DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-14, and species b (claim 8) in the reply filed on June 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that the two groups are interrelated and would require a similar search. This is not found persuasive because the different classifications of the two groups, their search would not overlaps; thus requiring different efforts.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words and has implied phrases. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Furthermore, the lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzberger et al. (2018/0099899) in view of Burger et al. (2010/0248189). Regarding claims 1-2, Ritzberger teaches a process for producing a sintered lithium disilicate glass ([0045]) ceramic dental restoration out of a porous 3-dim article, the process comprising producing an unsintered or partly sintered blank, milling the blank into a porous 3-dim article, such as a dental restoration like crown which would naturally have an outer surface and an inner surface, and sintering the porous 3-dim article having the shape of a dental restoration to obtain a sintered ceramic dental restoration at a temperature in the range of 900-1100°C ([0065],[0067]-[0068], [0090]-[0091]). However, Ritzberger doesn’t specify sintering under a reduced atmospheric pressure condition. Burger teaches a process for producing a sintered glass ceramic dental restoration out of a porous 3-dim article, the process comprising sintering the porous 3-dim article having the shape of a dental restoration with an outer surface and an inner surface to obtain a sintered ceramic dental restoration, wherein the sintering is performed under reduced atmospheric pressure of between 25-50mbar and at a temperature in the range of 700-1100°C, which is above 600°C ([0028], [0118]-[0120]). Burger teaches sintering includes densification of the material into a less porous material. Naturally, a reduced atmospheric pressure would assist in the densification of the 3-dim article. Thus, for this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a reduced atmospheric pressure during the sintering step of Ritzberger.
Ritzberger further discloses the sintered lithium disilicate glass ceramic dental restoration comprises 66-77 wt.% of SiO2, 12-20 wt.% of Li2O, 0-6 wt.% of Al2O3 and 0-7 wt.% of P2O5 ([0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Ritzberger teaches machining to form the dental restoration and sintering the machined 3-dim article ([0091]-[0092]). Ritzberger is silent regarding any need to support the article during sintering, and thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to expect the sintering to be performed without supporting the inner surface of the dental restoration during sintering.
Regarding claim 4, Ritzberger teaches the porous 3-dim article has a shape of a dental crown or inlay ([0092]).
Regarding claim 8, Ritzberger teaches the porous 3-dim article is obtained by providing a glass powder, pressing the glass powder to obtain the 3-dim article and conducting a pre-sintering step to obtain the porous 3-dim article ([0091]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ritzberger further teaches the glass ceramic can comprise of 6.1 wt.% ZrO2 and/or 0.005-0.5wt% of a coloring metal oxides ([0026], [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Ritzberger teaches machining the porous blank into the 3-dim article having the dental restoration shape before sintering; hence, implying there is no machining of the sintered lithium disilicate 3-dim article since it already has the desired 3-dim shape ([0068], [0090]).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above Ritzberger teaches providing a porous 3-dim article having the shape of dental milling block, machining the porous 3-dim article to obtain a machined porous 3-dim article having the shape of a dental restoration with an outer and inner surface, and sintering the porous 3-dim article having the shape of a dental restoration at a temperature of 900-1100°C ([0065]-[0068], [0090]-[0091]). As also already recited and discussed with claim 1, Burger teaches sintering is performed under reduced atmospheric pressure of between 25-50mbar and at a temperature in the range of 700-1100°C, which is above 600°C ([0028], [0118]-[0120]). Furthermore, Ritzberger teaches machining to form the dental restoration and sintering the machined 3-dim article ([0091]-[0092]). Ritzberger is silent regarding any need to support the article during sintering, and thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to expect the sintering to be performed without supporting the inner surface of the dental restoration during sintering. Additionally, as discussed in claim 1 above, Ritzberger discloses the sintered lithium disilicate glass ceramic dental restoration comprises 66-77 wt.% of SiO2, 12-20 wt.% of Li2O, 0-6 wt.% of Al2O3 and 0-7 wt.% of P2O5 ([0033]). Also discussed above, Burger teaches forming a porous 3-dim article and sintering the article to form a dental restoration ([0045], [0047]-[0049], [0055]). Burger further teaches the sintered 3-dim glass ceramic has a density of 2-2.7 g/cm3 and pre-sintered porous 3-dim material has density of about 30-92% of the sintered material, which amounts to a density in the range of 0.6-1.84 g/cm3 for a sintered article having a density of 2 g/cm3 ([0057], [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a similar pre-sintering density of 0.6-1.84 g/cm3 as it provides for sufficient strength/hardness for subsequent process with ease such as machining ([0055]), as well as sintered density of 2-2.7 g/cm3 as it provides sufficient strength/hardness to be used as a dental restoration, as taught by Burger.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzberger et al. (2018/0099899) and Burger et al. (2010/0248189) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayr (EP 2 450 000). Like Ritzberger, Burger teaches forming a porous 3-dim article and sintering the article to form a dental restoration ([0045], [0047]-[0049], [0055]). Burger further teaches the sintered 3-dim glass ceramic has a density of 2-2.7 g/cm3 and pre-sintered porous 3-dim material has density of about 30-92% of the sintered material, which amounts to a density in the range of 0.6-1.84 g/cm3 for a sintered article having a density of 2 g/cm3 ([0057], [0059]). Burger also teaches the pre-sintered material has a pore volume of 40-20% ([0070]) and the sintered 3-dim glass ceramic has no porosity ([0088]). Additionally, Burger teaches a flexural strength for the sintered 3-dim glass ceramic article is in the range of 50-400MPa according to ISO 6872 ([0090]). However, Burger teaches the pre-sintered material has a flexural strength of 10-15MPa ([0089]), which does not fall within the claimed range of 20-75MPa. Mayr teaches a similar method of producing a 3-dim porous article for dental restoration, wherein the porous article has flexural strength of about 25-35MPa according to ISO 6872 to give the porous article increased strength and hardness subsequent processing steps ([0122],[0127], [0131]-[0132], [0099]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided for a similar flexural strength for the porous 3-dim article of Ritzberger and Burger, so as to provide sufficient strength and hardness for subsequent processing steps.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritzberger et al. (2018/0099899) and Burger et al. (2010/0248189) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schechner et al. (WO 2008/098157). Ritzberger and Burger do not disclose a coloring solution for coloring the dental restoration. Schechner teaches a method for coloring a dental restoration comprising treating the whole surface of a porous dental restoration with a coloring solution, wherein the solution comprises a solvent and coloring ions, such as Er, Tb, Ce, Sm, or Dy (page 1 lines 9-17, page 10 lines 1-8, page 17 lines 6-11). Schechner teaches applying coloring solutions is a well-known method for successful coloring of dental restorations. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have employed a coloring solution as an alternative means for successfully imparting the desired color to the dental restoration in the method of Ritzberger and Burger.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12/207,982. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite essentially the same steps for producing a sintered lithium disilicate glass ceramic, the method comprising the same machining steps for producing a porous 3-dim article, and the same sintering step under reduced atmospheric pressure, wherein the composition of the sintered glass ceramic is the same and the features of the 3-dim article are the same.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUEENIE S DEHGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8209. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 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 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.
/QUEENIE S DEHGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights