DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 3/26/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending with claims 11-15 being withdrawn from further consideration.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 5-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haymann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0008887), hereinafter HAYMANN, in view of SADOUN (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0229858), hereinafter SADOUN.
Regarding claim 1, HAYMANN teaches: A method of producing a dental restoration (HAYMANN teaches a process for producing a dental restoration [Abstract].), comprising the steps of: milling from a blank (HAYMANN teaches milling a blank [0046; 0056-0057].), the dental restoration in an initial geometry, which has an excess volume compared to a final geometry to be produced (HAYMANN teaches the blank has an initial geometry which has an excess volume compared to the final geometry [Figs. 1-2 and 4-8; 0057].), wherein the excess volume is formed by a layer having a uniform thickness surrounding the final geometry (HAYMANN teaches the excess volume is calculated and formed having a uniform thickness surrounding the final geometry [Figs. 4-8; 0055-0057].), wherein the initial geometry and the final geometry are from the same blank (HAYMANN teaches the initial geometry and the final geometry are from the same blank [Figs. 4-8; 0055-0057].); infiltrating the initial geometry with an investment material (GANLEY teaches investment material is then poured into the paper cylinder [0029].), which investment material is different from material of the blank (GANLEY teaches the investment material is different from the material of the blank [0034; 0029].); and removing the excess volume with the investment material from the initial geometry to create the final geometry (GANLEY teaches removing the excess volume with the investment material to create the final dental restoration, which is the final geometry [0030].).
HAYMANN is silent as to: infiltrating the initial geometry with an investment material, which investment material is different from material of the blank; and removing the excess volume with the investment material from the initial geometry to create the final geometry. In the same field of endeavor, dental restorations, SADOUN teaches a porous support (porous dental blank) is infiltrated with a liquid resin and cured [0007-0009]. SADOUN teaches the investment material (resin) is different than the support material, which may be ceramic [0080; 0068-0074; 0089; 0096; 0100]. SADOUN teaches infiltrating the initial geometry and then removing the excess material to create the final geometry [0068-0074]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN, by infiltrating the geometry and removing excess to a final shape, as suggested by SADOUN, in order to increase the strength of the dental prosthesis [0058; 0066].
Regarding claim 2, SADOUN further teaches: wherein the investment material is cured (SADOUN teaches the investment material is cured [0073].).
Regarding claim 5, HAYMANN teaches: wherein the initial geometry is produced from a blank by printing or milling and/or the excess volume is produced by a subtractive process (GANLEY teaches the initial geometry may be produced by milling [0055-0057].).
Regarding claim 6, SADOUN further teaches: wherein the blank is formed from zirconium dioxide, polymethyl methacrylate, lithium disilicate, or cobalt chromium (SADOUN teaches the blank is formed from lithium disilicate [0096].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN, by having the blank be made from lithium disilicate, as suggested by SADOUN, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).
Regarding claim 8, SADOUN further teaches: wherein a portion of the initial geometry is first produced that is infiltrated with the investment material, and then another portion of the initial geometry is produced that is infiltrated with the investment material (SADOUN teaches a first investment material (resin) is infiltrated into the blank (which includes the initial geometry) and then a second additional resin is infiltrated into the blank [0096-0112].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN, by having the blank be infiltrated by an additional resin, as suggested by SADOUN, in order to further strengthen the dental prosthetic [0066]. Additionally, it is a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).
Regarding claim 9, SADOUN further teaches: wherein the investment material is formed by a polymer, a light-cured polymer, a wax or a surfactant (SADOUN teaches the investment material is a polymer [0034-0038; 0044].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN, by having the investment be a polymer, as suggested by SADOUN, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haymann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0008887), hereinafter HAYMANN, and SADOUN (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0229858), hereinafter SADOUN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganley et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0254667), hereinafter GANLEY.
Regarding claim 3, HAYMANN and SADOUN teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein milling residues are sucked off, brushed or blown off when producing the final geometry or when removing the excess volume. In the same field of endeavor, dental restorations, GANLEY teaches: wherein milling residues are sucked off, brushed or blown off when producing the final geometry or when removing the excess volume (GANLEY teaches the final dental restoration is divested by “sand” blasting [0030].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN and SADOUN, by sand blasting, as suggested by GANLEY, in order to divest and remove the dental restoration [0030].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haymann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0008887), hereinafter HAYMANN, and SADOUN (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0229858), hereinafter SADOUN, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0277874), hereinafter JOHNSON.
Regarding claim 6, HAYMANN and SADOUN teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, dental restorations, JOHNSON teaches a blank can be made of lithium disilicate [0098]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN and SADOUN, by having the blank be made of lithium disilicate, as suggested by JOHNSON, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haymann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0008887), hereinafter HAYMANN, and SADOUN (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0229858), hereinafter SADOUN, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Howe (U.S. 8,641,938), hereinafter HOWE.
Regarding claim 7, HAYMANN and SADOUN teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the investment material is filled into a milled gap between the initial geometry and the blank. In the same field of endeavor, dental restorations, HOWE teaches investment material (20, 21) is filled into a milled gap (14, 16) between the initial geometry (12) and the blank (10) [Figs. 1A-1B; 2A-2B; Col. 10, lines 18-27; Col. 11, lines 54-58]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN and SADOUN, by having the investment material filled into a milled gap, as suggested by HOWE, in order to inject the investment material into the cavity through the gaps in a manner analogous to injection molding [Col. 10, lines 23-27].
Regarding claim 8, HAYMANN and SADOUN teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, dental restorations, HOWE teaches a first portion of the initial geometry (12) is first produced that is infiltrated with the investment material [Fig. 2B]. HOWE teaches then another portion of the initial geometry (12) is produced that is infiltrated with the investment material [Figs. 1A; 2B, 3, 4A-4B, 5-7; Col. 11, lines 46-58; Col. 10, lines 65-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN and SADOUN, by having a first portion produced that is infiltrated with the investment material and another portion infiltrated with the investment material, as suggested by HOWE, in order for the appearance of natural teeth to best be replicated [Col. 11, lines 30-38].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haymann et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0008887), hereinafter HAYMANN, and SADOUN (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0229858), hereinafter SADOUN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blair (U.S. 4,705,476), hereinafter BLAIR.
Regarding claim 10, HAYMANN and SADOUN teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the investment material is removed by heating the dental restoration. In the same field of endeavor, dental restorations, BLAIR teaches the investment material is removed by heating the dental restorations [Col. 5, lines 5-10]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify HAYMANN and SADOUN, by removing the investment material by heating, as suggested by BLAIR, in order to make the dental restoration removable after its finished [Col. 4, lines 60-68 – Col. 5, lines 10].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights