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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 3-17, and 57, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Slone (US 5,318,446) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Slone in view of Dragan (US 4,704,087).
Regarding claim 1, Slone discloses a method for the restoration of a first tooth 5 having an original shape including a top surface and an interproximal surface 15 facing an adjacent second tooth 6 (see Fig. 4; column 3 line 65 – column 4 line 5)
The method comprises:
(a) removing a portion 12 of the top surface of the first tooth 5 and a portion (toward 15) of the interproximal surface of the first tooth 5 to form a hollow cavity preparation 7; the cavity preparation 7 extends from the top surface of the interproximal surface of the first tooth 5 (see Fig. 4);
(b) surrounding the removed portion 12 of the interproximal surface 15 of the first tooth 5 with a matrix 180, the matrix 180 being positioned within an interproximal space 15 between the first tooth 5and the second tooth 6 (Fig. 4; column 4 lines 63-68 “matrix band 180 is then placed between the tooth 5… and a companion tooth 6”);
(c) moving the matrix 180 away from the hollow cavity preparation 7 toward the second tooth 6 using a first arm 50 and a second arm 50 of a dental tool 10 that simultaneously contact (at convex surfaces 20 of arms 50) an inner surface of the matrix 180, the inner surface of the matrix 180 being located within the interproximal space between the first tooth 5 and the second tooth 6 (Fig. 4; column 5 lines 2-36 “fingers 50 engage the axial wall so that the convex surface 20 is in contact with the companion tooth 6 through the matrix band 180”).
(e) injecting a light-curable composite resin 200 into the cavity preparation 7 (Fig. 4); and (f) light curing the composite resin contained in the cavity preparation (Fig. 4; column 4 lines 45-46 “light curing of a filler material 200”).
Regarding step (d), note that, under 102, Slone discloses step (d) bonding a section of the matrix 180, i.e. at wedge 190, to the first tooth 5 (Fig. 4, column 4 lines 65-68 “wedge 190 is placed under the matrix band 180 to support the matrix band 180 against the tooth 5). Note that “bonding” allows for broadest reasonable interpretation of “to connect” or “to join” (www.dictionary.com). As such, Slone describes wedge 190 support the matrix band 180 against tooth 5, thereby effectively bond, i.e. connect/join, matrix 180 to tooth 5.
Alternatively, under 103, Dragan discloses securing the matrix in place by wedges or bonding a first/buccal section 10B and a second/lingual section 10B of the matrix 10 to the tooth Fig. 3 (see Dragan, Fig. 3; column 2 lines 21-25 “the matrix is secured in place by one or two wedge shaped pins disposed normal thereto and/or by a small cotton pellet or bead of light cured bonding material disposed on the Buccal and Lingual portions of the matrix band”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slone by securing the matrix in place by bonding a buccal section and a lingual section of the matrix 10 to the tooth using a bead of light cured bonding material as explicitly taught by Dragan as an alternative suitable bonding mechanism to effectively secure the matrix in place to the tooth.
As to claim 3, Slone discloses step (c) comprising moving the matrix 180 away from the hollow cavity preparation 7/120 toward and until the matrix 180 contacts the second tooth 6 using a dental tool 10 (Fig. 4; column 5 lines 2-36 “fingers 50 engage the axial wall so that the convex surface 20 is in contact with the companion tooth 6 through the matrix band 180”).
As to claims 4-6, Dragan discloses securing the matrix in place by wedges or bonding a first/buccal section and a second/lingual section of the matrix 10 to the tooth Fig. 3 (see Dragan, Fig. 3; column 2 lines 21-25 “the matrix is secured in place by one or two wedge shaped pins disposed normal thereto and/or by a small cotton pellet or bead of light cured bonding material disposed on the Buccal and Lingual portions of the matrix band”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slone by securing the matrix in place by bonding a buccal section and a lingual section of the matrix 10 to the tooth using a bead of light cured bonding material as explicitly taught by Dragan as an alternative suitable bonding mechanism to effectively secure the matrix in place to the tooth.
As to claims 7-8, Dragan shows the matrix having a third/middle/interproximal section 10A that is to be positioned on the interproximal side of tooth and is bonded to the tooth by being supported wedges 11 (see Dragan Figs. 3-4; column 2 lines 21-25 “the matrix is secured in place by one or two wedge shaped pins disposed normal thereto”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slone by bonding a third/interproximal section of the matrix to the tooth in order to effectively secure the matrix to the tooth as taught by Dragan.
As to claim 9, Slone discloses step (c) comprising moving the matrix 180 away from the hollow cavity preparation 7/120 toward and until the matrix 180 contacts the second tooth 6 using a dental tool 10 (Fig. 4; column 5 lines 2-36 “fingers 50 engage the axial wall so that the convex surface 20 is in contact with the companion tooth 6 through the matrix band 180”).
As to claims 10-11, Slone discloses the placing a light curable resin tooth bonding agent 8/177 before injecting the light-curable composite resin 200 (Figs. 4-5; column 4 lines 50-62 “pulpal floor 8 may be built-up with filler material 200… and hardened so that a step 177 may be prepared in the pulpal floor 8”)
As to claim 12, Slone discloses a pre-wedging step including inserting a wedge 190 pre-operatively between the interproximal surface of the first tooth 5 and an interproximal surface of the second tooth 6 (Figs. 4-5).
As to claims 13-15, Dragan discloses a single and seamless cured layer of composite resin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slone by injecting a single layer of composite resin only as taught by Dragan in order to produce a single and seamless cured layer of composite resin.
As to claim 17, note that Slone discloses step (d) securing the matrix against the tooth 5 using a wedge before step (c ) moving the matrix 180 away from tooth 5 using tool 10.
As to claim 16, Slone is silent to the step (d) moving the matrix away from the tooth occurring before step (c). Nonetheless, such step (d) involving adjusting the matrix away from the tooth to form a circular band surrounding the tooth would have been naturally carried out before finalizing the position and securing the matrix in place.
As to claim 57, Slone discloses the tool 10 having arms 50 positioned bucally-lingually against the matrix at the interproximal portion, spreading open the matrix buccally and lingually to expand the matrix 180 bucally and lingually(see Slone Figs. 4-6).
5. Claims 29-43 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Slone in view of Dragan, and further in view of Mishaeloff (2019/0201165).
Regarding claims 29-43, Slone/Dragan discloses the method as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 3-17 and 57. However, particularly to claims 29 and 32, regarding the features that the matrix includes a cutaway, Slone/Dragan silent to injecting a composite through the cutaway. Mishaeloff discloses a matrix 10 including a cutaway 28 (Fig. 1A), or matrix 10’ including two cutaways 128 (Fig. 10A); the cutaway 28 and 128 are directed into an edge of the matrix wherein composite material is injected through the cutaway 28 or 128 for bonding the matrix 10, 10’ to the tooth (paragraph [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slone/Dragan by injecting a composite resin through the cutaway so as to effectively and precisely inject the composite resin to bond the matrix to the tooth as explicitly taught by Mishaeloff.
6. Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Slone in view of Dragan, and further in view of Clark (US 2008/0064012).
Regarding claim 59, Slone/Dragandiscloses the method as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. However, particularly to claim 59, Slone/Dragan fails to disclose the hollow cavity preparation being saucer shaped when viewed from the top view.
Clark discloses a method for restoration of a tooth comprising the step of removing a portion of the top surface of the tooth to form a hollow cavity preparation 18 having a saucer shape (Fig. 3 paragraph [064 “preparation 18 of Fig. 3 is saucer shaped when viewed from above”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Slone/Dragan by forming the hollow cavity preparation into a saucer shape as taught by Clark to be a suitable alternative and rather an optimum shape for such hollow cavity preparation in order to achieve optimum and most aesthetic dental restoration.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 44 and 55 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments regarding the claim amendment have been fully considered and are persuasive as having overcome the ground(s) of rejection under Nugiel. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Slone and Dragan as detailed above. Applicant’s remarks are held to be responded to in the above ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
9. 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 HAO D MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cris Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 272-4964. 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.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772