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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 15, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, 7-14 and 16-17 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “substantially trapezoid,” “substantially equally,” “substantially parallel,” or “substantially perpendicular” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, it is unclear from the claims or specification what would and would not be considered “substantially trapezoid,” “substantially equal,” “substantially parallel,” or “substantially perpendicular.”
All other claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 (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.
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 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grobbee (EP 3235469, see original document provided 9/27/2024) in view of Jung et al. (US 2015/0111172 A1, hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding Claim 1, Grobbee teaches a prosthetic tooth (Figure 6A, 301) for a denture (102, and described in col. 2 lines 13-14) where the tooth comprises a lingual or palatal surface (left side of Fig. 6A), an opposing vestibular surface (right side of Fig. 6A), opposing proximal surfaces (see Fig. 5A, the teeth have opposing sides connecting the lingual and vestibular surface), an incisal or occlusal surface (top of Fig. 6A) and an opposing apical surface (where 301 meets 102), where a pocket or slot (Figure 6A, 305) is defined in the apical surface([0019 lines 5-6]). Grobbee further discloses that the pocket or slot (305) has an open end facing the apical surface of the tooth (the open end is the cavity forming pocket or slot 305, which is facing towards the apical surface of the tooth, towards denture base 102) and an opposing planar end defined in the tooth (Fig. 6A shows a planar upper end of pocket 305).
Grobbee discloses the invention substantially as claimed and discloses that the end of the pocket or slot defined in the tooth is substantially rectangular (Grobbee teaches the post 106 mates with the shape of the pocket or slot 305 as a male and female connection [col. 5 lines 5-8]. Grobbee teaches the post may be rectangular [col. 2 lines 26-27, claim 12], therefore the mating pocket or slot is rectangular), but does not specifically teach that the pocket or slot is substantially trapezoid.
In the same art of dental implants, Jung teaches a dental prosthesis (Figure 2a, 5) with a pocket that is substantially trapezoidal (see Figure 2A, where the pocket is represented with dashed lines but not labeled). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the prosthetic tooth of Grobbee with sloped sides creating a substantially trapezoid shape of the pocket or slot in order to provide a shape that is easily mated and positioned during installation.
Regarding Claim 2, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the apical surface is curved (Fig. 6 shows a curved surface of the tooth at areas 304 and 501). Additionally, [0016 and col. 4 lines 49-51] teaches that the apical surface should match with the denture base, which is curved as seen for example in Figs. 2 and 6A).
Regarding Claim 3, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the tooth (Figure 6A, 301) has proximal surfaces at opposing sides of the tooth and the pocket or slot is positioned substantially equally between the proximal surfaces of the tooth (As seen in Fig. 6A, the pocket 305 is placed substantially equally between of the two sides of the tooth as it spans across the middle of the tooth, see line AA in Fig. 5a).
Regarding Claim 5, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the end of the pocket or slot defined in the tooth is substantially parallel with the incisal or occlusal surface of the tooth (as seen in Fig. 6A, the end of the pocket or slot 105 is substantially parallel to the occlusal surface of tooth 301).
Regarding Claim 8, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the pocket or slot (Figure 6A, 305) has a length substantially perpendicular to its width and the length of the slot is greater than its width (as set forth above, Grobbee teaches a rectangular shape [col. 2 lines 26-27, claim 12]. A rectangular shape is defined by a length perpendicular to a width, with one being longer than the other).
Regarding Claim 9, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the pocket or slot (305) has a longitudinal axis parallel to its length extending from adjacent the vestibular surface of the tooth to adjacent the lingual or palatal surface (The longitudinal axis of the slot can be seen as running parallel to the top surface of the post 106, illustrated by a solid line within the slot 305. The axis runs from the right to left of Fig. 6A which as set forth previously in claim 1 is the vestibular and lingual surfaces).
Regarding Claim 10, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the pocket or slot (305) is defined in only the apical surface of the tooth (See Fig. 6A, the pocket or slot is defined by shoulders 304 on each side, the shoulders defining the apical surface of the tooth which contact denture 102 [0016]. Further claim 8 sets forth that the shoulder 304 meets with the denture base 102, resulting in a slot 305 only in the apical surface of the tooth 301).
Regarding Claim 12, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses a set of teeth comprising a plurality of teeth according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 2 and described in [0006]).
Regarding Claim 13, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 12 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that comprises upper and/or lower teeth (Figs. 1A and 1B show top and bottom dentures 102).
Regarding Claim 14, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 12 substantially as claimed, and Grobbee further discloses that the set of teeth comprises one or more of central, lateral, cuspid, first bicuspid, second bicuspid, first molar and second molar teeth (Figs. 1A, 1B, 2 show all teeth are prosthetic teeth, which includes those claimed. [0006] teaches “a receiving pocket in a set of denture teeth having individual teeth,” teaching that the tooth 301 as taught in Fig. 6A can be applied to a plurality of teeth).
Regarding Claim 16, Grobbee in view of Jung discloses a set of teeth comprising one or more teeth according to claim 1 (see Grobbee Figs. 1, 2 and [0006]).
Claim 17, Grobbee in view of Jung discloses a method for correctly positioning teeth (301) in a denture (102) which comprises providing one or more teeth according to claim 1 (Figs. 1, 2 and [0006] teach providing a set of teeth) and aligning the teeth ([col. 1 lines 41-48] teach how the denture base 102 and teeth 301 mate and [col. 3 lines 55-56] teach that the teeth 301 are installed. Therefore, the teeth are aligned.).
Regarding Claim 7, Grobbee in view of Jung teaches the invention according to Claim 1 substantially as claimed, but does not explicitly state wherein the pocket or slot has a width equal to about one third of the distance between the proximal surfaces of the tooth.
However, as applicant has simply listed that this parameter is “preferable” [spec. page 5 lines 32-33], and does not solve any particular problem nor provide any unexpected results, this parameter is deemed one of arbitrary design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to cause the device of Grobbee in view of Jung to include wherein the pocket or slot (305, Fig. 6A) has a width equal to about one third of the distance between the proximal surfaces of the tooth (301, Fig. 6A) as doing so is an arbitrary design choice. One of ordinary artisan would be motivated to make this modification for the purpose of creating a prosthetic wall with a desired thickness, strength, form-fit, shape, and/or other preferable design outcome.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Jung in further view of Okumura (US 2019/0388198 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Grobbee in view of Jung discloses the tooth according to claim 1, but is silent wherein the pocket or slot extends through the lingual or palatal surface of the tooth.
Okumura discloses a denture base (100, Figs. 11A-11B) with a post (122)[0161 lines 3-5] that connects to an artificial tooth (200, Figs. 12A-12B)[0161 lines 6-7] with a slot (210, Fig. 12B), wherein the slot (210) extends through the lingual surface of the tooth (Fig. 12B)[0161 lines 9-11].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the pocket or slot 305 of Grobbee in view of Jung to extend through the lingual surface as taught by Okumura for the purpose of including an additional mechanical mechanism as taught by Okumura. One of ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification as Okumura discloses the slot (Okumura 210) in the lingual surface allows for an additional mechanical fit between the artificial tooth and the denture plate [Okumura 0161 lines 11-14, 0163] and Grobbee teaches that modifications to control the retention strength of the prosthetic (301 Grobbee) are desirable [Grobbee col. 4 lines 2-10, col. 5 lines 7-12].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 16-17 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. A new rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. 103 relying on Grobbee in view of Jung is outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772