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 .
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 17, 18 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.
Unclear if the parenthesis portion of the claim is a required feature or not.
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, 14-17, 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).
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.
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.
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.
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 14, 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 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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530), 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.
As to claim 10, Yang teaches the milling of the ceramic slurry comprises wet milling or dry milling as explained above (bead milling is a type of wet milling), and the combination with Kim teaches reducing sizes of the scrap ZrO2 material comprises roll crushing.
Hata teaches a method of preparing a zirconia based slurry [Abstract, 0077] wherein reduced zirconia particles are produced by pulverizing with a roll crusher and notes roll crushing as one of many equivalent methods [0064, 0069] 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 method of Yang and simply substituted roll crushing, as suggested by Hata, as this had proven effective at reducing the particle size for subsequent creation of a slurry. Moreover, substituting an art recognized equivalent for another is generally recognized to be obvious, see MPEP 2144.06 II.
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) 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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0062653) in view of Kim (KR 10-1533530) 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 and 8, 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), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14-17, 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
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