DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-4, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under Schomer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jahns et al. (US 20170185818), herein Jahns’17.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomer et al. (DE 102015103439 A1) [IDS dated 05/31/2024], herein Schomer in view of Jahns et al. (US 20170185818 A1), herein Jahns’17.
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (DE 102015103439 A1) with a reproduction of the table on the last page. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 1, 3-4 and 8, Schomer teaches a method increasing the translucency of a partially sintered zirconia ceramic dental blank for CAD/CAM processing [0001-0003]. The zirconia for dental application is stabilized by 4-6 wt% Y2O3 and by example about 3.6 mol% Y2O3 [0004, Table parts 1.1 and 1.3]. The zirconia is dipped to a solution comprising yttrium acetate dissolved in water solution [0011, 0014-0015, 0018, 0022-0023]. After dipping, the blank is dried [0023]. The blank is then sintered (i.e., heat treated) [0024].
Schomer differs from claim 1 by teaching yttrium acetate in a list of possible yttrium salts, such that it cannot be said that yttrium acetate the species is anticipated.
However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the yttrium salts taught by Schomer, including yttrium acetate. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Schomer does not teach the range of specific surface area of the zirconia mill blank.
Jahns’17 teaches a treatment for dental ceramics which involves applying a liquid composition to a porous dental zirconia article [Title, Abstract]. Jahn teaches the pre-sintered porous dental zirconia blanks have a specific surface area of from about 3 to about 14 m2/g [0169, 0173]. This overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the specific surface area of the blank is within the range of conventionally known zirconia dental blanks taught by Jahns’17 as such one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
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).
In regards to claim 2, Schomer further teaches the density of the zirconia blank is 3.09 g/cm3 [0023]. The density of a fully dense 6.093 g/cm3 as set forth in the Instant Spec [0115], thus the relative density is 50%.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomer et al. (DE 102015103439 A1) [IDS dated 05/31/2024], herein Schomer, in view of Jahns et al. (US 20170185818 A1), herein Jahns’17, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herrmann et al. (US 20150223917 A1), herein Herrmann.
In regards to claim 5, Schomer fails to teach or suggest that the solution further contains a water-soluble cerium-compound.
Herrmann teaches coloring solutions for zirconia ceramics, such a Y-TZP [Title, Abstract, 0073].
Herrmann expressly teaches that water soluble cerium salt compounds are added to the solutions [0119]. The cerium salt compounds are added to the solution to help mimic the color and transparency of a natural tooth [0008, 0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the water soluble cerium salt compounds of Herrmann to the solution of Schomer. One would have been motivated to do so to help mimic the color and transparency of a natural tooth. Further, as Herrmann teaches that the cerium compounds are conventionally known additions to coloring/translucency solution one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schomer et al. (DE 102015103439 A1) [IDS dated 05/31/2024], herein Schomer, in view of Jahns et al. (US 20170185818 A1), herein Jahns’17, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masahiro et al. (JP 2019156769 A), herein Masahiro.
The Examiner has previously provided a machine translation of (JP 2019156769 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 5-6, Schomer further teaches the solution contains an alcohol [0022].
Schomer fails to teach or suggest that the solution further contains a water-soluble cerium-compound and a vegetable oil.
Masahiro teaches a solution for coloring a zirconia ceramic dental blank [lines 14-17, 73-81].
Masahiro expressly teaches that the solution comprises a water-soluble cerium-compound, vegetable oil and a water soluble rare-earth compound [lines 198-208]. Masahiro teaches application of the solution imparts fluorescence to the prosthetic without discoloration [lines 119-122, 171-173].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the water soluble cerium salt compounds and vegetable oil of Masahiro to the solution of Schomer. One would have been motivated to do so to help mimic the color and transparency of a natural tooth by imparting fluorescence to the blank. Further, as Masahiro teaches that the cerium compounds and vegetable oil are conventionally known additions to a coloring/translucency solution one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomer et al. (DE 102015103439 A1) [IDS dated 05/31/2024], herein Schomer, in view of Jahns et al. (US 20170185818 A1), herein Jahns’17, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hauptmann et al. (US 20150238291 A1), herein Hauptmann.
In regards to claim 7, Schomer further teaches the zirconia blanks are for CAD/CAM machining and are sintered, but does not expressly teach that the shaped dental articles are sintered [0002, 0024].
Hauptman teaches a process of producing a zirconia dental article comprising the steps of providing a dental mill blank comprising a porous pre-sintered zirconia material, placing the dental mill blank in a machining device, machining the porous zirconia material into a dental article and then sintering the machined porous dental article [Abstract, 0045, 0047, 0259, 0264, 00274, claim 12]. By “machining” is meant milling, grinding, drilling, cutting, carving, or subtractive shaping a material by a machine. Milling is usually faster and more cost effective than grinding [0047]. The cutting is done in dry conditions [0260].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have dry cut the blank of Schomer into a dental article and then firing the dental article as taught by Hauptman. One would have been motivated to do as it would have been the use of known processing steps to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights