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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112 rejections previously set forth in the non-final rejection mailed 04/07/2026.
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 1-3, 5-10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavegn (EP-2529694) in view of Korten (US-20240300139).
Regarding claim 1, Cavegn teaches:
A method of producing a dental restoration by jet-printing ([0001] – [0002]), comprising
jet-printing one or more layers of the dental restoration using a ceramic slurry ([0024] – [0025]);
jet-printing a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer onto the one or more layers ([0041] and [0056]).
Cavegn does not teach:
jet-printing a solution comprising a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer onto the one or more layers.
However, Korten, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of producing a dental restoration by jet-printing, teaches:
jet-printing a solution comprising a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer onto the one or more layers ([0036], [0054] – [0061], and [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the translucency or opacity enhancer of Cavegn to incorporate the teachings of Korten and make them a solution comprising a translucency or opacity enhancer. The purpose, as stated by Korten, being to control the optical properties within a final printed ceramic article, mostly color and translucency ([0080]).
Regarding claim 2, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Korten further teaches:
wherein the translucency enhancer comprises oxides of the elements of yttrium ([0080]), lanthanum, ytterbium, neodymium and/or europium.
Regarding claim 3, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Korten further teaches:
wherein the opacity enhancer comprises aluminum and/or silicon ([0114] and [0153]).
Regarding claim 5, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Cavegn further teaches:
wherein the slurry has an yttrium content of less than 3 mol% ([0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Cavegn further teaches:
wherein the slurry has an yttrium content of between 3.5 and 4.5 mol% ([0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Cavegn further teaches:
wherein a coloring solution is jet-printed onto the one or more layers ([0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 8 depends on. Cavegn further teaches:
wherein the coloring solution is doped with a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer ([0043] and [0058] – [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Cavegn further teaches:
wherein the produced dental restoration is subjected to a drying and/or debinding step prior to a sintering process ([0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Cavegn teaches:
A production apparatus for producing a dental restoration by jet-printing ([0001] – [0002]), comprising:
a first print head for jet-printing one or more layers of the dental restoration using a ceramic slurry ([0024] – [0025] and [0032]); and
a second print head for jet-printing a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer onto the one or more layers ([0032], [0041], and [0056]).
Cavegn does not teach:
the second print head jet-printing a solution comprising a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer onto the one or more layers.
However, Korten, in a similar field of endeavor, a production apparatus for producing a dental restoration by jet-printing, teaches:
the second print head jet-printing a solution comprising a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer onto the one or more layers ([0036], [0054] – [0061], [0080], and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second print head jet-printing a translucency or opacity enhancer of Cavegn to incorporate the teachings of Korten and make it jet-print a solution comprising a translucency or opacity enhancer. The purpose, as stated by Korten, being to control the optical properties within a final printed ceramic article, mostly color and translucency ([0080]).
Regarding claim 14, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 14 depends on. Cavegn further teaches:
wherein the production apparatus comprises a dithering module for calculating intermediate translucency values ([0056] – [0058]). While Cavegn is silent as to an actual dithering module for calculating translucency values, it is implied by Cavegn that there is a module for calculating translucency modules, as it describes making a smooth transition when adjusting the translucency of the product during production ([0057]).
Regarding claim 16, Cavegn teaches:
A jet-printing system ([0001]), comprising:
a production apparatus for producing a dental restoration by jet-printing ([0001] – [0002]);
a ceramic slurry for printing one or more layers ([0024] – [0025]); and
a translucency enhancer and/or an opacity enhancer for jet-printing onto the one or more layers ([0041] and [0056]).
Cavegn does not teach:
a solution comprising a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer for jet-printing onto the one or more layers.
However, Korten, in a similar field of endeavor, a jet-printing system, teaches:
a solution comprising a translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer for jet-printing onto the one or more layers ([0036], [0054] – [0061], [0080], and [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the translucency or opacity enhancer of Cavegn to incorporate the teachings of Korten and make it a solution comprising a translucency or opacity enhancer. The purpose, as stated by Korten, being to control the optical properties within a final printed ceramic article, mostly color and translucency ([0080]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavegn (EP-2529694) in view of Korten (US-20240300139), as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 15, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 14, which claim 15 depends on. Cavegn in view of Korten further teaches:
wherein the dithering module is adapted to use different two-dimensional dithering patterns in successive layers of the dental restoration. Apparatus claims only need to be capable of performing method limitations unless they add a structural limitation to the claim or contain a controller configured to perform the method limitation. In this case, the implied dithering module from the translucency curve transition described by Cavegn ([0057]) is capable of performing the method limitations claimed.
Claims 4, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavegn (EP-2529694) in view of Korten (US-20240300139), as applied to claims 1, 10, and 16 above, respectively, and further in view of Uibel (WO-2007112885), using the attached original documents and English translations.
Regarding claim 4, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends on, but does not explicitly teach drying one or more of the layers prior to jet-printing the solution comprising translucency or opacity enhancer. However, Uibel, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of jet-printing dental products, teaches:
wherein the one or more layers are dried prior to the jet-printing of the solution comprising the translucency enhancer or opacity enhancer (Pages 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cavegn to incorporate the teachings of Uibel and include a step of drying the layers prior to jet-printing the solution comprising the translucency enhancer. The purpose, as stated by Uibel, being preferably by drying each individual layer after application (Page 7).
Regarding claim 11, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the production apparatus comprising a receiving container for the solution comprising the translucency enhancer and/or opacity enhancer. However, Uibel, in a similar field of endeavor, a production apparatus for jet-printing dental products, teaches:
wherein the production apparatus comprises a receiving container for the solution comprising the translucency enhancer and/or opacity enhancer (Pages 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the production apparatus of Cavegn in view of Korten to incorporate the teachings of Uibel and include a receiving container for the solution comprising the translucency enhancer and/or opacity enhancer. The purpose, as stated by Uibel, being the print cartridges (container) are then filled with the suspension to be printed (Page 9).
Regarding claim 12, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 12 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the production apparatus comprising a drying device. However, Uibel, in a similar field of endeavor, a production apparatus for jet-printing dental products, teaches:
wherein the production apparatus comprises a drying device for drying the one or more layers (Page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the production apparatus of Cavegn in view of Korten to incorporate the teachings of Uibel and include a drying device for drying the one or more layers. The purpose, as stated by Uibel, being to have a drying device in the printing area (Page 8).
Regarding claim 13, Cavegn in view of Korten and Uibel teaches the limitations of claim 12, which claim 13 depends on. Uibel further teaches:
wherein the drying device comprises a blower and/or an infrared emitter (Page 7).
Regarding claim 17, Cavegn in view of Korten teaches the limitations of claim 16, which claim 17 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the ceramic slurry, the solution comprising the translucency enhancer and/or the opacity enhancer being stored in a container. However, Uibel, in a similar field of endeavor, a jet-printing system for making dental products, teaches:
wherein the ceramic slurry, the solution comprising the translucency enhancer and/or the opacity enhancer is/are stored in a container (Pages 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jet-printing system of Cavegn in view of Korten to incorporate the teachings of Uibel and have the ceramic slurry, the solution comprising the translucency enhancer and/or the opacity enhancer be stored in a container. The purpose, as stated by Uibel, being the print cartridges (container) are then filled with the suspension to be printed (Page 9).
Regarding claim 18, Cavegn in view of Korten and Uibel teaches the limitations of claim 17, which claim 18 depends on. Uibel further teaches:
wherein the container is replaceable (Page 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 07/07/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 16 under Cavegn (EP-2529694) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Cavegn (EP-2529694) in view of Korten (US-20240300139).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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 L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
