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
Election/Restriction
Claims 29-43 of Group II, and claims 44-48 of Group III, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of claims 1-28 of Group I, was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in line 1, it is unclear what is encompassed by the term “dental material”. Does it require a biological material that is a component of a natural tooth composite, or does it mean that the material is used for dental applications? For the purposes of examination, the second interpretation is used.
Furthermore, the recitation of “for dental material substrates” is one of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In addition, it is also unclear what the chemical distinction is between the metal oxide solid particles and the inorganic pigment solid particles, because the metal oxide solid particles are a subset of the ceramic pigment, just like the inorganic pigment solid particles, and metal oxide solid particles can function as inorganic pigment solid particles depending on the desired pigment color/tint. For the purposes of examination, since both the metal oxide solid particles and the inorganic solid particles are defined as ceramic pigment, metal oxide solid particles and inorganic pigment solid particles are treated as being the same or interchangeable in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary.
Claims 2-29 depend on and include all the subject matter of claim 1, but all fail to provide any solutions to the indefinite issues described above.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, claim 14 contains the trademarks/trade names “D40, D80, and D120 (available from Exxsol)”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe chemical solvents and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Moreover, at least the sugars such as glucose, and the compound urea, are solids, not liquids at standard room temperature.
Regarding claim 16, the phrases "such as", “among others” and “examples of”, render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In addition, the phrases "or the like" and “but are not limited to”, render the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like" and “but are not limited to”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purposes of examination, any form of copolymer and inorganic/organic salt is within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 19, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation of “the additive” which is not present in claim 1 on which claim 19 directly depends.
Regarding claims 21-24, it is unclear what the jetting temperature is.
Regarding claim 26, it is unclear how the density of the ceramic inkjet ink is measured.
Regarding claim 27, it is unclear how a suspension in a solvent or liquid carrier can have an elasticity, and further, it is unclear how the elasticity is measured.
Clarification and/or amendment with relevant citation(s) from the specification and/or teaching reference(s) are required.
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.
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 1-21, 25, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kritchman (US 2020/0047252) in view of Tanabe (US 2003/0052952).
Regarding claim 1, Kritchman teaches a ceramic inkjet ink (inks … include … ceramic material [0067], inkjet [0027]) for dental material substrates (dental industry, artificial teeth [0150]) comprising:
a ceramic pigment (colorized structural material [0271]) comprising: metal oxide solid particles ([0271]) having a submicron particle size of less than 1 micron at a particle size distribution from D98 to D10 (0.5 micron or less [0080]); and inorganic pigment solid particles (inorganic pigments [0135]) having a submicron particle size of less than 1 micron at a particle size distribution from D98 to D10 (0.5 micron or less [0080]);
a solvent (“carrier” or “solvent” [0089]); and
a dispersing agent ([0093]);
wherein the ink exhibits good jet ability (enable jet ability [0089]) upon being uniformly ink jetted (printing the ceramic outer coating [0152]) on the surface of a dental material substrate (three dimensional metal core [0152], uniform layer thickness over the entire layer [0149]) by an inkjet printer (ink jet printing [0119], print head printing [0152]), and
wherein the ink is capable of being fused (to form a dense solid piece [0124]) to the surface of the dental material substrate (metal core and ceramic outer coating layer share the same or substantially the same sintering temperature [0159], identical within a required tolerance [0147]) by firing at elevated temperatures (sintering temperature [0159]) and of maintaining its aesthetic coloristic properties after firing (inorganic colorants (pigments) that are compatible with the firing of the object during sintering [0147]).
Kritchman is silent regarding a solids particle loading of the ink, and hence fails to teach that the ink has a solids particle loading of about 10 wt.% to about 50 wt.%.
However, Kritchman teaches that the ink is an inkjet ink (inks … include … ceramic material [0067], inkjet [0027]).
Tanabe teaches that an inkjet ink ([0062]) has a solids particle loading (pure titanium dioxide [0064]) of about 30 wt.% ([0064]), which is within the claimed range of about 10 wt.% to about 50 wt.%, for the purpose of preventing clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness (hiding power [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the ceramic inkjet ink of Kritchman, with a solids particle loading that is within a range of about 10 wt.% to about 50 wt., in order to prevent clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness, as taught by Tanabe.
Regarding claims 2-3, Kritchman teaches that the metal oxide solid particle ([0271]) has a submicron particle size of less than 0.5 micron at a particle size distribution from D98 to D10 (0.5 micron or less [0080]), such that the metal oxide solid particle has a submicron particle size that is less than 0.5 micron at a particle size distribution of D98 and D90, which is within claimed range of less than from about 0.85 micron to about 0.93 micron at a particle size distribution of D98, and the claimed range of less than from about 0.6 micron to about 0.66 micron at a particle size distribution of D90.
Regarding claims 4-5, Kritchman teaches that the metal oxide solid particle ([0271]) can have a lower submicron particle size of less than 0.2 micron at a particle size distribution from D98 to D10 (0.2 micron or less [0080]), such that the metal oxide solid particle has a submicron particle size that is less than 0.2 micron at a particle size distribution of D50 and D10, which is within claimed range of less than from about 0.39 micron to about 0.4 micron at a particle size distribution of D50, and the claimed range of less than from about 0.2 micron to about 0.24 micron at a particle size distribution of D10.
Regarding claim 6, Kritchman is silent regarding the amount of metal oxide solid particles, and hence fails to teach the claimed range of from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, based on the weight of the ceramic inkjet ink.
However, Tanabe teaches that the inkjet ink ([0062]) can have an amount of metal oxide solid particles (pure titanium dioxide [0064]) of about 3 wt.% ([0064]), which is within the claimed range of about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, based on the weight of the inkjet ink, for the purpose of preventing clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness (hiding power [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the ceramic inkjet ink of Kritchman, with an amount of metal oxide solid particles that is within a range of about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt., in order to prevent clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness, as taught by Tanabe.
Regarding claim 7, Kritchman teaches that the inorganic pigment solid particle is selected from titanium oxide and iron oxide, or mixtures thereof (more …ceramic materials, oxides [0081]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Kritchman teaches that the inorganic pigment solid particle (colorized structural material [0271]) has a submicron particle size of less than 0.5 micron at a particle size distribution from D98 to D10 (0.5 micron or less [0080]), such that the inorganic pigment solid particle has a submicron particle size that is less than 0.5 micron at a particle size distribution of D98 and D90, which is within claimed range of less than from about 0.85 micron to about 0.93 micron at a particle size distribution of D98, and the claimed range of less than from about 0.6 micron to about 0.66 micron at a particle size distribution of D90.
Regarding claims 10-11, Kritchman teaches that the inorganic pigment solid particle (colorized structural material [0271]) can have a lower submicron particle size of less than 0.2 micron at a particle size distribution from D98 to D10 (0.2 micron or less [0080]), such that the inorganic pigment particle has a submicron particle size that is less than 0.2 micron at a particle size distribution of D50 and D10, which is within claimed range of less than from about 0.39 micron to about 0.4 micron at a particle size distribution of D50, and the claimed range of less than from about 0.2 micron to about 0.24 micron at a particle size distribution of D10.
Regarding claim 12, Kritchman is silent regarding the amount of inorganic pigment solid particles, and hence fails to teach the claimed range of from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, based on the weight of the ceramic inkjet ink.
However, Tanabe teaches that the inkjet ink ([0062]) can have an amount of inorganic pigment solid particles (pure titanium dioxide [0064]) of about 3 wt.% ([0064]), which is within the claimed range of about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%, based on the weight of the inkjet ink, for the purpose of preventing clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness (hiding power [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the ceramic inkjet ink of Kritchman, with an amount of inorganic pigment solid particles that is within a range of about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt., in order to prevent clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness, as taught by Tanabe.
Regarding claim 13, Kritchman teaches that a solvent can be aqueous (water-based ink [0095]).
Regarding claim 14, although Kritchman is silent regarding non-aqueous solvents, Kritchman teaches that the aqueous solvent is merely exemplary (for example [0095]).
Tanabe teaches that aside from water, the aqueous solvent can further comprise polar solvents such as methanol, ethanol ([0066]) and glycerin ([0067]), for the purpose of providing the desired ejection stability ([0123-0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have further comprised polar solvents such as methanol and ethanol in the aqueous solvent of the ceramic inkjet ink of Kritchman, in order to obtain the desired ejection stability, as taught by Tanabe.
Regarding claim 15, Kritchman is silent regarding an amount of the solvent based on the weight of the ceramic inkjet ink, and hence fails to teach that it is within the claimed range of from about 30 wt.% to about 80 wt%.
However, Tanabe teaches that an amount of the solvent based on the weight of the inkjet ink can be 66.7 wt.% (10.0 glycerin + 56.7 water, Ex. 2, Ink A, Table 2 [0119]), which is within the claimed range of from about 30 wt.% to about 80 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired ejection stability ([0123-0124]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the solvent in the ceramic inkjet ink of Kritchman, in an amount that is within a range of from about 30 wt.% to about 80 wt%, in order to obtain the desired ejection stability, as taught by Tanabe.
Regarding claim 16, Kritchman teaches that the dispersing agent is sodium lauryl sulfate ([0097]) which is a dispersing resin salt.
Regarding claim 17, Kritchman teaches that the dispersing agent is in an amount of 10 wt.% of the amount of solids particle loading of the ink (model particles [0098]), which, as modified by Tanabe, is about 30 wt.%, based on the weight of the ceramic ink jet ink, for the purpose of preventing clogging of nozzles in the inkjet printer head, while maintaining the desired layer thickness (hiding power [0064]), Tanabe), such that the amount of the dispersing agent of Kritchman, as modified by Tanabe, is about 3 wt. %, based on the weight of the ceramic ink jet ink, which is within the claimed range of from about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.%.
Regarding claim 18, Kritchman teaches that the ceramic inkjet ink further comprises a viscosity modifying additive (surface modifiers, desired … viscosity [0103]), a surface tension additive ([0102]), an adhesion additive (binder [0121]), a rheology modifying additive (rheological agent [0121]), and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Kritchman teaches that the additive can have an amount of 0.1 wt.% ([0103]), based on the weight of the ceramic inkjet ink, which is within the claimed range of from 0 wt.% to about 3 wt.%.
Regarding claim 20, Kritchman teaches that the ceramic inkjet ink further comprises cetyl tetraammonium bromide ([00097]) which is an amphoteric surfactant.
Regarding claim 21, Kritchman teaches that the additive can have an amount of 0.1 wt.% ([0103]), based on the weight of the ceramic inkjet ink, which is within the claimed range of from 0.1 wt.% to about 3 wt.%.
Regarding claim 26, Kritchman teaches that the ink has a surface tension of from 20 mN/m to 70 mN/m (liquid [0088]) which contains the claimed range of 20 mN/m to about 35 mN/m, for the purpose of providing the desired compatibility with the jetting head requirement ([0089]), thus establishing the surface tension of the ink as a result-effective variable. Although Kritchman is silent regarding the measuring temperature and hence fails to teach the claimed temperature of 30°C, said temperature is only 5°C above the standard temperature which is normally used to measure surface tension.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been routine optimization by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have adjusted the surface tension of the ceramic inkjet ink of Kritchman, to one that is within a range of 20 mN/m to about 35 mN/m, at a temperature of 30°C, in order to obtain the desired compatibility with the jetting head requirement, as taught by Kritchman.
Regarding claim 27, the ink of Kritchman is a liquid dispersion ([0089]) which has near zero bulk elasticity. Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, the liquid dispersion is expected to have an elasticity that is within the claimed range of less than 10%.
Regarding claim 28, Kritchman teaches that the ink maintains its aesthetic coloristic properties (sintering temperature of both materials is identical within a required tolerance [0148]) after firing at the high temperature of 1300[Symbol font/0xB0]C (reduces sintering temperature of the silica … to 1300[Symbol font/0xB0]C [0148]) which is within the claimed range of from 800[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 1300[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular work week between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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 Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center 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.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights