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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 14, in the last paragraph of the claim, the claim should read “side of the sleeve includes”. In claim 18, in the last paragraph, the claim should read “remainder of said sleeve”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “shaped to mate with a prepared tooth” is indefinite, as it is unclear how the crown is shaped to mate with the prepared tooth. As best understood by the Examiner, the sleeve is shaped to mate with the prepared tooth, and the crown is shaped to mate with the sleeve, and will be interpreted as such for examination (see instant specification). Clarification is required.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmann (US 2021/0177544 A1) in view of Rubbert et al (US 2013/0209961 A1) in view of Hagne et al (WO 93/13726).
Regarding claim 1, Vollmann discloses a dental restoration device (10) comprising a sleeve (14) having an exterior surface (exterior thereof) and an interior pocket (interior cavity) that is at least partially filled with a dental cement (implicitly in order to bond to stump 12, see [0044]), and a crown (16) having an exterior surface (exterior) and an interior surface (inside surface) that is mated to the exterior surface of the sleeve (see Fig. 1) [the sleeve] shaped to mate with a prepared tooth (12; as best understood by the Examiner); wherein a gingival side of the sleeve (gingival end) is configured to receive the bottom of the crown (e.g. bottom portion; gingival portion, see Fig. 1). Vollmann further discloses wherein the exterior surface of the crown (16) has an anatomical shape and the interior surface of the crown has a shape that is inverted with respect to the anatomical shape of the exterior surface of the crown (see Fig. 1; per claim 3); wherein the exterior surface of the sleeve (14) has the anatomical shape of the crown (see Fig. 1 showing crown and sleeve with the same anatomical shape, at least in part; per claim 4); wherein the interior surfaces of the crown and the interior and exterior surfaces of the sleeve have a rough texture (e.g. no smoothing or polishing of surfaces is recited; as such the Examiner interprets the surface roughness’s of the given surfaces to be “rough”, at least to some degree; per claims 5-6); wherein the sleeve includes a polymer (see [0010]-[0014]; per claim 8); wherein the sleeve has a high Young’s modulus (see [0007]-[0008], [0025], and [0029]; per claim 10); and wherein the sleeve is non-porous (material is not described as having any pores once completed and/or filled; per claim 11). Regarding claims 12-13, it is noted that the limitations stating that the crown and sleeve are products of injection molding are product by process limitations; that is the crown and sleeve are formed by injection molding. As specified in MPEP 2113 product by process limitations are not limited by the steps of the process (injection molding) but only by the structure imparted by the process. In the instant case, such structure only corresponds to a body that is formed of an injection moldable material, which Vollmann discloses (e.g. plastic/ceramic for the sleeve and ceramic for the crown, see citations above).
Vollmann however, does not teach wherein the sleeve includes a flange surrounding the bottom of the sleeve having a thickness that is equal to that of the remainer of the sleeve and configured to receive the bottom of the crown, or wherein the sleeve is at least partially translucent to light for use with a light curing dental cement as required.
Rubbert et al, however, teaches a similar dental restoration device (see Figs. 28-29) comprising a sleeve (183) and a crown (185), wherein the sleeve comprises a flange (e.g. gingival most portion of sleeve which flares outward) surrounding the bottom of the sleeve having a thickness that is equal to that of the remained of the sleeve (see thickness of flange and rest of sleeve as shown in Fig. 28) and configured to receive the bottom of the crown (see Fig. 28-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vollmann to include Rubbert’s sleeve flange, as such modification would provide and improved locking fit of the sleeve on the stump and crown on the sleeve, and improve aesthetics by having the restoration more closely follow the gum line (see Rubbert [0214]-[0219]).
Hagne et al, additionally teaches a dental restoration device where a component is formed of a material that is at least partially translucent to light such that the device can be secured to the remaining tooth with e light curing dental cement (see abstract; per claims 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the sleeve of Vollmann/Rubbert, as combined above, to include Hagne’s use of a partially translucent material and light curing cement, as such modification would improve the aesthetics of the device and improve the curing time and control thereof of the cement.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmann in view of Rubbert in view of Hagne, as combined above, further in view of Chilibeck (US 2003/0203339 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne, as combined above, does not teach that the crown includes a polymer with ceramic and/or glass particles therein as required.
Chilibeck, however, teaches a premanufactured dental device comprising a sleeve (resin) and a crown (12), wherein the crown includes a polymer with glass particles suspended therein [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne, as combined above, to include Chilibeck’s polymer with glass particles, as such modification would improve the aesthetics and bonding ability of the crown material, while reducing costs.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmann in view of Rubbert in view of Hagne, as combined above, further in view of Moszner et al (US 8466212 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne, as combined above, does not explicitly teach that the light curing dental cement has a high Young’s modulus in the cured state as required.
Moszner et al, however, teaches a dental light curable cement with a high elastic modulus when cured (see Example 4, col 13, line 38 through col. 14, line 20 and table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne, as combined above, to include Moszner’s high modulus light curable cement as such modification would improve the bond strength between the components, reducing the risk of inadvertent separation and loss of the crown.
Claims 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmann in view of Rubbert in view of Hagne further in view of McDonald et al (US 2011/0117524 A1) and Beveridge (US 2014/0113250 A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Vollmann discloses a dental restoration device (10) comprising a sleeve (14) having an exterior surface (exterior thereof) and an interior pocket (interior cavity) that is at least partially filled with a dental cement (implicitly in order to bond to stump 12, see [0044]), and a crown (16) having an exterior surface (exterior) and an interior surface (inside surface) that is mated to the exterior surface of the sleeve (see Fig. 1) [the sleeve] shaped to mate with a prepared tooth (12; as best understood by the Examiner); wherein a gingival side of the sleeve (gingival end) is configured to receive the bottom of the crown (e.g. bottom portion; gingival portion, see Fig. 1).
Vollmann however, does not teach wherein the sleeve includes a flange surrounding the bottom of the sleeve having a thickness that is equal to that of the remainer of the sleeve and configured to receive the bottom of the crown, or wherein the sleeve is at least partially translucent to light for use with a light curing dental cement, or a wherein the sleeve and crown are arranged as part of a kit organized by tooth type, size and shade as required.
Rubbert et al, however, teaches a similar dental restoration device (see Figs. 28-29) comprising a sleeve (183) and a crown (185), wherein the sleeve comprises a flange (e.g. gingival most portion of sleeve which flares outward) surrounding the bottom of the sleeve having a thickness that is equal to that of the remained of the sleeve (see thickness of flange and rest of sleeve as shown in Fig. 28) and configured to receive the bottom of the crown (see Fig. 28-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vollmann to include Rubbert’s sleeve flange, as such modification would provide and improved locking fit of the sleeve on the stump and crown on the sleeve, and improve aesthetics by having the restoration more closely follow the gum line (see Rubbert [0214]-[0219]).
Hagne et al, additionally teaches a dental restoration device where a component is formed of a material that is at least partially translucent to light of a particular spectrum such that the device can be secured to the remaining tooth with e light curing dental cement (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the sleeve of Vollmann/Rubbert, as combined above, to include Hagne’s use of a partially translucent material and light curing cement, as such modification would improve the aesthetics of the device and improve the curing time and control thereof of the cement.
McDonald, however, teaches providing a kit of prefabricated dental crowns (see [0039]), comprising: a plurality of prefabricated dental crowns of different tooth type and size (14); and a plurality of prefabricated sleeves (12), each of which is associated with a corresponding crown of the plurality of prefabricated dental crowns as required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne, as combined above, to include McDonald’s teaching of providing sleeve and crowns as a kit, as such modification would allow a practitioner to quickly select the appropriately sized and/or shaped components, and provide ease of distribution and shipping of the products.
Beveridge, however, teaches a kit of hundreds of tooth outer surface components and/or crowns which are organized by different shapes (type), sizes and shades (see Figs. 3 and 10-13, abstract, [0008], [0027]-[0028], [0039]-[0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne/McDonald, as combined above, to include Beveridge’s teaching of organizing the kit by shape, size and shade, as such modification would provide an efficient means for viewing and accessing the parts of the kit, and provide improved customization and aesthetics of the finished product.
Regarding claim 15, Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne/McDonald/Beveridge, as combined above, teaches wherein multiples sizes and shades of each tooth shape can be provided, including molars (see citations above of both McDonald and Beveridge), and wherein the kit can comprise “hundreds” of crowns (Beveridge, citations above), but does not explicitly teach wherein crowns for molars include five different shapes and three different colors, providing 15 different molar crowns as required. However, the Examiner notes that the specific number of options of shades, sizes and shapes of the crowns is a result effective variable, lacking any criticality, dependent on the desired size and expense of the kit. Additionally Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne/McDonald/Beveridge contemplates providing multiple sizes, shapes and shades of each tooth crown, numbering in the hundreds of total options (see above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the kit of Vollmann/Rubbert/Hagne/McDonald/Beveridge, as combined above, to include dental crowns for molars with five different shapes and three different shades, so as to have 15 different molar crowns, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights