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 .
Claims 18 and 20-25 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 18, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. (US 2008/0142183), hereinafter Marshall.
Regarding claims 18, 21, and 25, Marshall discloses a dental ceramics production device comprising: (a) a CAD/CAM device for providing a pressing mold for manufacturing a dental ceramics (par. 0051-0055 describe the computer and the functionalities as to make a ‘sprue former’ which is equivalent to the “pressing mold for manufacturing a dental ceramics”); (b) a CAD software module executed by the CAD/CAM device above that is configured to:
(i) determine the shape of a dental restoration, based on a scanning result of a mouth of a patient (par. 0005, 0064); (ii) determine the configuration of the dental restoration using an ‘expendable muffle’ which is known in the art as a dental furnace; however, this claim is directed at the design so it is interpreted as a “virtual muffle” (par. 0075; compare Applicant’s Fig. 3 showing “muffle arbor” 18 and reference Fig. 25 showing a similar base); (iii) determine the arrangement of an angle and dimensions of a conveyor channel between a central pressing channel and a cavity for shaping the dental restoration inside a virtual inside space within the muffle (Figs. 27-28, and additionally is wider at the outside than at the inside as in claim 21 as shown in Fig. 25) where the conveyor channel extends at an “angle of 0 degrees” away from an axis of a pressing channel (Fig. 26 – D1 represents both of the conveyor channel and the pressing channel – shown attached in Figs. 24-25); (iv) determine a work angle (represented by the angle between D1/D2 and D1/D3 in Figs. 27-28) of the dental restoration in relation to a conveyor channel axis of the associated conveyor channel, with a docking site positioned at the thickest portion of the dental restoration (Fig. 26 shows D1 at the thickest portion of the restoration and has its largest possible length, as shown in Fig. 25; par. 0098-0101), such that the conveyor channel axis extends through the thickest portion of the dental restoration (Figs. 24-25 and 26-28); and based on a pre-set library of shapes of dental restorations (par. 0052) as in claim 25.
Marshall further discloses that the docking site has a ball (2318) of a diameter suitable to fit within the restoration (at 2352) (Fig. 25, par. 0101), with the conveyor channel axis extends essentially through the center of the ball as illustrated in Fig. 25-26, par. 0098-0101).
Regarding claims 23-24, Marshall discloses the subject matter of claim 18 as discussed above, and further discloses using an a layerwise manufacturing step, thus meeting this limitation, and would be capable of using the CAD system above to produce a dental restoration having any slope of an “envelope curve” (Marshall above, par. 0076 discusses the layerwise manufacturing, suitable as stereolithography) defining the outside of each of the restorations.
Claim 24 is an intended use as the claim recites “uses” – and is an apparatus/device claim and as such, this is not considered limiting. See MPEP 2114 where this is further discussed. The device as disclosed by Marshall above would have been capable of performing this step, without modification. Additionally or alternatively, please see below.
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 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US 2008/0142183) as applied to claim 18 above, and in view of Marshall et al. (US 2009/0148816), hereinafter Marshall (‘816).
Regarding claims 20 and 22-24, Marshall discloses the subject matter of claim 18 as discussed above, and further discloses using an STL file (stereolithography) thus meeting this limitation, and would be capable of using the CAD system above to produce a dental restoration having any slope of an “envelope curve”. Claim 24 is an intended use as the claim recites “uses” – and is an apparatus/device claim and as such, this is not considered limiting. See MPEP 2114 where this is further discussed. The device as disclosed by Marshall above would have been capable of performing this step as in claims 23-24 above, without modification.
However, it could be viewed that Marshall does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 23-24 above, and Marshall does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 20 and 22 (claims 20 and 22 are not included in the alternative viewpoint above).
However, Marshall (‘816) discloses a similar mode of designing a dental restoration using a CAD/CAM device. Marshall (‘816) provides more information as to how to design the device using a computer, and discloses modification of the envelope (Marshall (‘816), par. 0095 describes the margin curve (315) which is interpreted as equivalent to envelope curve defining the bounds of the restoration) and further discloses using a stereolithography mode to produce such an object (par. 0188-0204 describe the features which include similar features to claims 20, 23, and 24 with respect to designing the restoration and the curves defining the outer bounds thereof), with a design as to keep each dental restoration apart from one another in an arrangement. Furthermore, Marshall (‘816) discloses as in claim 22, placing a code or identification (Fig. 26) (‘816, par. 0154) onto a restoration as designed.
Marshall (above) discloses a “base” device upon which Marshall (‘816) can be viewed as an “improvement” in the same way as in the claimed invention in that it further describes how the processor produces the restoration in the design mode. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success from having incorporated the above techniques of Marshall (‘816) into the “base” device of Marshall (above) as to produce a dental restoration. Accordingly, 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 above to specify that the dental restoration is produced and designed in the manner as described in the claim as described above from Marshall (‘816) using the processor of Marshall (‘183) above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Marshall does not show the ball interfacing with a restoration as required in the claim.
However, Marshall, par. 0099 explains that “a casting pattern 2350” is positioned on “a first interface member 2316.” The “first interface member 2316” is further explained to be “spherical” (or a “ball” in shape) (par. 0099). A “casting pattern” represents the dental restoration and the second interface member connects the first interface member with the restoration or casting pattern in this drawing.
The claim limitations are given their BRI in view of the specification as a whole. Examiner submits that “a ball with the largest possible diameter fits into the dental restoration” is not illustrated in the specification, and so the “spherical” ball at the docking site as shown in Marshall would be considered to read upon this limitation, as it would “fit into the dental restoration” at this second interface member. See Marshall, Figs. 21-22 which show an enlarged version of what appears to be a crown (restoration) with its connected interface member. The claim does not preclude such an arrangement and does not describe this limitation in terms to interpret such as narrowly as Applicant argues. As such, the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elnajjar (US 2014/0231615) appears to show every element of Instant Fig. 5.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742