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 .
IDS
The IDS entered 10/01/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2024010568 A1 corresponding to WO 2022071348 A1) in view of Buljan (US 5,460,640).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches a method comprising: (a) ceramic injection molding (P0095) a granulated mixture of yttria-stabilized zirconia powder (P0018, P0031, P0068) and a thermoplastic organic binder (P0081) resulting in an injection molded ceramic body (P0095); (b) heat treating the injection molded ceramic body under conditions sufficient for removing the thermoplastic organic binder from the injection molded body (P0060), (d) sintering the injection molded ceramic body (P0112); and (e) hot isostatically pressing the sintered injection molded ceramic body (P0113).
Nakano further teaches that an object of the present invention to provide a zirconia pre-sintered body having excellent machinability, and, in addition to having a low probability of chipping (hereinafter, “chipping rate” or “frequency of chipping”), capable of forming a pillar that is not easily breakable during milling, and can be removed with ease (P0011). Nakano discusses the importance of hardness in a zirconia pre-sintered body.
Nakano is silent to applying a solution to the injection molded ceramic body, the solution comprising a tantalum-containing material, a niobium-containing material, or a mixture of a tantalum-containing material and a niobium-containing material and penetrating at least a portion of the injection molded ceramic body with the solution.
Buljan, in the same field of endeavor, ceramic molding, teaches a ceramic metal body (col 2, ln 28-56) made from zirconia plus a refractory reinforcing hard phase comprising tantalum (Ta) and an additive selected from niobium (Nb),Ta, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakano to inject the reinforcing hard phase or additive taught in Buijan to the zirconia pre-sintered body disclosed in Nakano in order to increase the hardness of the sintered body.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Buljan teaches the solution in (c) comprises 10-50 v/o of tantalum, niobium or both together (col.2, ll39-45) which is fully within the claimed range of 10 wt% to 70 wt% of the tantalum-containing material, 10 wt% to 70 wt% of the niobium-containing material, or 10 wt% to 70 wt% of the mixture of the tantalum-containing material and the niobium-containing material, based on the total weight of the solution.
Regarding claims 9-10, Nakano teaches the solution in (c) further comprises at least one antimicrobial metal ion which is Zn metal ion (P0083).
Regarding claim 11, Nakano teaches (d) comprises subjecting the injection molded ceramic body to heating at a temperature of 1450°C or more (P0107) which is fully within the claimed range of 1450° C to 1500°C for less than 120 min (P0108) which is fully withing the claimed range of 1.5 to 3.5 hours.
Regarding claim 18, Nakano teaches the hot isostatically pressed sintered injection molded ceramic body is in the shape of a dental implant (P0099).
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2024010568 A1 corresponding to WO 2022071348 A1) in view of Buljan (US 5,460,640) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bordoli (US20210187806A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nakano teaches injection molding but is silent to introducing the granulated mixture into an injection molding machine having a barrel heated to 190°C to 220°C, and a mold heated to 60°C to 120°C.
Bordoli, in the same field of endeavor, ceramic injection molding, teaches (a) comprises introducing the granulated mixture into an injection molding machine having a barrel heated to 160-200°C which overlaps the claimed range of 190°C to 220°C (P0030, P0032), and a mold heated to 60°C which is within the claimed range of 60°C to 120°C (P0034).
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Bordoli’s temperature range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2024010568 A1 corresponding to WO 2022071348 A1) in view of Buljan (US 5,460,640) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ito (JP 2011178610 A).
Regarding claim 3, Nakano teaches that increasing the pressure during molding will increase the density of the molded body (P0097) but it silent to a molding pressure in the claimed range.
Ito teaches (a) comprises a molding pressure of 20 MPa which converts to 200 bar and is fully within the claimed range of 120 to 300 bar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen this pressure for the purpose of achieving the desired density and resulting physical properties such as hardness as taught by Nakano (P0097).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2024010568 A1 corresponding to WO 2022071348 A1) in view of Buljan (US 5,460,640) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hotza (International Materials Reviews, 2015).
Regarding claim 4, Nakano teaches heating (P0156) but is silent to (b) comprises subjecting the injection molded ceramic body to heating at a temperature of 450° C to 1000° C for 100 to 130 hours.
Hotza, in the same field of endeavor, ceramic molding, teaches subjecting the injection molded ceramic body to heating at a temperature of 1000° C for 80-100 hours (pg.362, ¶ 4, table 4) where the temperature is in the claimed range of 450° C to 1000° C and the time is in the claimed range of 100 to 130 hours.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Hotza's temperature and time range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2024010568 A1 corresponding to WO 2022071348 A1) in view of Buljan (US 5,460,640) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hamakura (US20150376397A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Nakano is silent to heating the sintered injection molded ceramic body under pressure in a pressure transmission gas atmosphere.
Hamakura, in the same field of endeavor, ceramics molding, teaches (e) comprises heating the sintered injection molded ceramic body under pressure in a pressure transmission gas atmosphere of Argon (P0167).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated the sintered injection molded ceramic body under pressure in a pressure transmission gas atmosphere of Argon for the purpose of preventing oxidation as taught by Hamakura (P0128).
Regarding claim 13, Nakano teaches the sintered injection molded ceramic body is subjected to a temperature of 1450° C to 1600°C (P0107).
Regarding claim 14, Nakano teaches the pressure is 30-200 MPa (P0097) which overlaps the claimed range of 137 to 206 MPa.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Nakano’s pressure range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 2024010568 A1 corresponding to WO 2022071348 A1) in view of Buljan (US 5,460,640) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Holand (US 20080303181 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nakano is silent to the hot isostatically pressed sintered injection molded ceramic body having a 3-point flexural strength of at least 1800 MPa.
Holand, in the same field of endeavor, ceramic molding, teaches a sintered injection molded ceramic body has a 3-point flexural strength of greater than 1000 MPa (claims 16-17) which overlaps with the claimed at least 1800 MPa.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Holand’s strength range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Further, it would be obvious that the mechanical properties of modified Nakano would meet this limitation as the materials and processing meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Nakano is silent to fracture toughness.
Holand teaches the sintered injection molded ceramic body has a fracture toughness of 18 MPa⋅m½ (claim 1) which is fully withing the range of at least 13 MPa⋅m½ as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior anticipates or renders obvious the limitations of the solution in (c) comprises tantalum chloride, tantalum alkoxide, niobium chloride or niobium alkoxide; the solution in (c) comprises tantalum (V) chloride anhydrous, tantalum (V) methoxide, tantalum (V) isopropoxide, tantalum (V) ethoxide, or a mixture thereof; the solution in (c) comprises 5 wt% to 50 wt% tantalum ethoxide and 1 wt% to 10 wt% polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), the hot isostatically pressed sintered injection molded ceramic body is in the shape of a restoration crown, and the solution in (c) is applied to a gingival margin region of the crown.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erica Funk whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 5712707001. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741