DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inokoshi in their publication “Influence of sintering conditions on low-temperature degradation of dental zirconia”.
Regarding Claim 1: Inokoshi teaches a variety of zirconia sintered bodies comprising crystal phases that have a monoclinic phase ratio of 1-3%, tetragonal phase ratio of 77-94%, and a cubic phase ratio of 5-20%. Inokoshi shows the sintering of In-Ceram YZ at different temperatures and times (See Page 673). Inokoshi shows that sintering at 1450 for 2h provides a zirconia sintered body having 85.5% tetragonal phase, 11.6% cubic phase, and 2.9% monoclinic phase. The sintered zirconia body of Inokoshi has phase ratios falling squarely within the instantly claimed ranges. The samples sintered at 1450C for 4 hours, 1550C for 1 hour or 4 hour, and 1650C for 2h are also noted as falling within the claimed range and anticipating the claimed subject matter.
Regarding Claim 2: The instant claim only sets forth limitations in terms of product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations are examined on the basis of the implications of the process on the product, and not to the actual manipulations as set forth. The claims are ultimately drawn to a product and not a process of making such a product. In the instant case, the product-by-process sets forth molding at particular pressures, sintering at particular temperatures and times, and requirements in terms of the initial powder. The claim sets forth that the initial powder has particular content of certain phases, specific surface area and content of yttria. The product-by-process limitations as set forth require that the product is a sintered body (based on molding at certain pressures and sintering at certain times and temperatures) and has a certain content of yttria, consistent with the initial powder. The specific surface and phases within the initial powder do not clearly imply any particular limitation on the final product. As is set forth above, the product of Inokoshi contains the same phases in their final product as those claimed (See above). The product of Inokoshi is a sintered body having yttria content between 2.5 and 2.7% falling within the claimed range(See Table 3; 1450 2h, 45; 1550 1h, 4h; 1650 2h). The product of Inokoshi thus meets all of the implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hesse in EP0700880 (citations made to the English translation provided).
Inokoshi teaches a variety of zirconia sintered bodies comprising crystal phases that have a monoclinic phase ratio of 1-3%, tetragonal phase ratio of 77-94%, and a cubic phase ratio of 5-20%. Inokoshi shows the sintering of In-Ceram YZ at different temperatures and times (See Page 673). Inokoshi shows that sintering at 1450 for 2h provides a zirconia sintered body having 85.5% tetragonal phase, 11.6% cubic phase, and 2.9% monoclinic phase. The sintered zirconia body of Inokoshi has phase ratios falling squarely within the instantly claimed ranges. The samples sintered at 1450C for 4 hours, 1550C for 1 hour or 4 hour, and 1650C for 2h are also noted as falling within the claimed range and anticipating the claimed subject matter.
Inokoshi does not teach the addition of colorants or pigments to the sintered zirconia body.
However, Hesse teaches that various pigments are known for the coloration of technical ceramics, such as stabilized zirconia (See Example 1), and said pigments may be added with the technical ceramic and a binding agent prior to sintering. The final sintered product would necessarily containing the provided pigment. Hesse teaches that oxides such as CoO, Cr2O3, Fe2O3, TiO2, corundum (Al-2O3) and MnO2 may be used as pigments in ceramics and may be added to the powdered technical ceramic in amounts from 0.05 to 20 wt% (See Column 2). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide any combination of the pigments of Hesse in amounts from 0.05 to 20 wt% to the stabilized zirconia of Inokoshi in order to provide desired coloration to the material. Provisioning oxide pigments to produce a desired color in the final product is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the pigments of Hesse with the zirconia of Inokoshi in order to provide an aesthetic effect to the zirconia and provide the material with a desired aesthetic effect in terms of its coloration (See claims).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hesse in EP0700880 and Jung in US5759030.
Regarding Claim 4-5 and 7-13: Inokoshi teaches a variety of zirconia sintered bodies comprising crystal phases that have a monoclinic phase ratio of 1-3%, tetragonal phase ratio of 77-94%, and a cubic phase ratio of 5-20%. Inokoshi shows the sintering of In-Ceram YZ at different temperatures and times (See Page 673). Inokoshi shows that sintering at 1450 for 2h provides a zirconia sintered body having 85.5% tetragonal phase, 11.6% cubic phase, and 2.9% monoclinic phase. The sintered zirconia body of Inokoshi has phase ratios falling squarely within the instantly claimed ranges. The samples sintered at 1450C for 4 hours, 1550C for 1 hour or 4 hour, and 1650C for 2h are also noted as falling within the claimed range and anticipating the claimed subject matter.
Inokoshi does not teach the addition of colorants or pigments to the sintered zirconia body.
However, Hesse teaches that various pigments are known for the coloration of technical ceramics, such as stabilized zirconia (See Example 1), and said pigments may be added with the technical ceramic and a binding agent prior to sintering. The final sintered product would necessarily containing the provided pigment. Hesse teaches that oxides such as CoO, Cr2O3, Fe2O3, TiO2, corundum (Al-2O3) and MnO2 may be used as pigments in ceramics and may be added to the powdered technical ceramic in amounts from 0.05 to 20 wt% (See Column 2). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide any combination of the pigments of Hesse in amounts from 0.05 to 20 wt% to the stabilized zirconia of Inokoshi in order to provide desired coloration to the material. Provisioning oxide pigments to produce a desired color in the final product is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Those of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the pigments of Hesse with the zirconia of Inokoshi in order to provide an aesthetic effect to the zirconia and provide the material with a desired aesthetic effect in terms of its coloration (See claims).
Inokoshi in view of Hesse are silent in terms of providing the sintered zirconia ceramic in the claimed CIELAB coordinates.
However, the process of determining and formulating the coloration of dental ceramics is known in the art and taught by Jung. Jung teaches that to provide a prosthetic of a suitable color and shading, a tooth is inspected for color and translucency data using an optical probe (See Step 204, column 22). The coloration is recorded and indexed in various formats, which may include a CIELAB value (L*, a*, b*) (See Column 23). The coloration value such as a CIELAB value is then used to provide a formulation for pigments to be used in the creation of a prosthesis (See Step 208; Column 23). Such a prosthesis having suitable colorants is then prepared in step 210. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sintered zirconia ceramic of Inokoshi, which is intended to be used for a dental prosthesis, and provide it with the colorants of Hesse in suitable amounts in order to provide CIELAB values (L*,a*,b*) determined by the process of Jung. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide dental prosthesis that generally matched the color of other teeth and would have found it obvious to use known colorants to provide CIELAB values that correspond to said teeth. The provisioning of the known colorants in the claimed amounts would necessarily provide the CIELAB values associated therewith as such a property would necessarily flow from the selection of said colorants.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida in 5263858 and Jung in 5759030.
Inokoshi teaches a variety of zirconia sintered bodies comprising crystal phases that have a monoclinic phase ratio of 1-3%, tetragonal phase ratio of 77-94%, and a cubic phase ratio of 5-20%. Inokoshi shows the sintering of In-Ceram YZ at different temperatures and times (See Page 673). Inokoshi shows that sintering at 1450 for 2h provides a zirconia sintered body having 85.5% tetragonal phase, 11.6% cubic phase, and 2.9% monoclinic phase. The sintered zirconia body of Inokoshi has phase ratios falling squarely within the instantly claimed ranges. The samples sintered at 1450C for 4 hours, 1550C for 1 hour or 4 hour, and 1650C for 2h are also noted as falling within the claimed range and anticipating the claimed subject matter.
Inokoshi does not teach the addition of colorants or pigments to the sintered zirconia body.
However, the coloration of zirconia ceramics for use as orthodontics is known and taught by Yoshida. Yoshida teaches that oxides such as ZnO, Fe2O3, Er2O3, and Pr6O11 may be added to a calcined zirconia powder in order to act as sintering aids and provide an ivory color to the zirconia body (See Column 1 and 4). Yoshida teaches that ZnO may be added in an amount from 0.05 to 0.3 mol% on the basis of the ZrO2, which overlaps the range claimed when converted to wt%. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add this amount of ZnO in conjunction with other oxides of iron, erbium, and praseodymium to provide for an ivory color in the sintered zirconia body of Inokoshi. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to color the zirconia in such a manner in order to provide material for orthodontic brackets (See Column 1).
Inokoshi in view of Yoshida are silent in terms of providing the sintered zirconia ceramic in the claimed CIELAB coordinates.
However, the process of determining and formulating the coloration of dental ceramics is known in the art and taught by Jung. Jung teaches that to provide a prosthetic of a suitable color and shading, a tooth is inspected for color and translucency data using an optical probe (See Step 204, column 22). The coloration is recorded and indexed in various formats, which may include a CIELAB value (L*, a*, b*) (See Column 23). The coloration value such as a CIELAB value is then used to provide a formulation for pigments to be used in the creation of a prosthesis (See Step 208; Column 23). Such a prosthesis having suitable colorants is then prepared in step 210. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sintered zirconia ceramic of Inokoshi, which is intended to be used for a dental prosthesis, and provide it with the colorants of Yoshida in suitable amounts in order to provide CIELAB values (L*,a*,b*) determined by the process of Jung. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide dental prosthesis that generally matched the color of other teeth and would have found it obvious to use known colorants to provide CIELAB values that correspond to said teeth. The provisioning of the known colorants in the claimed amounts would necessarily provide the CIELAB values associated therewith as such a property would necessarily flow from the selection of said colorants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
