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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2025 is being considered by the examiner. Please note that listed NPL document No. 6 has been crossed out because it is a duplicate of Foreign Patent Publication WO9961202, which has been considered.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 recites “the rotary tool path incorporates movement in a Y-axis direction….” The claim never defines how the “Y-axis direction” relates to the rest of the claimed features and is therefore indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0065380 to Leeson et al. (“Leeson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0177456 to Jung et al. (“Jung”). Both Leeson and Jung were listed in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
A method for making a dental restoration from a fully sintered zirconia preform, comprising (Leeson discloses a “method … for shaping a custom dental restoration from a preform, wherein the preform comprises a preform body and a preform stem” (“method for making a dental restoration from a … preform”). See, e.g., Leeson at Abstract. Leeson also discloses that the preform can be made of “fully sintered materials known for strength and durability, such as sintered zirconia….”(“fully sintered zirconia preform”). See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0006].),
obtaining a dental restoration virtual design and a virtual model of a preform body (Leeson discloses “obtaining a 3D CAD file of a dental restoration design [(“obtaining a dental restoration virtual design”)] and a computer model of a preform” (“virtual model of a preform body”). See, e.g., Leeson at claim 1. Leeson also discloses that “[i]n one embodiment, dental CAD software is used to generate a computerized 3D model of the restoration design (107) [(“obtaining a dental restoration virtual design”)] … [and] a computer model of a preform (108)” (“virtual model of a preform body”). See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0042].),
wherein the dental restoration virtual design comprises a cavity side and an occlusal side (Leeson discloses a “dental restoration (101)” (“dental restoration virtual design”) with a “cavity (105)” (“cavity side”) and an “occlusal surface (103)” (“an occlusal side”). See, e.g., Leeson at pars. [0030] and [0046] and Figs. 1A-B., and [0030]),
the preform body comprises a cylindrical shape having a stem projecting from a curved outer surface (Leeson discloses “a sintered preform (200), illustrated in FIGS. 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D, has a circular-cylindrical body (201)”(“the preform body comprises a cylindrical shape”). See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0031] and Figs. 2A-D. Leeson also disclose that the “preform (200) … [includes] a stem (202) that projects from the body (201)” (“having a stem projecting from a curved outer surface”). See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0030] and Figs. 2A-D.);
nesting the dental restoration virtual design within the virtual model of the preform (Leeson discloses “nesting the dental restoration design within the computer model of the preform body by identifying at least two nesting options” (“nesting the dental restoration virtual design within the virtual model of the preform”). See, e.g., Leeson at claim 1; see also, pars. [0043]-[0044].);
generating machining instructions for shaping a dental restoration from a fully sintered zirconia preform (Leeson discloses “generating machining instructions for shaping the dental restoration from the preform based on the selected nesting option” (“generating machining instructions for shaping a dental restoration from a fully sintered zirconia preform”). See, e.g., Leeson at claim 1. Leeson also discloses that “[p]ositional data of the nested restoration design may be provided to the CAM system to calculate tool paths to shape the final restoration from the preform” (“generating machining instructions for shaping a dental restoration from a fully sintered zirconia preform”). See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0047]; see also pars. [0042]-[0046].),and
machining the fully sintered zirconia preform using the machining instructions (Leeson also discloses “obtaining a machining strategy that comprises two or more machining steps [(“machining instructions”)] to shape a restoration from the nested design” (“machining the fully sintered zirconia preform using the machining instructions”). See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0047]; see also claim 1.).
Leeson does not explicitly disclose that “said machining instructions compris[es]: a first tool path and a second tool path located on the cavity side of the dental restoration virtual design, the first tool path comprising a spiral helix pattern and the second tool path comprising a lacing pattern, and a third tool path located on the occlusal side of the dental restoration virtual design, the third tool path comprising a spiral helix pattern.” However, in the same field of endeavor (machining a dental restoration/prosthesis using CAD, and thus analogous art), Jung discloses use of machine instructions that include a sweep tool path (“lacing pattern”) and a spiral too path (“spiral helix pattern”). Leeson in view of Jung discloses:
said machining instructions comprising: a first tool path and a second tool path located on the cavity side of the dental restoration virtual design (Jung disclose that a “method for forming the dental prosthesis 10 can include machining the workpiece 30 with a forming tool 52 to form at least a portion of a side surface 14 and/or a bottom surface 16 [(“cavity side”)], or a portion thereof, of the dental prosthesis 10.” Jung also discloses that “when machining the workpiece 30 to form the bottom surface 16 [(“cavity side”)], the side surface 14, and/or the perimeter, the forming tool 52 may follow a combination of a sweep tool path [(“second tool path”)] and a spiral tool path” (“first tool path”). See, e.g., Jung at par. [0038] and Fig. 5A and 5B.),
the first tool path comprising a spiral helix pattern (Jung disclose “a spiral tool path may be governed by a scallop height and/or gouge detection of a tool with a part.” See, e.g., Jung at pars. [0031]-[0032] and Fig. 4. A spiral tool path governed by a scallop height corresponds to a “spiral helix pattern.”) and
the second tool path comprising a lacing pattern (Jung discloses a “sweep tool path 72 [that] may have side-to-side movement [(“lacing pattern”) shown by the arrows on sweep tool path 72.” See, e.g., Jung at par. [0030] and Fig. 3.), and
a third tool path located on the occlusal side of the dental restoration virtual design, the third tool path comprising a spiral helix pattern (Jung disclose that “when machining the workpiece 30 to form the top surface 12 [(“occlusal side”)] and at least a po[r]tion of the side surface 14, the forming tool 52 may follow a spiral tool path [(“spiral helix pattern”)] beginning at an outer perimeter of the dental prosthesis 10 and moving inward.” See, e.g., Jung at pars. [0031]-[0032], and [0044] and Figs. 8A-B.);
Jung discloses that sweep tool paths and spiral tool paths can be used interchangeably for the bottom surface 16 (cavity side) and for the top surface 12 (occlusal side). See, e.g., Jung at pars. [0038] (“[i]n other words, machining the bottom surface 16 … may comprise machining all surfaces of a dental prosthesis 10 in a sweep, spiral, or combination tool path ….”) and [0044] (“[i]n other words, machining the top surface 12 … may comprise machining all surfaces of a dental prosthesis 10 in a sweep, spiral, or combination tool path….”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use either one or both of a sweep tool path or a spiral tool path on the preform because both tool paths represent simple substitutions of each another that yield predictable results, as disclosed in Jung (see pars. [0038] and [0044]). See MPEP § 2143.I.B. In addition, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the sweep and spiral tool paths into the machining instruction for machining the fully sintered zirconia preform of Leeson in order to reduce the likelihood of tool failure. See, e.g., Jung at pars. [0006]-[0007]. Because Jung discloses the machining a preform using sweep and spiral tool paths, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
modifying the dental restoration virtual design to provide a block out of a cavity volume portion of the virtual design (Jung discloses that “[i]n one aspect, machining the bottom surface 16 can include leaving the material or the workpiece associated with the bottom cavity [(“cavity volume”)] of the dental prosthesis. Thus, machining the bottom surface and/or side surface of the dental prosthesis can be done without machining the bottom cavity” (“provide a block out of a cavity volume portion of the virtual design”). See, e.g., Jung at par. [0039].).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
wherein a boundary of the block out of the cavity volume is defined by a margin line of the dental restoration virtual design (Jung discloses that “[i]n one aspect, machining the bottom surface 16 can include leaving the material or the workpiece associated with the bottom cavity of the dental prosthesis. Thus, machining the bottom surface and/or side surface of the dental prosthesis can be done without machining the bottom cavity.” See, e.g., Jung at par. [0039] and Figs. 5A-B. The bottom surface 16 and its corresponding edge (i.e., the bottom portion of the perimeter of dental prosthesis 10 – see Fig. 5A) corresponds to the “margin line” that defines “a boundary of the block out of the cavity volume.”).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
wherein the second tool path corresponds with the cavity volume of the dental restoration virtual design (Leeson discloses that “the restoration design may be translated along the z-axis, y-axis or x-axis … to facilitate access of the machine tool (300) directly into the preform cavity to shape the restoration design's inner surface.” See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0046]. Leeson also discloses that “an exemplary grinding tool (300) suitable for use herein is illustrated in FIG. 3 [and that] [p]ositional data of the nested restoration design (for example, FIGS. 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B) may be provided to the CAM system to calculate tool paths from machining strategies (FIGS. 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B) including lace direction, XY step over, maximum Z increments ….” See, e.g., Leeson at par. [0046]. Leson further discloses that the tool paths having a “lacing pattern” “may be established using linear interpolation methods based on XYZ machining positions….” See, e.g., Leeson at par.[ 0047]. Because Leeson discloses using a lacing pattern to form the cavity as discussed above, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious the claimed “second tool path [that] corresponds with the cavity volume of the dental restoration virtual design.”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
wherein the machining instructions further comprise: a rotary tool path around a first end of the stem that is located adjacent the dental restoration (Jung discloses that “the dental prosthesis 10 can include machining the workpiece 30 with the forming tool 52 to form [(“rotary tool path”)] at least a portion of a connector 60 [(“stem”)] between a proximal end 22 of the dental prosthesis 10 [(“around a first end of the stem that is located adjacent the dental restoration”)] and the proximal end 32 of the workpiece 30.” See, e.g., Jung at par. [0041]. Jung also discloses that “[w]hen the fixture 40 is engaged with the machine tool, the machine tool may provide relative rotation about the rotational axis 42 between the workpiece 30 and the machine tool [and that] rotating the machine tool and the workpiece 30 relative to each other may comprise causing the fixture 40 to rotate about the rotational axis 42” (“rotary tool path”). See, e.g., Jung at par. [0035]. Thus, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious the claimed “rotary tool path.”
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
wherein the rotary tool path defines a plurality of horizontal slices that are perpendicular to a length axis of the stem (Jung discloses that “the connector 60 [(“stem”)] may be formed by machining in a sweep tool path … a spiral tool path …[or a] a combination of a sweep tool path and a spiral tool path.” See, e.g., Jung at par. [0046]. Due to the pattern used by the sweep and/or spiral tool passes (see Jung at Fig. 3 and 4), at least a portion of the sweep and/or spiral tool pass pattern will be perpendicular to a length axis of connector 60 when the connector 60 is being machined (“define[] a plurality of horizontal slices that are perpendicular to a length axis of the stem”). Thus, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious the claimed “rotary tool path.”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 5, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious:
wherein the rotary tool path incorporates movement in a Y-axis direction that simultaneously follows a surface of the dental restoration in the region of the stem (Jung discloses that “the connector 60 [(“stem”)] may be formed by machining in a sweep tool path … a spiral tool path …[or a] a combination of a sweep tool path and a spiral tool path.” See, e.g., Jung at par. [0046]. Due to the pattern used by the sweep and/or spiral tool passes (see Jung at Fig. 3 and 4), at least a portion of the sweep and/or spiral tool pass pattern will be parallel to the side surface 14 of the dental prosthesis 10 (“simultaneously follows a surface of the dental restoration”) near the connector 60 (“in the region of the stem”) (e.g., parallel to either the side surface 14 immediately adjacent to the connector 60 (right side of Fig. 5A) or the side surface 14 near and parallel to the connector 60 (bottom of Fig. 5A)). Accordingly, Jung discloses “movement in a Y-axis direction that simultaneously follows a surface of the dental restoration in the region of the stem.” Thus, Leeson in view of Jung renders obvious the claimed “rotary tool path.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116