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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Dentca fails to provide for the limitation of the denture base includes “a plurality of recesses”, by arguing that the “base and teeth are provided in a single step, without mention of pre-formed recesses”, however this is not persuasive as Dencta does disclose that the base is fabricated separately from the teeth and discloses that the teeth are then attached to the denture. The provided image show the teeth bases received in the recesses of the denture base. As such the claimed limitations are provided as cited in the following action.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 17-22-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dentca et al. (FDA Clears a material enabling 3D-printing of dentures. https://www.regdesk.co/fda-clears-a-material-enabling-3-d-printing-of-dentures/, published online 08-19-2015, citing to provided pdf of webpage) in view of Blair et al. (US 4,609,351) and further in view of Holzner et al. (EP 1974688 A1, machine translation provided and cited for page/lines).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 23-25, Dentca discloses a method for manufacturing a final denture (page 1 lines 3-4 disclosing manufacturing dental devices by 3D printing) comprising a denture base (See image above, and PDF showing the figure was part of the 08/15/2015 upload) and at least two artificial teeth arranged in the denture base (See image above), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
obtaining the denture base made from a same material that is included in the final denture and including a plurality of recesses pre-arranged to receive the at least two artificial teeth(See image above with recesses visible as the separate teeth are visible by the translucency of the base recesses showing root portions of the separate teeth and showing a 3d printed base, page 1/4 “a 3D printed resin that can be used as a base material during the manufacturing process for dentures”, page 2 disclosing that the base is manufacture separately from the teeth and the teeth are attached to the base in the clearly visible recesses in the base in Dentca),
receiving a digital design of at least two artificial teeth and a common placement support for keeping the at least two artificial teeth in a desired relative arrangement and the base is the structure in the final denture that supports the at least two artificial teeth (page 2 lines 1-5 disclosing the layer by layer printing based of an optical scan impression thus inherently requiring the receiving of digital data),
manufacturing the at least two artificial teeth with the common placement support connected to the at least two artificial teeth where the common placement support and the at least two artificial teeth are manufactured simultaneously as one unit, wherein the common placement support is connected to lingual surfaces of the at least two artificial teeth and is manufactured simultaneously as one unit with a 3D printing operation (See image above of at least two teeth with the common support connected to the teeth made as one unit by the 3d stereolithographic laser printing, page 2 lines 3-4),
arranging the at least two artificial teeth on the denture base with the common placement support connected to the at least artificial teeth (see image above, page 2 lines 1-2 the teeth are attached to the denture, figure on page 1 showing the teeth received in recesses)
and attaching the at least two artificial teeth in the plurality of recesses on the denture base with the common placement support connected to the at least two artificial teeth (See image above of the teeth in the sockets of the base with the common placement support still attached to the teeth when the teeth are placed in the recesses, page 2 lines 4-5 attaching the teeth with a light cure),
Dentca discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the step of removing the common placement support after attaching the at least two artificial teeth on the denture base as recited in claim 1, nor the teeth are permanently attached as recited in claim 25, by gluing as recited in claim 23.
However, Blair discloses a method for manufacturing a denture (column 3 lines 7-16) comprising a denture base (column 8 lines 37-38 teeth attached to a base plate) and at least two artificial teeth arranged in the denture base (Fig. 1-6 showing multiple teeth and thus at least two), wherein the method comprises the steps of: obtaining the denture base (column 8 lines 37-38 teeth attached to a base plate),receiving a design of at least two artificial teeth and an common placement support for keeping the at least two artificial teeth in a desired relative arrangement (Fig. 9 all is a mold thus having been made to a design that was received to make the mold, the mold designed to form the at least two artificial teeth elements 14 in figure 1 and their common placement support element 26/28 in figured 1), manufacturing the at least two artificial teeth with the common placement support connected to the at least two artificial teeth where the common placement support and the at least two artificial teeth are manufactured simultaneously as one unit, wherein the common placement support is connected to lingual surfaces of the at least two artificial teeth (Fig. 1 common placement supports 26-28 are integrally formed at the same time as the teeth elements 14 when molded column 8 lines 14-39), arranging the at least two artificial teeth on the denture base with the common placement support connected to the at least artificial teeth (Figs. 37-38 showing teeth arranged on the baseplate) and permanently attaching the at least two artificial teeth on the denture base by gluing(column 18, line 27-column 19 line 47), and removing the common placement support after attaching the at least two artificial teeth on the denture base (column 16 lines 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the step of removing the common placement support after the teeth where permanently attached to the dental base by gluing as taught by Blair into the method as taught by Dentca for the purpose of removing a stabilizing element after the stabilizing function ceases to be needed such as when the arch configuration of the teeth has been attached to baseplate as taught by Blair (column 8 lines 27-38).
Regarding claim 18, Dentca further discloses where sprues created during manufacturing of the at least two artificial teeth form the common placement support (See image above).
Regarding claim 19, Dentca further discloses where the common placement support is connected only to the occlusal surfaces of the at least two artificial teeth.
Regarding claim 20, Dentca disclose structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the common placement support is only connected to the lingual surfaces of the at least two artificial teeth.
Blair further discloses where the common support is only connected to the occlusal surfaces of the teeth (Fig. 1/5 elements 26/28 are only connected to lingual surfaces).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the common placement support to only be connected to the lingual surface instead of the occlusal surfaces since it would not have modified the operation of the device and method of Dentca and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 21, Dentca further discloses where the at least two artificial teeth are posterior teeth (See image above showing the teeth include at least posterior teeth).
Regarding claim 27, Dentca further discloses where the common placement support and the at least two artificial teeth are manufactured by an additive manufacturing method (
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dentca et al. (FDA Clears a material enabling 3D-printing of dentures. https://www.regdesk.co/fda-clears-a-material-enabling-3-d-printing-of-dentures/, published online 08-19-2015, citing to provided pdf of webpage) in view of Blair et al. (US 4,609,351) in view of Holzner et al. (EP 1974688 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zilinski et al. (US 2,539,883).
Regarding claim 16, Dentca/Blair/Holzner discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, but fails to explicitly discloses where the two least two artificial teeth are separate from each other.
However Zilinski discloses artificial teeth (title) with at least two artificial teeth Fig. 4 elements 3 being at least one tooth on each of the left and right side of the arch) with a common placement support for keeping the at least two artificial teeth in a desired arrangement (Fig. 4 element 18/17/16) where the at least two teeth are separate from each other (Fig. 4 the left side teeth are separate from the right side teeth and thus at least one of the left side teeth 3 are separate from at least one of the right side teeth 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate at least two of the artificial teeth being separate from each other as taught by Zilinski into the method as taught by Dentca/Blair/Holzner for the purpose of providing an arrangement of artificial teeth in sections which would allow for different teeth sections to be made of different materials as desired as taught by Zilinski (column 1 lines 34-44).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dentca et al. (FDA Clears a material enabling 3D-printing of dentures. https://www.regdesk.co/fda-clears-a-material-enabling-3-d-printing-of-dentures/, published online 08-19-2015, citing to provided pdf of webpage) in view of Blair et al. (US 4,609,351) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Holzner et al. (EP 1974688 A1).
Dentca/Blair discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, but fails to explicitly discloses where the support and teeth are made by subtractive manufacturing.
However, Holzner discloses a method of forming dental prosthesis(abstract) having teeth with connectors (Fig. 4) where the prosthesis are made by a first step of rapid prototyping of 3d printing a prosthesis with rougher surfaces (abstract line 1, by rapid prototyping using 3d printing, page 2 lines 29-31) and then a second step of manufacturing the rough surface prosthesis by a subtractive method of milling the printed prosthesis (abstract lines 2-4) to make a smoother finish of the prosthesis (page 2 lines 21-24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teeth and support to be manufactured by a process of 3D printing and then subtractive manufacturing of the 3D printed teeth and connector as taught by Holzner into the method as taught by Dentca/Blair for the purpose of providing a method the can quickly produce prosthesis and provide the 3d printed prosthesis with smoother surfaces as taught by Holzner (page 2 lines 21-24 disclosing the subtractive post-processing provides for smoothing of surfaces).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dentca et al. (FDA Clears a material enabling 3D-printing of dentures. https://www.regdesk.co/fda-clears-a-material-enabling-3-d-printing-of-dentures/, published online 08-19-2015, citing to provided pdf of webpage) in view of Blair et al. (US 4,609,351) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hagiwara et al. (JP 2015043793 A).
Dentca/Blair discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, including where the artificial teeth are physically made, but fails to explicitly discloses where the support and teeth are made by an additive manufacturing method.
However, Hagiwara discloses a method of producing an artificial tooth (title and abstract) for use in a denture base (paragraph [0009]), with at last two teeth and a common support connected to the teeth simultaneously (see image below) by receiving of a digital design through computer aided designing that is then additively manufactured on 3D printing operation (abstract, paragraph [0025] all disclosing the teeth and their supports are all made from a received computer aided design data, see image below of singe 3D printed teeth and support).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
797
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the manufacturing of the artificial teeth to be a additively manufactured such as with the 3D printing operation as taught by Hagiwara into the method of receiving and making of the teeth and their common placement support as taught by Dentca/Blair for the purpose of providing a denture with artificial teeth formed in a short time and with needed properties including strength, hardness, and abrasion resistance and which would be a tooth that would not need any additional grinding after forming to fit the shape of the tooth to the patient as taught by Hagiwara (paragraph [0023] and paragraph [0007]-[0008] all).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 03/06/2025
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772