11 as indefinite in the non-final action is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-11 as anticipated by US 2018/0028293 A1 in the non-final action is withdrawn in view of the amendment. To reject a claim as anticipated by a reference , the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP § 2131. Applicant amended independent claim 1 to require that “the zirconium component is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of zirconium oxychloride, zirconium oxyacetate, and zirconyl nitrate.” As noted connection with original claim 7, non-final action at ¶ 33, US 293 does not teach any particular Zr salt. Consequently, US 293 does not anticipate the claims, as amended, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in the non-final action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-11 an obvious over US 293 in the non-final action is maintained despite the amendment and Applicant’s arguments.
It is the Primary Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used zirconyl nitrate because it is readily soluble in water. Non-final action at ¶ 33.
Specifically, Applicant argues that at least one of zirconium oxychloride, zirconium oxyacetate, and zirconyl nitrate achieves a mill blank having unexpectedly good translucency, good color tone, and, by implication, availability of material and ease of handling. Remarks at 12.
This argument is not persuasive because translucency gradation, color gradation, and strength gradation, appear generally in the preamble. A specific translucency, color tone, availability, and ease of handling are not claimed and are not limitations on the claims that the cited prior art must meet. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Consequently, any argument that the rejection(s) of record are improper because they do not recognize this feature, that the cited prior art is non-analogous because it does not recognize or teach this feature, or that the combination of references would have lacked a reasonable expectation of success or required undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to meet this feature, is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
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 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.
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. 103 as 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.
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.
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.
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
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 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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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
14 May 2026
Prosecution Insights