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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed June 22, 2026.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 14 and 16 were amended, rendering claims 1-20 pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
2. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2010120795) in view of Ito et al (U.S. 2021/010838).
Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4). Yamashita discloses the alumina sintered body has a sintering aid with a content of 100 ppm (paragraphs 12-13). Yamashita does not explicitly disclose the particle diameter of the alumina particles. Ito teaches a pre-sintered body (paragraph 9) comprising α-alumina with a mean particle size of 0.3 µm (300 nm) (paragraph 162).
Yamashita and Ito are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is alumina sintered bodies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the alumina particles, as taught in Ito, for the alumina particles of Yamashita because they are functional equivalents, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 2, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4).
Concerning claim 3, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4). Yamashita discloses the claimed invention except for the content of the cobalt component content. It should be noted that the content is a result effective variable. The reference teaches an element with a function for coloring alumina sintered bodies (hereinafter also referred to as “colorant”) may be included within an extent not impairing the effect of the alumina sintered body of the present embodiment. The colorant is an element having a function for coloring alumina. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the non-disclosed parameter since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cobalt content to add more to get more color and less to get less with the exact amount obvious to the skilled artisan.
Concerning claim 4, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4). In claim 4, the phrase, “wherein the cobalt component is component derived from a salt and/or a complex” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having an alumina sintered body for dental use. The reference suggests such a product because Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44).
Concerning claim 8, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) where Ito teaches a pre-sintered body (paragraph 9) comprising α-alumina with a mean particle size of 0.3 µm (300 nm) (paragraph 162).
Concerning claim 9, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4).
Concerning claim 14, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4). Yamashita discloses the alumina sintered body has a sintering aid with a content of 100 ppm (paragraphs 12-13). Yamashita does not explicitly disclose the particle diameter of the alumina particles. Ito teaches a pre-sintered body (paragraph 9) comprising α-alumina with a mean particle size of 0.3 µm (300 nm) (paragraph 162).
Yamashita and Ito are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is alumina sintered bodies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the alumina particles, as taught in Ito, for the alumina particles of Yamashita because they are functional equivalents. Although Yamashita and Ito do not explicitly disclose the crystal grain size of the alumina sintered body,
substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the alumina sintered body is carried out using material (alumina) and process conditions (sintered) which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the alumina sintered body discussed above would be expected to meet the claimed crystal grain size.
Concerning claim 15, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4).
Concerning claim 16, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4). Yamashita discloses the claimed invention except for the content of the cobalt component content. It should be noted that the content is a result effective variable. The reference teaches an element with a function for coloring alumina sintered bodies (hereinafter also referred to as “colorant”) may be included within an extent not impairing the effect of the alumina sintered body of the present embodiment. The colorant is an element having a function for coloring alumina. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the non-disclosed parameter since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cobalt content to add more to get more color and less to get less with the exact amount obvious to the skilled artisan.
Concerning claim 17, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44) which gives a colored translucent alumina sintered bodies such as blue (paragraph 4). In claim 4, the phrase, “wherein the cobalt component is component derived from a salt and/or a complex” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having an alumina sintered body for dental use. The reference suggests such a product because Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) along with cobalt oxide (paragraphs 4 and 44).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. Claims 1-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyahara et al. (JP H0769750) in view of Ito et al (U.S. 2021/010838).
Miyahara discloses alumina sintered body, with alumina as the main component, and a sintering aid such as yttria (paragraph 19-24). Miyahara discloses the alumina sintered body can comprise cobalt (paragraphs 19-24) where instant claim 2 discloses cobalt is a bluish colorant. Miyahara does not explicitly disclose the particle diameter of the alumina particles. Ito teaches a pre-sintered body (paragraph 9) comprising α-alumina with a mean particle size of 0.3 µm (300 nm) (paragraph 162). Miyahara and Ito are combinable because they are related to a similar technical field, which is alumina sintered bodies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the alumina particles, as taught in Ito, for the alumina particles of Miyahara because they are functional equivalents.
Miyahara discloses the claimed invention except for the content of the sintering aid. It should be noted that the content is a result effective variable. The reference teaches an element with a function for sintering the alumina bodies may be included within an extent not impairing the effect of the alumina body of the present embodiment. The sintering is an element having a function for forming the alumina body without melting the alumina particles into a liquid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the non-disclosed parameter since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the sintering aid content with the exact amount obvious to the skilled artisan, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 2, Miyahara discloses the alumina sintered body can comprise cobalt (paragraphs 19-24).
Concerning claim 3, Miyahara discloses alumina sintered body, with alumina as the main component, and a sintering aid such as yttria (paragraph 19-24). Miyahara discloses the alumina sintered body can comprise cobalt (paragraphs 19-24). Miyahara discloses the claimed invention except for the content of the cobalt component content. It should be noted that the content is a result effective variable. The reference teaches an element with a function for coloring alumina sintered bodies (hereinafter also referred to as “colorant”) may be included within an extent not impairing the effect of the alumina sintered body of the present embodiment. The colorant is an element having a function for coloring alumina. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create the invention of the prior art with the non-disclosed parameter since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the cobalt content to add more to get more color and less to get less with the exact amount obvious to the skilled artisan.
Concerning claim 4, Miyahara discloses alumina sintered body, with alumina as the main component, and a sintering aid such as yttria (paragraph 19-24). Miyahara discloses the alumina sintered body can comprise cobalt (paragraphs 19-24).
In claim 4, the phrase, “wherein the cobalt component is component derived from a salt and/or a complex” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having an alumina sintered body for dental use. The reference suggests such a product because Miyahara discloses alumina sintered body, with alumina as the main component, and a sintering aid such as yttria (paragraph 19-24). Miyahara discloses the alumina sintered body can comprise cobalt (paragraphs 19-24).
Concerning claim 7, Miyahara discloses alumina sintered body, with alumina as the main component, and a sintering aid such as yttria (paragraph 19-24).
Concerning claim 8, Yamashita discloses an alumina sintered body for dental use comprising fine particles (claim 4 of Yamashita) where Ito teaches a pre-sintered body (paragraph 9) comprising α-alumina with a mean particle size of 0.3 µm (300 nm) (paragraph 162).
Claims Objections
5. Claims 5-6, 10, 18-20 are 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. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited alumina pre-sintered body further including a linear light transmittance of 0.8% or more as a sintered body of 1.0 mm thickness fired under atmospheric pressure without a hot isostatic pressing process.
The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited alumina pre-sintered body further including a b* value of -8.0 to 14.2 as a sintered body of 1.2 mm thickness fired under atmospheric pressure without a hot isostatic pressing process. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited alumina pre-sintered body further including a portion with the highest translucency is an incisal portion of a dental prosthetic obtained from the dental mill blank. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited alumina sintered body further including a linear light transmittance of 0.8% or more at a thickness of 1.0mm. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited alumina sintered body further including a b* value of -8.0 to 14.2 as a sintered body of 1.2 mm thickness. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited alumina sintered body further including the sintering aid comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of a Group 2 element, Ce, Zr, and Y.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Allowable Claims
6. Claims 11-13 are allowed. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the recited method for producing an alumina pre-sintered body further including allowing a bluish colorant to uniformly adhere to alumina particles, with a content of the sintering aid 10 to 5,000 ppm.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s argument of the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (U.S. 2021/010838) are moot based on grounds of new rejection.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights