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 .
The amendment filed March 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (CN 112932707; paragraph numbers to corresponding English language translation).
Claim 1: Zhao discloses a method of producing a dental restoration (¶ 1). The method includes determining a first spatial region of the dental restoration that is subject to a higher load than a second spatial region of the dental restoration (¶ 23; Zhao constructs a 3D model of a crown, dividing it into spatial regions (layers), and performing stress analysis to identify areas of high internal stress (high load regions); and producing the dental restoration in the first spatial region with a different production material than in the second spatial region (¶¶ 18, 23; Zhao optimizes the elastic modulus distribution of the crown so that high-stress regions are reinforced with a different material (higher modulus/strength) relative to low-stress regions – e.g., the optimized crown uses a high-strength ceramic in the outer occlusal regions which endure higher bite forces and a lower-stiffness material in other regions), wherein the production material being doped differently in the first spatial region than in the second spatial region (¶¶ 17, 39; ceramic content vs resin content – i.e., doping).
Claim 2: Zhao discloses the first spatial region is determined by an internal strain in the first spatial region being above a predetermined value (¶ 23).
Claim 3: Zhao discloses the load being calculated using FEA (¶ 23).
Claim 4: Zhao discloses predetermined forces are applied to the dental restoration for the FEA (¶ 33).
Claim 5: Zhao discloses the production material for the first and/or second spatial region is selected based on a calculated load (stress; ¶¶ 18, 23).
Claim 7: Zhao discloses the first spatial region including a production material having a higher strength than in the second spatial region (¶¶ 18, 23; Zhao optimizes the elastic modulus distribution of the crown so that high-stress regions are reinforced with a different material (higher modulus/strength) relative to low-stress regions – e.g., the optimized crown uses a high-strength ceramic in the outer occlusal regions which endure higher bite forces and a lower-stiffness material in other regions).
Claim 8: Zhao discloses the production being performed by 3D printing (¶ 23).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 112932707), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Hansen (US 2018/0098828).
Zhao is silent as to the 3D printing being free-jet material deposition. However, Hansen discloses a method of producing a dental restoration, including 3D printing using free-jet (inkjet) material deposition (¶ 36). As taught by Hansen, free-jet printing effectively forms dental restorations (¶ 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the free-jet printing of Hansen in the method of Zhao to effectively produce a dental restoration. Moreover, Zhao discloses that stereolithography manufacturing is used; and Hansen discloses that either stereolithography or free-jet printing may be used to form the dental restoration (¶ 36), teaching that these were art-recognized equivalent processes known prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention “is not directed to dividing the restoration into layers,” that the claimed process “is done spatially, not by layers,” and that this is “completely different from Zhao, which creates equidistant layers in the restoration to adjust the elastic modulus in each layer.” This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites a “first spatial region” and a “second spatial region” without any limitation on the shape, geometry, or manner of defining those regions, and without any language excluding regions in the form of layers. Each layer of Zhao’s crown occupies a distinct spatial region of the restoration, and a layer is a spatial region.
Applicant further argues that in Zhao, “Changes in modulus are based on structural design, not on chemistry,” that Zhao only tunes a mechanical property (elastic modulus) across layers, and that the claimed invention requires “distinct spatial regions . . . made of separately doped ceramic compositions.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive for two reasons. First, claim 1 recites only that “the production material in the first spatial region is doped differently than the production material in the second spatial region.” There is no requirement in the claim for any particular dopant, class of dopant, doping process, base material, or property adjusted by the doping. “Doping” a material includes the introduction of an additive or secondary constituent into a base material, in differing kinds or amounts, to modify the properties of that material. Second, Zhao expressly discloses that, when the optimized layer moduli do not correspond to existing clinical materials, the restoration is produced as a resin-infiltrated ceramic in which a 3D-printed ceramic scaffold having a region-specific porosity distribution is vacuum-infiltrated with resin, forming a ceramic/resin dual interpenetrating network composite (¶¶ 17, 39). The finished production material therefore has a different ceramic-to-resin ratio in the first spatial region than in the second spatial region, which is no less than is required by instant claim 1.
Applicant finally argues that the resulting regions in the claimed invention “have sharply distinct material behaviors, not a gradient.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. There is no requirement in the claims for sharply distinct material behaviors. Features not recited in the claim cannot distinguish over the prior art See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Furthermore, Zhao does not disclose a continuously graded material. Zhao discloses discrete layers, each assigned its own optimized elastic modulus and formed of its own material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights