DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-6 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 02/12/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 1 and 5-6, and canceled claims 2-4, on 05/01/2026.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9, it is suggested to amend “Section 5.8 Compressive Strength Test of JIS T6604 Dental Plaster” to “JIT T6604 Dental Plaster-5.8 Compressive Strength Test” to be consistent with the phase used in specification [0054].
Claim 5, line 3, it is suggested to amend “the composition” to “the mold-making gypsum composition”, to be consistent with the phrase “A mold-making gypsum composition” recited in claim 1, line 1.
Claim 6, each of line 4 and line 5, it is suggested to amend “the composition” to “the mold-making gypsum composition”, to be consistent with the phrase “A mold-making gypsum composition” recited in claim 1, line 1.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko, JP 2004035223A (Yasuhiko) (provided in IDS received on 08/24/2023).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Yasuhiko, JP 2004035223A (Yasuhiko). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuhiko teaches a plaster mold molding material, constituted with 100 parts by mass of gypsum hemihydrate composed of 10-40 mass% α-type gypsum hemihydrate and 60-90 mass% β-type gypsum hemihydrate (Yasuhiko, Abstract), which overlaps the range of the presently claimed regarding ratio of α-type gypsum hemihydrate and β-type gypsum hemihydrate.
Yasuhiko teaches the plaster mold molding material constituted 0.1-1 part by mass of gypsum dihydrate, and thereby overlaps the range of the range of the presently claimed regarding the gypsum hemihydrate accounts for 95 parts by mass or more of 100 parts by mass of the mold-making gypsum composition.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, given that Yasuhiko teaches an identical or essentially identical composition, i.e., a plaster mold molding material, constituted with 100 parts by mass of gypsum hemihydrate composed of 10-40 mass% α-type gypsum hemihydrate and 60-90 mass% β-type gypsum hemihydrate, with that of the present invention (claim 1), therefore, it is clear that the plaster mold molding material of Yasuhiko would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitation of and a mold, which is a gypsum set product formed of the mold-making gypsum composition, has compression strength in a range of 10 MPa or more, according to JIS T6604 Dental Plaster-5.8 Compressive Strength Test.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhiko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sulser et al., US 2010/0137476A1 (Sulser).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Jin et al., JP 3067811 B2 (Jin). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 1, Yasuhiko does not explicitly disclose further comprising a water-reducing agent, wherein an amount of the water-reducing agent present in the composition is in a range from 0.02 to 0.2 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the gypsum hemihydrate;
or wherein a pot life of a malaxated product in slurry form obtained by adding water in an amount of water 45% by mass relative to the composition to the mold-making gypsum composition, and malaxating the water with the composition, is 8 minutes or longer, and a setting time of the malaxated product is 30 minutes or shorter.
With respect to the difference, Sulser teaches dispersants for gypsum compositions (Sulser, [0001]). Sulser specifically teaches the polymer (i.e., the dispersant) can be used for water reduction of gypsum (Sulser, [0006]); and the polymer (i.e., dispersant and water reducing agent) is preferably used in an amount of from 0.01 to 10% by weight, based on the weight of the binder (Sulser, [0126]).
As Sulser expressly teaches, it has now surprisingly been found that a particularly good plasticizing effect in gypsum compositions can be achieved with polymers which have a ratio of the carboxylic acid units to the ester/amide units of from 2 to 6; furthermore, it has been found that these polymers can be used for water reduction of gypsum compositions and that they lead to a longer processing time without having too great a retardant effect on the setting. Moreover, gypsum compositions comprising the polymers used show substantially less shrinkage and swelling behavior than those prepared with conventional gypsum plasticizers; likewise, compositions which do not become discolored are possible with these polymers (Sulser, [0006]).
Sulser is analogous art as Sulser teaches dispersants for gypsum compositions.
In light of the motivation of using the polymer/dispersant of Sulser in gypsum, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the polymer of Sulser (reading upon a water-reducing agent) in the plaster mold molding material of Yasuhiko, in an amount of from 0.01 to 10% by weight, based on the weight of the plaster mold molding material, in order to water reduction with longer processing time without having too great a retardant effect on the setting and produce product with substantially less shrinkage and swelling behavior, and/or without becoming discolored, and thereby arrive at a range that overlaps that of the presently claimed.
Further regarding claim 6, given that Yasuhiko in view of Sulser teaches an identical or essentially identical composition, i.e., a plaster mold molding material, constituted with 100 parts by mass of gypsum hemihydrate composed of 10-40 mass% α-type gypsum hemihydrate and 60-90 mass% β-type gypsum hemihydrate, and with a water reducing agent, with that of the present invention (claims 1 and 5), therefore, it is clear that Yasuhiko in view of Sulser would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitation of wherein a pot life of a malaxated product in slurry form obtained by adding water in an amount of water 45% by mass relative to the composition to the mold-making gypsum composition, and malaxating the water with the composition, is 8 minutes or longer, and a setting time of the malaxated product is 30 minutes or shorter.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims, the previous double patenting rejection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, the amended necessitates a new set of claim objections as set forth above.
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, “A mold-making gypsum composition comprising gypsum hemihydrate, wherein the gypsum hemihydrate comprises a gypsum hemihydrate and p gypsum hemihydrate in a ratio from 25:75 to 40:60 by mass”. It is noted that the referenced teaching from Kobori would not meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)/103 rejections over Kobori, Kobori in view of Azuma, and Kobori in view of Hjelmeland are withdrawn from the record. However, the amendments necessitate a new set of rejections over Yasuhiko, and Yasuhiko in view of Sulser, as set forth above.
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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights