DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-15 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 10 and 13-15 are 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 10 recites multiple ranges for the claimed a* value, and as such the actual scope of what is intended to be claimed is unclear. The claim is thus indefinite under USC 112.
Claim 13 depends from independent claim 1, which is drawn to a dental material, but said claim 13 is drawn to a process for making the pigment only. As such, it is unclear if the process of claim 13 is meant to necessarily lead to the formation of a dental material including the pigment, or if the intended coverage is to include any process that leads to only the pigment. If the latter is the intended interpretation, the dependency of the claim is improper, as a process claim should depend from a product claim only if it is drawn to a process for making the product itself, and not some lesser portion of the product. These ambiguities render the scope of claim 13 unclear, and the claim is thus indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 14-15 are also indefinite as depending from indefinite claim 13.
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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matteucci et al (Colour development of red perovskite pigment Y(Al,Cr)O3 in various ceramic applications).
Regarding claim 1, Matteucci et al teaches a red perovskite pigment having the composition Y(Al,Cr)O-3 and being used in ceramic bodies (see Abstract and page 2, Experimental Procedure). The preamble limitation that the instant claim is to a “dental” material holds patentable weight in in distinguishing the instant claim over an equivalent material used for different intended applications only in as much as it precludes prior art materials that would not be capable of the intended dental use. As Matteucci et al teaches that the pigment is used in ceramic bodies with compositions indicating they would be capable of some dental use (see Tables 1-2), the preamble limitation of the instant claim does not distinguish over the Matteucci et al ceramic body containing the red perovskite pigment.
Matteucci et al teaches that the red perovskite pigment has a composition YAl0.965Cr0.035O3. Thus, the pigment comprises Al, Cr, and Y as the Z element. The pigment meets each compositional limitation of instant claim 1, and the claim is therefore anticipated by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 2, the molar ratio of Al to Y in the YAl0.965Cr0.035O3 pigment falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the pigment taught by Matteucci et al has the formula YAl0.965Cr0.035O3, and thus x is 0.965 and y is 0.035.
Regarding claim 4, the pigment taught by Matteucci et al has a perovskite crystal structure.
Regarding claim 5, the Matteucci et al pigment comprises Y as the Z element.
Regarding claim 6, the Matteucci et al pigment has an average particle size of 3 µm (see page 4).
Regarding claim 7, Matteucci et al teaches that the pigment is used in articles such as stoneware bodies and tiles (see page 3). As essentially any form can constitute a blank, the articles taught by Matteucci et al meet the further structure limitation of instant claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Matteucci et al teaches that the ceramic comprising the pigment is a porcelain comprising a glassy phase.
Regarding claim 10, Matteucci et al teaches embodiments having an a* value in the range of 0-25 (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Matteucci et al teaches that the amount of pigment in the porcelain stoneware bodies is 5 wt% (see page 3).
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 1-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 10273189 B2) in view of Matteucci et al (Colour development of red perovskite pigment Y(Al,Cr)O3 in various ceramic applications).
Regarding claim 1, Ito et al teaches a dental material comprising a pigment, and emphasizes that a red pigment is critical for use in forming dental prosthesis that imitate natural teeth (see column 1, lines 40-45). Ito et al does not teach that the pigment used in the inventive dental material is one that contains Al, Cr, and Z. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ito et al in view of Matteucci et al in order to use the pigment taught therein. Matteucci et al teaches a red perovskite pigment having the composition Y(Al,Cr)O-3 and being used in ceramic bodies (see Abstract and page 2, Experimental Procedure). Matteucci et al teaches that the pigment taught therein is improved as compared to other red pigments used in ceramics because said other pigments do not fulfil all the needed requirements of the ceramic production process due to environment, technical or coloring problems. This teaching would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with motivation to use the Matteucci et al pigment as the red pigment called for in the Ito et al teachings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Matteucci et al teaches a pigment for use with ceramics, and Ito et al teaches a ceramic article having therein a red pigment. Each limitation of claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, the molar ratio of Al to Y in the YAl0.965Cr0.035O3 pigment falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the pigment taught by Matteucci et al has the formula YAl0.965Cr0.035O3, and thus x is 0.965 and y is 0.035.
Regarding claim 4, the pigment taught by Matteucci et al has a perovskite crystal structure.
Regarding claim 5, the Matteucci et al pigment comprises Y as the Z element.
Regarding claim 6, the Matteucci et al pigment has an average particle size of 3 µm (see page 4).
Regarding claim 7, Ito et al teaches dental prosthesis that constitute blanks or restorations.
Regarding claim 10, Ito et al teaches that the a* value of the inventive dental ceramic is present in a range that overlaps and thus renders obvious the range of the instant claim (see column 8, lines 55-60). Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Ito et al teaches that the coloring agent (pigment) amounts fall within the range of the instant claim (see Tables 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Ito et al teaches shaping the inventive body into a dental restoration (see column 8, lines 30-35).
Claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (CN 113816610 A) in view of Matteucci et al (Colour development of red perovskite pigment Y(Al,Cr)O3 in various ceramic applications).
Regarding claim 1, Han et al teaches a lithium silicate glass ceramic used for dental prosthesis and having a pigment component therein (see claim 4). Han et al does not teach that the pigment used in the inventive dental material is one that contains Al, Cr, and Z. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Han et al in view of Matteucci et al in order to use the pigment taught therein. Matteucci et al teaches a red perovskite pigment having the composition Y(Al,Cr)O-3 and being used in ceramic bodies (see Abstract and page 2, Experimental Procedure). Matteucci et al teaches that the pigment taught therein is improved as compared to other red pigments used in ceramics because said other pigments do not fulfil all the needed requirements of the ceramic production process due to environment, technical or coloring problems. This teaching would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with motivation to use the Matteucci et al pigment as the red pigment called for in the Han et al teachings. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Matteucci et al teaches a pigment for use with ceramics, and Han et al teaches a glass ceramic article having therein a red pigment. Each limitation of claim 1 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is therefore obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, the molar ratio of Al to Y in the YAl0.965Cr0.035O3 pigment falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, the pigment taught by Matteucci et al has the formula YAl0.965Cr0.035O3, and thus x is 0.965 and y is 0.035.
Regarding claim 4, the pigment taught by Matteucci et al has a perovskite crystal structure.
Regarding claim 5, the Matteucci et al pigment comprises Y as the Z element.
Regarding claim 6, the Matteucci et al pigment has an average particle size of 3 µm (see page 4).
Regarding claim 7, Han et al teaches dental prosthesis that constitute blanks or restorations.
Regarding claim 8, Han et al teaches a glass ceramic dental material.
Regarding claim 9, Han et al teaches a glass ceramic based on lithium silicate.
Regarding claim 12, Han et al teaches shaping the inventive glass ceramic dental article through methods such as CAD.
Conclusion
14. No claim is allowed.
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. 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
NSW10 June 2026
Prosecution Insights