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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not to the extent they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that Yang and Kim do not teach ball milling followed by attrition milling. Applicant argues that the results Kim would be too coarse for the process of Yang, however, Reed demonstrates stages of milling and how to select for the multiple milling stages. Applicant argues that the motivation to combine Yang and Kim is generic, but Kim is specifically concerned with Zirconia material the same materials as Yang and specifically concerned with the reduction of waste of this valuable material, ie recycling. Furthermore, recycled material is generally more economic than virgin. These are both highly motivating factor to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant argues that the light transmittance light transmittance is an unexpected result, but light transmittance is known to decrease with particle size and, as the attrition milling is finer than ball milling, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect improved translucency for attrition milled material rather than ball milled material. Furthermore, the attrition milled material would be expected to have better properties than unprocessed virgin material; indeed, that’s the entire contention of the Yang method.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530) and Reed (Principles of Ceramics Processing).
As to claim 1, Yang teaches a method, comprising: preparing a ceramic slurry comprising the reduced-size scrap ZrO2 material, deionized water, and at least one dispersant [0028]; milling the ceramic slurry to produce a milled ZrO2 slurry [0040], wherein the milled ZrO2 slurry comprises a ZrO2 powder with a particle size distribution D(50) of 0.1-0.25 um [0042, 0043]; and casting the milled ZrO2 slurry to prepare a ceramic block [0044].
Yang does not explicitly state collecting scrap ZrO2 material; reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material to produce a reduced-size scrap ZrO2 material.
Kim teaches collecting scrap ZrO2 material [Technical Field, Description of Embodiments]; reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material to produce a reduced-size scrap ZrO2 material phrased as crushed/milling/pulverized [Page 4 first and last paragraph, Page 5-7]. As this method allows for the reduction of waste of valuable material [Background Art]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and included collecting scrap ZrO2 material; reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material to produce a reduced-size scrap ZrO2 mater20ial, as suggested by Kim, in order to allow for the reduction of waste of valuable material.
Yang notes utilizing multiple milling processes: “Comminution may be performed using one or more milling process, such as attritor milling, horizontal bead milling, ultrasonic milling, or other milling or comminution process, such as high shear mixing or ultra-high shear mixing capable of reducing zirconia ceramic powder particle sizes” which would include attrition milling in combination with another step but does not explicitly state the other step is ball milling.
Reed teaches multiple commonly used processes in ceramics and notes “crushing and milling are widely used in ceramic processing” [Page 313] and further notes that primary crushing is used to reduce the size to about 5 mm in size then “one or more of a variety mills may then be used to further reduce the average particle as indicated in Fig 17.3” [Page 313, 315, Fig 17.3]. Fig 17.3 demonstrates the various stages of the comminution process with jaw crusher starting with the most coarse material then subsequently ball milling and subsequently attritor mill (phrased as stirred media mills) such as to obtain the desired final product size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and utilized ball milling with the attritor milling, as suggested by Reed, in order to prepare the product for further comminution and arrive at the desired product size.
Yang teaches attrition milling the milled ZrO2 slurry [0040].
Additionally, Kim teaches collecting scrap ZrO2 material [Technical Field, Description of Embodiments]; reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material wherein milling is followed by subsequent attrition milling phrased as disk pulverizing [Page 4 first and last paragraph, Page 5-7]. As this method allows for the reduction of waste of valuable material [Background Art]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and utilized disk pulverizing subsequent to ball milling, as suggested by Kim, in order to allow for the reduction of waste of valuable material.
As to claim 3, Yang does not explicitly state the reduced-size ZrO2 material comprises ZrO2 particles with a particle size distribution D(50) of 1 mm to 10 mm, however, Yang notes that the size of the starting material may be larger than .6 um which is an overlapping range [0042]. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I.
As to claim 5, Yang does not explicitly state reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material comprises milling the scrap using a mechanical milling process such as jaw crushing.
Kim teaches collecting scrap ZrO2 material [Technical Field, Description of Embodiments]; reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material to produce a reduced-size scrap ZrO2 material phrased as pulverized [Page 4 first and last paragraph, Page 5-7]. As this method allows for the reduction of waste of valuable material [Background Art]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and utilized a mechanical milling process, as suggested by Kim, in order to allow for the reduction of waste of valuable material.
Reed teaches multiple commonly used processes in ceramics and notes “crushing and milling are widely used in ceramic processing” [Page 313] and further notes that primary crushing is used to initially reduce the size then “one or more of a variety mills may then be used to further reduce the average particle as indicated in Fig 17.3” [Page 313, 315, Fig 17.3]. Fig 17.3 demonstrates the various stages of the comminution process with jaw crusher starting with the most coarse material then subsequently ball milling and subsequently attritor mill (phrased as stirred media mills) such as to obtain the desired final product size. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and utilized jaw crushing as the initial reduction, as suggested by Reed, in order to prepare the product for further comminution and arrive at the desired product size.
As to claim 11, Yang teaches the milled ZrO2 slurry comprises a ZrO2 powder with a particle size distribution D(50) of 0.1 um to 0.5 um [0042, 0043].
As to claim 12, Yang teaches comprising sintering the ceramic block [0044, 0060-0062].
As to claim 15, Yang teaches the attrition milling [0040] is performed for one hour [0041].
As to claim 16, Yang does not explicitly state the scrap ZrO2 material is produced during a process for making a dental prosthetic device.
Kim teaches collecting scrap ZrO2 material [Technical Field, Description of Embodiments]; reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material to produce a reduced-size scrap ZrO2 material phrased as crushed/milling/pulverized [Page 4 first and last paragraph, Page 5-7]. As this method allows for the reduction of waste of valuable material during the process of making dental devices [Background Art]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and included collecting scrap ZrO2 material from making dental devices, as suggested by Kim, in order to allow for the reduction of waste of valuable material
As to claim 17, Yang teaches the sintered ceramic block has a flexural strength of 700 to 1500 MPa [0057-0061], a fracture toughness of 1 to 8 MPa-mi/2 [0065-0067]; and a transmittance of 30% to 65% at 700 nm (when measured on a 1 mm thick fully sintered ceramic body) [0057-0062].
As to claim 19, Yang teaches comprising forming a dental prosthetic device from the sintered ceramic block [0071, 0047, 0049].
As to claim 20, Yang states the ceramic block has a size of 98 mm [0116].
Claim(s) 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530) and Reed (Principles of Ceramics Processing), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14-17, 19-20 above, and in further view of Hata (US 2012/0231368).
As to claim 2, Both Yang and Kim teach reducing size of the initial zirconia, but does not explicitly state sieving the reduced-size scrap ZrO2 material. Yang does teach sieving, but the sieving is performed on the slurry.
Hata teaches a method of preparing a zirconia based slurry [Abstract, 0077] wherein reduced zirconia particles are sieved in order to eliminate remaining coarse particles and have greater control over particle distribution [0068] prior to creating the slurry [0077]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and had sieving occur before creating the slurry, as suggested by Hata, in order to eliminate remaining coarse particles and have greater control over particle distribution.
As to claim 4, Yang does not explicitly state the sieved, reduced-size ZrO2 material comprises ZrO2 particles with a particle size of 0.0013 mm to 8 mm. However, Yang notes that the size of the starting material may be larger than .6 um which is an overlapping range [0042]. Moreover, it has been held that choosing the over lapping portion of the range taught in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP 2144.05 I. Further still, .6 um is so close to .0013 mm that one of ordinary skill in the art would presume them to have the same properties.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530) and Reed (Principles of Ceramics Processing), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14-17, 19-20 above, and in further view of Fujisaki (US 2016/0310245).
As to claims 6 and 9, Yang does not explicitly state the milling of the ceramic slurry comprises wet ball milling and the wet ball milling is performed for 10 hours.
Fujisaki teaches a method of making zirconia based dental appliances [Abstract] wherein a zirconia slurry is ball milled for over 10 hours which would comprise milling for 10 hours then an additional amount of time [0112, 0118, 0124, 0129, 0134, 0139, 0143] as these slurries provided dental appliances of adequate strength and translucency [0137, 0132, 0127]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and made the milling be wet ball milling and had the milling be performed for 10 hours, as suggested by Fujisaki, as this allowed for the creation of dental appliances of adequate strength and translucency.
As to claim 13, Yang does not explicitly state the slurry contains a binder.
Fujisaki teaches a method of making zirconia based dental appliances [Abstract] wherein a zirconia slurry contains binder [0069, 0070, 0071] as these slurries provided dental appliances of adequate strength and translucency [0072, 0137, 0132, 0127]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and had the slurry include a binder, as suggested by Fujisaki, as this allowed for the creation of dental appliances of adequate strength and translucency.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530), Reed (Principles of Ceramics Processing), and Fujisaki (US 2016/0310245), as applied to claims 6, 9, 13 above, and in further view of Bond (Calculate Ball Mill Ball Size for Optimum Grinding).
As to claims 7, Yang does not explicitly state the wet ball milling comprises using a mixture of 5 mm and 20 mm diameter balls or the wet ball milling comprises using 5 mm diameter balls.
Bond teaches a method of determining ball diameter sizes for ball milling and notes that too large a size results in poor grinding capacity and size distribution, but too small a size results in being unable to break down the particulate [Grinding Ball Size Selection]. Improper sizing also increases wear [First paragraph]. In other words, ball size is a results effective variable on grinding capacity, powder size distribution, particle breakage, and wear. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case ball size, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ball size to the exact value of 5 mm and 20 mm, as suggested by Bond, in order to achieve the desired powder size, grinding capacity. Furthermore, Bond notes that multiple sizes of balls is an “adjunct or secondary modification of the principle” to achieve the same end [Grinding Ball Size Selection]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and utilized balls of different diameters, as suggested by Bond, as this was just “adjunct or secondary modification of the principle” to optimizing ball size for enhanced grinding capacity, powder size distribution, particle breakage, and wear.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530) and Reed (Principles of Ceramics Processing), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 15-17, 19-20 above, and in further view of Balasubramanian (US 2018/0235847).
As to claim 18, Yang teaches a fracture toughness of up to 3 MPa-mi/2;[0016, 0065] and a transmittance of 40 % to 55% at 700 nm (when measured on a 1 mm thick fully sintered ceramic body) [Table 5 example 43].
Yang does not explicitly state a sintered ceramic block has a flexural strength of 900 to 1200 MPa.
Balasubramanian teaches a method of making zirconia ceramic material for use in dental appliances [Abstract] and notes zirconia with a flexural strength of greater than 800 Mpa or between 800-900 Mpa with a light transmittance between 46-62% [0011-0013, 0015] as this combination allowed for the high strength and translucency desirable in dental restorations [0017, 0018]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yang and utilized ceramic block with a flexural strength of 900 to 1200 MPa and a transmittance of 46-62%, as suggested by Balasubramanian, in order to obtain the high strength and translucency desirable in dental restorations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights