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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tarvonen (WO2022253429), using the applicant provided original document.
Regarding claim 1, Tarvonen teaches:
A method of producing a dental object ([0005] and [0027] – [0028]), comprising the steps of:
printing a substructure ([0038] – [0039]; Figs. 4-5);
printing an intermediate layer from a support material on the substructure ([0038] – [0039]; Figs. 4-5); and
printing the dental object from the production material for the dental object on the intermediate layer ([0038] – [0039]; Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein a thickness of the intermediate layer is 0.05 mm to 2 mm ([0038] – [0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein a shape of a recess in the dental object corresponds to the shape of the substructure ([0038] – [0039]; Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein the substructure is printed with an inner cavity ([0028] – [0042]; Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein the cavity of the substructure is filled with support material ([0028] – [0042]; Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 8, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 8 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein a thickness of the wall of the substructure surrounding the cavity is between 1 mm and 3 mm ([0028] – [0042]; Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 9, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein the substructure is printed with a tool interface ([0030] – [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 10 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein the substructure is printed from the production material for the dental object ([0030] – [0039]).
Regarding claim 11, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends on. Tarvonen further teaches:
wherein the support material is removed after printing ([0036] – [0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Tarvonen teaches:
A printer for performing the method of claim 1 ([0030] – [0038]), see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Tarvonen teaches:
A computer program product comprising program code ([0008] – [0014] and [0031] – [0035]) which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium ([0014]), the machine-readable medium comprising computer instructions ([0012] – [0014]) executable by a processor ([0008] and [0032] – [0035]) of a printer with a control device ([0032]), which computer instructions cause the processor to perform the method according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarvonen (WO2022253429) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hofer (US-20030186914), using the applicant provided original document.
Regarding claim 2, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Tarvonen does not explicitly teach the production material for the dental object comprises an oxide ceramic material, however, Hofer, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of producing a dental object, teaches:
wherein the production material for the dental object comprises an oxide ceramic material ([0076] – [0079]).
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 material of Tarvonen to incorporate the teachings of Hofer and have it explicitly comprise a ceramic oxide material. The purpose, as stated by Hofer, being that particularly worthy of mention in the field of biomaterials are oxide-ceramic materials ([0078]).
Regarding claim 3, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Tarvonen does not explicitly teach the support material comprising a water-soluble support material, a wax and/or a non-ionic surfactant, however, Hofer, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of producing a dental object, teaches:
wherein the support material comprises a water-soluble support material ([0038], [0069], and [0095]), a wax and/or a non-ionic surfactant.
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 support material of Tarvonen to incorporate the teachings of Hofer and have it explicitly comprise a water-soluble material. The purpose, as stated by Hofer, being that it is characterized in that water-soluble salts of a compound of formula (IA) or (IB) are used for the treatment of these surfaces ([0095]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarvonen (WO2022253429) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haraszati (US-20120261848), using the applicant provided original document.
Regarding claim 12, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends on. Tarvonen does not explicitly teach the support material being melted, however, Haraszati, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of producing a dental object, teaches:
wherein the support material is melted after printing ([0015], [0026] – [0029], [0031], [0036] – [0038], and [0067]).
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 support material of Tarvonen to incorporate the teachings of Haraszati and melt it. The purpose, as stated by Haraszati, being unique, special anatomical form and color requirements can be produced quickly in great numbers, without involving significant professional expertise ([0034]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarvonen (WO2022253429) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howe (US-20180042705), using the applicant provided original document.
Regarding claim 13, Tarvonen teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends on. Tarvonen does not explicitly teach the support material penetrating into the dental object after printing and/or the dental object being sintered together with the substructure, Howe, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of producing a dental object, teaches:
wherein the support material penetrates into the dental object after printing and/or the dental object is sintered together with the substructure ([0006] – [0014]).
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 support material of Tarvonen to incorporate the teachings of Howe and sinter it. The purpose, as stated by Howe, being to sinter it into a continuous hard coating ([0014]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights