DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-20 and 23 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 08/23/2023, 07/29/2025, 08/20/2025, 11/05/2025, and 11/12/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9, 12-14, 16-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollmann et al (US 10407341 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Vollmann et al teaches a lithium silicate glass ceramic comprising 58 wt% SiO2, 5 wt% P2O5, 3 wt% Al2O3, 15 wt% Li2O, 1 wt% K2O, and 10 wt% ZrO2 (see column 3, lines 10-20). Each compositional limitation of the instant claim is thus met by the teachings therein. Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises a spodumene crystal phase (see column 3, lines 25-3). Spodumene is a quartz solid solution phase. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, Vollmann et al teaches that the crystallized glass ceramic embodiment discussed above contains, in addition to lithium disilicate and spodumene, a further crystalline phase of virgilite (see column 5, lines 1-5). This component (LixAlxSi3-xO6) is a quartz solid solution phase, and thus Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises two different quartz solid solution phases.
Regarding claim 3, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises stoichiometric aluminosilicate phase spodumene.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises 58 wt% SiO2.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises 15 wt% Li2O.
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises 1 wt% K2O.
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises 3 wt% Al2O3.
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises 5 wt% P2O5.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises 10 wt% ZrO2.
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned Vollmann et al embodiment comprises 0 wt% B2O3.
Regarding claim 13, the Vollmann et al glass ceramic comprises SiO2 and Li2O in a ratio of 3.9.
Regarding claim 14, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises lithium disilicate main crystalline phase (see column 2, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 16, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises above 0 wt% to 10 wt% spodumene (see column 2, lines 9-15). As essentially the entirety of this range lies within the broader range of claim 16, the Vollmann teaching in this regard is anticipatory to the limitation of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is formed by crystallizing a starting glass, and thus teaches a starting glass comprising the components of instant claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed above, Vollmann et al teaches a glass ceramic comprising spodumene quartz solid solution phase along with lithium disilicate phase. The starting glass taught by Vollmann et al would, upon nucleation, thus contain nuclei for forming these two phases.
Regarding claim 19, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is in the form of a dental restoration.
Regarding claim 23, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic is formed into dental restorations such as a bridge, onlay, inlay, abutment, crown, or partial crown through milling (machining, see column 3, lines 59-67).
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.
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.
Claims 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmann et al (US 10407341 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic can contain 0-1.9 wt% Na2O. This amount overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Claim 10 is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12, Vollmann et al teaches that the inventive glass ceramic comprises 0-5 wt% B2O3.
Regarding claim 15, Vollmann et al teaches that lithium disilicate and lithium phosphate crystals comprises 40-60 vol% of the inventive glass ceramic, and that lithium disilicate is main crystalline phase (see column 3, lines 54-56). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the 40-60 vol% teaching that at least half of even the lower limit of this range would be lithium disilicate, and thus at least 20 vol% of the glass ceramic is constituted by lithium disilicate crystals.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmann et al (US 10407341 B2) in view of Ehrt et al (US 2013/0149433 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the claim differs from Vollmann et al as applied above because Vollmann et al does not teach that the inventive glass ceramic comprises CaO, MgO, SrO, or ZnO. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to modify Vollmann et al in view of Ehrt et al in order to add one of these known modifying oxides to the glass ceramic. Ehrt et al teaches a glass ceramic that is similarly composed to that of the instant claims (see Abstract) and has the same lithium disilicate main crystalline phase. Ehrt et al teaches that the glass ceramic is used in dental applications, as is that of Vollmann et al. Ehrt et al teaches that CaO, MgO, or ZnO can be included in the inventive glass ceramics in amounts of up to 4.0 wt% (see paragraph 0023) in order to modify the properties thereof. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation from the Ehrt et al teachings to add one of these divalent modifying components to the Vollmann et al glass ceramics because optimizing the properties for dental use would have been understood to be an advantageous benefit. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Vollmann et al and Ehrt et al teach glass ceramics with the same main crystalline phase, with similar compositions, and used for equivalent dental applications. Each limitation of claim 11 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 20, Vollmann et al teaches heating a starting glass for the inventive glass ceramic at a temperature falling within the range of 600-1000 °C, but does not teach heat treatment of the glass in powder form. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to modify Vollmann et al in view of Ehrt et al in order to heat treat the glass in particulate form, as is taught in said Ehrt et al. Ehrt et al teaches a glass ceramic that is similarly composed to that of the instant claims (see Abstract) and has the same lithium disilicate main crystalline phase. Ehrt et al teaches that the glass ceramic is used in dental applications, as is that of Vollmann et al, and further teaches the use of the material as a veneer. Ehrt et al teaches that a particulate of the start glass is subject to crystallization heat treatment, and thereafter a paste of the glass ceramic particulate can be made into a paste for application in veneering. One of ordinary skill would have had motivation from this teaching to crystallize the Vollmann et al starting glass in particulate form rather than after molding because doing so would allow for the use of the glass ceramic in particulate form for the advantageous use as a veneer. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Vollmann et al and Ehrt et al teach glass ceramics with the same main crystalline phase, with similar compositions, and used for equivalent dental applications. Each limitation of claim 20 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW14 January 2026