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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending wherein claims 1-9 are under examination and claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected process for the manufacture of a dental article comprising dental alloy and ceramic. Applicant’s election of claims 1-9 was made without traverse in the Response filed on December 3, 2025.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spohn et al. (WO 03/011231).
In regard to claim 1, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses cobalt base alloys that would be used in dental applications having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (page 4).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Spohn et al. (WO ‘231)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Au
0.5 – 5
0.1 – 10
0.5 – 5
Pt
17 – 25
12 – 18
17 – 18
Co
40 – 50
40 – 70
40 – 50
The Examiner notes that the amounts of gold, platinum and cobalt disclosed by Spohn et al.
(WO ‘231) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness.
MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of
the instant invention to have selected the claimed amounts of gold, platinum, and cobalt from the
amounts disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) because Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses the same utility
throughout the disclosed ranges.
Still regarding claim 1, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses amounts of silicon, ruthenium,
manganese, etc. (page 7).
In regard to claim 2, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses cobalt base alloys that would be used in dental applications having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (pages 4-5).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Spohn et al. (WO ‘231)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Au
0.5 – 5
0.1 – 10
0.5 – 5
Pt + Ru
22 – 26.5
20 – 30
22 – 26.5
Co
40 – 50
40 – 70
40 – 50
Cr
28 – 30
1 – 35
28 – 30
Si
0.5 – 1
0 – 3
0.5 – 1
Mn
0.6 – 1
0 – 5
0.6 – 1
Ga
0.2 – 0.4
0 – 4
0.2 – 0.4
The Examiner notes that the amounts of gold, platinum, ruthenium, cobalt, chromium, silicon,
manganese, and gallium disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) overlap the amounts of the instant
invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have selected the
claimed amounts of gold, platinum, ruthenium, cobalt, chromium, silicon, manganese, and gallium from
the amounts disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) because Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses the same
utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 3, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses cobalt base alloys that would be used in dental applications having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (pages 4-5).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Spohn et al. (WO ‘231)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Au
0.5 – 1.5
0.1 – 10
0.5 – 1.5
Pt + Ru
24 – 25.5
20 – 30
24 – 25.5
Co
40 – 45
40 – 70
40 – 45
Cr
28 – 30
1 – 35
28 – 30
Si
0.6 – 0.7
0 – 3
0.6 – 0.7
Mn
0.7 – 0.9
0 – 5
0.7 – 0.9
Ga
0.2 – 0.4
0 – 4
0.2 – 0.4
The Examiner notes that the amounts of gold, platinum, ruthenium, cobalt, chromium, silicon,
manganese, and gallium disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) overlap the amounts of the instant
invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have selected the
claimed amounts of gold, platinum, ruthenium, cobalt, chromium, silicon, manganese, and gallium from
the amounts disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) because Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses the same
utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 4, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses cobalt base alloys that would be used in dental applications having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (pages 4-5).
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Spohn et al. (WO ‘231)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Au
1.1
0.1 – 10
1.1
Pt + Ru
24.6
20 – 30
24.6
Co
43.5
40 – 70
43.5
Cr
29
1 – 35
29
Element
Instant Claim
(weight percent)
Spohn et al. (WO ‘231)
(weight percent)
Overlap
Si
0.7
0 – 3
0.7
Mn
0.8
0 – 5
0.8
Ga
0.3
0 – 4
0.3
The Examiner notes that the amounts of gold, platinum, ruthenium, cobalt, chromium, silicon,
manganese, and gallium disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) overlap the amounts of the instant
invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to have selected the
claimed amounts of gold, platinum, ruthenium, cobalt, chromium, silicon, manganese, and gallium from
the amounts disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) because Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses the same
utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
In regard to claim 5, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses particular embodiments where the
amount of platinum would be 12 to 18 weight percent and the amount of gold would be from 0.1 to 10
weight percent, which would be a content of platinum and gold from 12.1 to 28, which would
encompass the range of 19 to 20 as claimed (page 4).
In regard to claim 6, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses wherein the chromium content controls
the CTE and improves corrosion (page 4). Since Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses substantially similar
compositions, the claimed property would be expected. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claims 7-8, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses wherein the dental cobalt alloys may be
veneered (formed veneers) with ceramic or plastic (page 7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spohn et al. (WO
03/011231) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Gramm (WO 03/013386).
In regard to claim 9, Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) discloses wherein dental cobalt alloys may be
veneered with ceramic or plastic, but Spohn et al. (WO ‘231) does not specify wherein the ceramic
would comprise lithium silicate.
Gramm (WO ‘386) teaches veneering using known ceramics such as lithium silicate glass ceramic
and when molding with dental cobalt alloys to form a sandwich in order to achieve good aesthetics and
biocompatibility at a low cost (page 3, page 5 and page 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of
the instant invention to mold ceramics such as lithium silicate, as disclosed by Gramm (WO ‘386), with
dental cobalt alloys, as disclosed by Spohn et al. (WO ‘231), in order to form a sandwich in order to
achieve good aesthetics and biocompatibility at a low cost, as disclosed by Gramm (WO ‘386) (page 3,
page 5 and page 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wernle (‘982) teaches making dental implants by an additive manufacturing process that may be made of cobalt alloy materials [0062-0064].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759