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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 9-20, and 22-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ruppert (DE 102017113814-A1; translation from Espacenet provided with previous office action) in view of Hasan (US 20200261192, effectively filed 02/15/2019).
Regarding Claim 1, Ruppert discloses a prosthetic tooth (prosthetic tooth 2) for a denture (dental prosthesis 5), wherein the prosthetic tooth (prosthetic tooth 2) comprises a lingual or palatal surface, an opposing vestibular surface, opposing proximal surfaces (these four surfaces are the side surfaces of the prosthetic teeth 2), an incisal or occlusal surface (coronal side 3) and an opposing apical surface (basal side 4), wherein two, three, or four projections (Figures 5a and 5b show 2-4 projections extending from the surface of the tooth) extend from the apical and/or the palatal or lingual surface of the prosthetic tooth (Figures 5a and 5b show the projections extending from the basal side which is at the root of the tooth which is the apical surface as defined in the instant application; Figure 5b also shows a projection coming of at least one side of a tooth root) for positioning the surface adjacent to the projection from a denture base (Figures 5a and 5b; ¶0019 specifically states “projections are provided on the roots of the prosthetic teeth and/or in the tooth sockets” of the prosthetic base; the projections are present to position the surface of the prosthetic tooth at the appropriate distance from the surface of the denture base, ¶0018; the projections can also correspond to sockets on the denture base in order to further assist with positioning, ¶0028; the protrusions can also be used for positioning the prosthetic teeth in the denture base, including spacing and also the cooperation of the protrusions with the sockets on the denture base), wherein each projection extends 40µm to 500µm from the surface of the prosthetic tooth (translation ¶0025 and 0027 disclose that the preferred adhesive gap width is 0.1-0.2 mm, or 100-200 µm and that the projection height corresponds to the desired adhesive gap, therefore the preferred projection height or distance the projection extends from the surface of the prosthetic tooth is 0.1-0.2 mm, or more if the protrusion cooperates with a socket such that the socket depth must be added to the protrusion height to maintain the desired adhesive gap).
Ruppert discloses that the height or length of the protrusions or projections is based on the desired adhesive gap, but may not explicitly disclose that the projections are all of the same length or extension.
However, Hasan, in the same field of endeavor of dentures (abstract), teaches a denture base with two to four projections (prominences 215a,b and 225 a,b; ¶0057) all of the same length (¶ 0063 teaches prominences of the same surface (lingual-basal or buccal-basal) may be the same height and ¶ 0066 teaches that prominences on the two surfaces can match, including being the same height; Figure 6A shows prominences 215a and 225a of the same height, see ¶ 0028) extending from the surface that abuts the apical surface of a prosthetic tooth (the lingual-basal surface of the tooth socket in the denture base, such as where prominences 215a,b are shown) and the surface that abuts the lingual or palatal side of the prosthetic tooth (the buccal-basal surface of the tooth socket in the denture base, such as where prominences 225a,b are shown) for positioning the prosthetic tooth relative to the denture base (¶ 0074), wherein each projection extends 40-500 µm (¶0061 teaches height is 25-500 µm and more preferably is 50-250 µm). Hasan teaches that it is known for the projections to aid in the coupling of prosthetic teeth and denture bases to be all the same length or height or to be different lengths or heights (¶ 0066; Figures 6A and 6B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthetic tooth as taught by Ruppert to have the projections all have the same length as taught by Hasan, as Hasan teaches it is known and obvious to try the projections all having the same length or being different lengths, the decision of which may depend on the patient specific design.
Regarding Claim 7, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above.
Ruppert further teaches wherein each projection extends 100 µm to 200 µm from the apical and/or the palatal or lingual surface (translation ¶0025 and 0027 disclose that the preferred adhesive gap width is 0.1-0.2 mm, or 100-200 µm and that the projection height corresponds to the desired adhesive gap).
Hasan similarly further teaches wherein each projection extends 100 µm to 200 µm from the apical and/or the palatal or lingual surface ((¶0061 teaches a preferred height of 50-250 µm, which completely contains the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 9, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Hasan teaches the projections can take a variety of shapes (¶ 0060) and can have widths between 25 µm and 10 mm (¶ 0062), but does not explicitly teach the base area of the projections. Similarly, Ruppert does not explicitly disclose wherein each projection has a base adjoining the apical and/or the palatal or lingual surface of the prosthetic tooth and the base of the projection has an area of 0.2mm2 to 6mm2.
However, ¶0049 Ruppert does teach that the contact surface of the projections is a maximum of 0.2 mm2. Since the contact surface of the projection is the smallest part of the projection (see the Figures and the disclosed possible shapes of Ruppert), the base of a projection with a contact surface of 0.2 mm2 must be 0.2 mm2 or larger. Therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the claimed range for the area of the base of the projections. See MPEP 2144.05.
Hasan further supports that the smallest part of the projection would be the contact surface (see Figures 5A-H for possible prominences shapes).
Regarding Claim 10, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches wherein one or more projections are semi spherical, frusto spherical or are defined by the shape of a dome or spherical segment (translation ¶0053 lists proposed shapes for the projections and includes spheres and spherical segments).
Regarding Claim 11, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches wherein one or more projections are cylindrical (translation ¶0053 lists proposed shapes for the projections and includes cylinders).
Regarding Claim 12, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches wherein the end of the projection distant from the base of the projection is semi spherical, frusto spherical or is defined by the shape of a dome or spherical segment (translation ¶0053 lists proposed shapes for the projections and includes spheres or spherical segments, the ends of which would be also defined by such a shape).
Regarding Claim 13, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches wherein one or more projections are cuboid, or defined by a square or rectangular frusto pyramid (translation ¶0053 lists proposed shapes for the projections and includes rectangular bodies and rectangular bodies with varied cross-sections along the height).
Regarding Claim 14, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches discloses wherein a plurality of projections having the same (Figure 5a shows a tooth 2 with two projections 37 with the same shape) or different three dimensional shapes (Figure 5b shows a tooth 2 with four projections of two different shapes – three of projection 48 and one of projection 49) is provided.
Hasan also further teaches the plurality of projections having the same or different three dimensional shapes (¶ 0060, 0066).
Regarding Claim 15, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 14, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches wherein each projection is spaced apart from adjacent projections so that, in use, adjacent to the projections, the surface of the tooth is uniformly or evenly spaced from the surface of a denture base (¶0099 discloses calculating the projections on the root of the prosthetic tooth to space the tooth and the tooth socket of the base apart and maintain the adhesive gap).
Hasan also supports the projections being spaced apart (¶ 0064-0065) and the prosthetic tooth being evenly spaced from the surface of a denture base (¶0061, 0074).
Regarding Claim 16, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches a set of teeth comprising a plurality of prosthetic teeth (¶0019 discloses a dental prosthesis with several prosthetic teeth with projections, so those “several prosthetic teeth” are a set of teeth). Therefore it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a set of teeth comprising a plurality of the teeth taught by Ruppert with the projections all being the same size as taught by Hasan, in order to provide teeth for a denture with multiple tooth sockets.
Regarding Claim 17, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 16, as presented above. Ruppert teaches providing a plurality of teeth (¶ 0019). Hasan teaches that full and partial dentures for upper (maxillary) and/or lower (mandibular) teeth are known (¶ 0047). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a set of prosthetic teeth as taught by Ruppert and Hasan to fill the tooth sockets of a full or partial denture for upper and/or lower teeth and thus the set of teeth would comprise one or more upper and/or lower teeth.
Regarding Claim 18, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 16, as presented above. Ruppert teaches providing a plurality of teeth (¶ 0019). Hasan teaches that the prosthetic teeth provided for a denture should be suitable to the location and tooth type (¶0047). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a set of prosthetic teeth as taught by Ruppert and Hasan to fill the tooth sockets of a full or partial denture with the appropriate prosthetic tooth type, thus the set of teeth would comprise one or more central, lateral, first bicuspid, second bicuspid, first molar, and second molar teeth.
Regarding Claim 19, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches a denture comprising a prosthetic tooth according to claim 1 (¶0019 discloses a denture base with several prosthetic teeth with projections on the roots of the prosthetic teeth). Therefore it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a denture comprising at least one prosthetic tooth taught by Ruppert with the projections all being the same size as taught by Hasan.
Regarding Claim 20, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches a method for manufacturing a prosthetic tooth which can be applied to the prosthetic tooth taught by Ruppert and Hasan (¶0019; Figure 9; flow diagram on original document page 13 with translation from Google below), which comprises the step of:
moulding the prosthetic tooth having at least one projection extending from the surface of the prosthetic tooth;
milling the prosthetic tooth (milling machine 86; ¶0100) so that at least one projection extends from the surface of the prosthetic tooth (¶0099); or
three dimensional printing the prosthetic tooth (¶0090) having at least one projection extending from the surface of the prosthetic tooth (¶0099]).
Regarding Claim 22, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert further teaches a method for manufacturing a prosthetic tooth for correctly positioning and bonding teeth in a denture which comprises (a) providing one or more prosthetic teeth with projections and a denture base and bonding the prosthetic teeth with the denture base (flow diagram on page 13 of the original document; translation from Google Translate provided below). This method does not vary depending on the length of the projections, therefore it can also be applied to the prosthetic tooth taught by Ruppert and Hasan.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translation (via Google) of flow chart on page 13 of Ruppert.
Regarding Claim 23, Ruppert and Hasan teach the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert and Hasan may not explicitly teach each projection extending specifically 120 µm from the surface of the prosthetic tooth. However, Ruppert does teach the projections being preferably 100 to 200 µm (paragraphs [0070] and [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the prosthetic tooth of Ruppert by making the length of the projection 120 µm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. More specifically, Hasan is now relied upon to teach the newly added limitation that the projections are all the same length.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 regarding claim 9 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that if the contact surface of the projection is 0.2 square mm that does not necessarily mean that the base of the projection has an area of 0.2-6 square mm. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the projections are all shown and described as being smallest at their contact surface, therefore the place where the projection joins the base must be at least that area, overlapping the claimed range for the area. Projections with a small tip or with a consistent size the whole height are disclosed by Ruppert. The newly relied upon reference Hasan further supports that the contact surface of the projection, which is furthest from where the projection base joins the surface the projection extends from, would be the smallest and the base would be larger. Furthermore, 0.2-6 square mm is a large range relative to the size of a prosthetic tooth.
Conclusion
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 Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 3 pm ET.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
10/8/2026
