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 January 9, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on August 28, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on November 12, 2025 has been entered into the prosecution for the application. Currently, claims 1-5 are pending. Claims 6-12 are withdrawn. Claims 13-15 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended.
In view of the amendments to claim 1, the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn as moot.
All prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112010641 A to Ding et al. (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Ding”) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,927,538 to Moszner et al. (hereinafter “Moszner”), with evidence, as to claim 1, from Ingel et al., “Lattice Parameters and Density for Y2O3-Stabilized ZrO2,” J. American Ceramic Society 69 (1986): pp. 325-332 (hereinafter “Ingel”), Hayduk et al., “Density, Viscosity, and Carbon Dioxide Solubility and Diffusivity in Aqueous Ethylene Glycol Solutions,” J. Chemical and Engineering Data 16(2) [1971], pp. 143-146 (hereinafter “Hayduk”), and “Sigma-Aldrich Safety Data Sheet for Poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate” (Nov. 7, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Ding teaches a moldable composite (see ¶ 0107, Abstract, teaching a composite material; ¶¶ 0031, 0122, teaching that the composite material is moldable) comprising an organic binder (photopolymerizable compound, ¶¶ 0071-0074), a powder made of a ceramic material (inorganic powder, ¶¶ 0068-0069), and a phase-forming agent dispersed in the organic binder (diluent, ¶¶ 0087, 0090); Ding teaches wherein the phase-forming agent is ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol (¶¶ 0014, 0096), each of which has a viscosity higher than 5 mPa∙s at 25 °C.
Ding teaches wherein the powder of the ceramic material is 20-60 vol% based on the total volume of the ceramic composition (¶ 0010); the binder (photopolymerizable compound) is 20-60 vol% based on the total volume of the ceramic composition (¶ 0078); and the phase-forming agent is 20-45 vol% based on the total volume of the ceramic composition (¶ 0015). Within these taught ranges, the content of the powder is necessarily more than 5 parts per volume based on 100 parts per volume of the organic binder, and the content of the phase-forming agent is necessarily more than 5 parts per volume based on 100 parts per volume of the organic binder. For instance, in Example 5 of Ding comprises 40.0 vol% inorganic powder (yttria-stabilized ZrO2), 40.0 vol% binder (polyethylene glycol diacrylate, “PEGDA”), and 20.0 vol% phase-forming agent (ethylene glycol) (see Table 1). Taking the 40.0 vol% binder as 100 parts per volume binder, Example 5 thus comprises 100 parts per volume powder and 50 parts per volume phase-forming agent—proportions greatly in excess of the minimum required parts per volume recited in claim 1. Given the relative proportions of organic binder and the phase-forming agent, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect the phase-forming agent of Example 5, for instance, to form an internal phase in the organic binder.
Ding does not require any solvent having a viscosity of less than 5 mPa∙s at 25 °C, as measured in accordance with DIN 53019; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would conclude that no such solvent is present.
Ding teaches wherein the organic binder is a resin which can be hardened upon curing or polymerizing initiated by an external stimulus (see ¶¶ 0055, 0072, 0074).
Ding teaches multiple example embodiments of the moldable composite, including Example 5, which comprises 40.0 vol% inorganic powder (yttria-stabilized ZrO2); 40.0 vol% binder (PEGDA), which includes 1.0 wt% diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (TPO) as photoinitiator; and 20.0 vol% phase-forming agent (ethylene glycol) (see Table 1). The powder and organic binder thus combined comprise 80 vol% of the total volume of moldable composite material. Yttria-stabilized ZrO2 has density of approximately 5.5 to 6.1 g/cm3, depending on the level of yttria-doping (see Ingel at p. 326, Table I). Ethylene glycol has a density of approximately 1.1 g/cm3 (see Hayduk at p. 144, Table I), and polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) has a density of approximately 1.12 g/cm3 (see Sigma-Aldrich Safety Data Sheet for poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate, p. 7). Therefore, given the much higher density of the powder and comparable density of the binder compared to the phase-forming agent, for a moldable composite in which the powder and organic binder comprise 80 vol% of total volume of moldable composite material, by necessity the powder and organic binder combined amount to more than 80 mass-% when the total mass of the moldable composite is 100 mass-%.
Ding does not explicitly teach wherein the powder comprises particles having a diameter ranging from 5 nm to 700 nm and further comprises particles having a diameter ranging from 1 μm to 50 μm.
Moszner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches light-curing ceramic or glass ceramic compositions comprising a polymerizable binder and particles of a ceramic and/or glass ceramic material (claim 1; Abstract). Moszner teaches, in some embodiments, wherein the particles comprise one set of particles between 1 μm and 10 μm in size (Col. 9, lines 8-9) and a second set of particles in the range of 10 nm to 200 nm in size (Col. 9, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify moldable composite of Ding by ensuring that the powder includes one set of particles between 1 μm and 10 μm in size and a second set of particles in the range of 10 nm to 200 nm in size, as taught by Moszner. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to produce a moldable composite that is sedimentation-stable (see Moszner at Col. 9, lines 11-12).
Thus, Ding as modified by Moszner teaches a moldable composite reading on every limitation of claim 1. Since the moldable composite of Ding as modified by Moszner includes nano-sized powder particles (see immediately above), the moldable composite may be characterized as a moldable nanocomposite.
Regarding claim 2, Ding as modified by Moszner teaches wherein the moldable nanocomposite comprises, in addition to the powder described above, a precursor of ceramic material dispersed in the organic binder (see Moszner, Col. 11, lines 40-67), the precursor comprising one or more metal salts, e.g., carboxylic acid salts of iron, praseodymium, tungsten, terbium, or manganese (see Moszner, Col. 11, lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 3, Ding as modified by Moszner teaches wherein the ceramic material comprises aluminum oxide or zirconia (see Ding at ¶¶ 0068, 0107; Table 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ding as modified by Moszner teaches, as an example embodiment of the moldable nanocomposite, Example 5, comprising 40.0 vol% inorganic powder (yttria-stabilized ZrO2), 40.0 vol% binder, and 20.0 vol% phase-forming agent (ethylene glycol) (see Ding, Table 1). Taking the 40.0 vol% binder as 100 parts per volume binder, Example 5 thus comprises 100 parts per volume powder and 50 parts per volume phase-forming agent—proportions reading on the limitation of the combined content of the powder and the precursor of the ceramic material in the moldable nanocomposite being at least 30 parts per volume based on 100 parts per volume of the organic binder (as recited in claim 4) and on the limitation of the content of the phase-forming agent in the moldable nanocomposite is at least 10 parts per volume based on 100 parts per volume of the organic binder (as recited in claim 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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, AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at (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 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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731