DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-17, 20-108 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/24/2023.
Applicant's election with traverse of species in the reply filed on 5/24/2023 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the species are not independent or distinct. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons in response dated 9/13/2023.
The requirement is still deemed proper and therefore remains FINAL with respect to the originally noted claims deemed to read on the elected species. Also, upon further review, the additional claims withdrawn here were found to not be part of the species of Fig. 1-4b, as they all either have structure not shown therein or structure that would be mutually exclusive with the structure already established in Fig. 1a-4b. If Applicant has arguments related to these newly withdrawn claims, those arguments are still welcome.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the additional figures 9-16 added on 9/20/2024 were not entered then. This was due to new matter issues since they are directed to specific structural components and arrangements not originally supported by the drawings and/or specification. The specification is not so specific as to support the exact configuration and location of these components as in the added drawings, nor their specific engagement with the prior structure.
It is also noted that “at least one expanding frame” is not found in the drawings, instead only one frame being shown. This leads to issues of how and where any additional frames would be incorporated into the existing structure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 18 recite the term “monolithic” only in the preamble. It is unclear if this is meant to be a limitation, and if it is meant to be a limitation, it is unclear how the two parts of a frame and mesh would be formed monolithically, especially since the frame is stated to have a plurality of wires and therefore not be monolithic.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the double coronal-root reinforcing part comprises at least one expanding frame and a mesh coronal-root frame positioned in the root and coronal parts”. This makes it seem that the root part and coronal parts are structures and the expanding frame and mesh are also structures inside of those. However, the specification and figures seem to only show the frame and mesh. The claim makes it seem like there are four structures as recited, while the specification and drawings make it seem like there are the two structures. It is therefore unclear what the distinction between these limitations are, if they are directed to the same structure, or different structures. It is suggested to further define the root part and coronal parts by the structure thereof, rather than adding additional structure that seems to be referring to the same already established.
Additionally with respect to claim 1, “comprises at least one expanding frame” is unclear in how more than one frame could be utilized in the invention, since the drawings all show only 1 frame.
Finally with respect to claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the at least one expanding frame is directed by its wider part to an end part of the dental restorative material part which is farthest from the root part of the double coronal-root reinforcing part.” The language “directed by its wider part to an end part” in particular is unclear as to how a part directs to a different part and which end the end part is referring to.
Claim 4 recites “the wires of the at least one expanding frame are connected by their ends in the root part of the double coronal-root reinforcing part such that they form the wider part”. It is unclear how the ends of the wires can be both connected and form the wider part, while also being in both the root part and coronal part. It appears instead of “they form the wider part”, Applicant may have meant “the other ends opposite thereto form the wider part” or something to that effect.
Claim 18 is rejected similarly to claim 1, including that it is unclear if root part, coronal part, and mesh coronal-root frame are the same or different structures.
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.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scharf.
Scharf shows a lightweight durable monolithic bend-resistant dental prosthesis intended for restoring a tooth (Fig. 7 for instance), the prosthesis comprising: a double coronal-root reinforcing part having a root part corresponding to a root part of the tooth to be restored (lower part of Fig. 6) and a coronal part corresponding to a coronal part of the tooth to be restored (upper part of Fig. 6), and a dental restorative material part corresponding to the coronal part of the tooth to be restored (40 in Fig. 7), wherein the dental restorative material part encapsulates the coronal part of the double coronal-root reinforcing part (shown encapsulating in Fig. 7), wherein the double coronal-root reinforcing part comprises a mesh coronal-root frame positioned in the root and coronal parts of the double coronal-root reinforcing part (woven hollow rope 20/38 is equivalent to a mesh, which is defined by Merriam-Webster as “material made of a network of wire or thread; an interlaced structure”). With respect to claim 19, wherein at least part of the double coronal-root reinforcing part is made of one of metal, non-metal and a combination of metal and non-metal materials (non-metal materials of fiberglass or ceramic for instance).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejoinder and arguments relating thereto will be revisited upon allowance of any claims in the future once all drawing, specification, and 112 issues have been resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 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.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772