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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10-16, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruppert (DE 102017113814-A1; translation from Espacenet provided with previous office action).
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; paragraph [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, paragraph [0018]; the projections can also correspond to sockets on the denture base in order to further assist with positioning, paragraph [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 paragraphs [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).
Regarding Claim 7, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above, and further discloses wherein each projection extends 100 µm to 200 µm from the apical and/or the palatal or lingual surface (translation paragraphs [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).
Regarding Claim 10, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above, and further discloses wherein one or more projections are semi spherical, frusto spherical or are defined by the shape of a dome or spherical segment (translation paragraph [0053] lists proposed shapes for the projections and includes spheres and spherical segments).
Regarding Claim 11, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above, and further discloses wherein one or more projections are cylindrical (translation paragraph [0053] lists proposed shapes for the projections and includes cylinders).
Regarding Claim 12, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above, and further discloses, 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 paragraph [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 discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above, and further discloses wherein one or more projections are cuboid, or defined by a square or rectangular frusto pyramid (translation paragraph [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 discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above, and further discloses wherein a plurality of projections having the same (Figure 5a shows a tooth2 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.
Regarding Claim 15, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 14, as presented above, and further discloses 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 (paragraph [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).
Regarding Claim 16, Ruppert discloses a set of teeth comprising a plurality of teeth according to claim 1 (paragraph [0019] discloses a dental prosthesis with several prosthetic teeth according to instant application claim 1, so those “several prosthetic teeth” are a set of teeth).
Regarding Claim 19, Ruppert discloses a denture comprising a prosthetic tooth according to claim 1 (paragraph [0019] discloses a denture base with several prosthetic teeth with projections on the roots of the prosthetic teeth).
Regarding Claim 20, Ruppert discloses a method for manufacturing the prosthetic tooth of claim 1 (paragraph [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; paragraph [0100]) so that at least one projection extends from the surface of the prosthetic tooth (paragraph [0099]); or
three dimensional printing the prosthetic tooth (paragraph [0090]) having at least one projection extending from the surface of the prosthetic tooth(paragraph [0099]).
Regarding Claim 22, Ruppert discloses a method for correctly positioning and bonding teeth in a denture which comprises (a) providing one or more prosthetic teeth of claim 1 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translation (via Google) of flow chart on page 13 of Ruppert.
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 9, 17, 18, and 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. 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, in paragraph [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), 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.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Ruppert discloses the set of teeth according to claim 16, as presented above. Ruppert does not explicitly state the set of teeth including teeth for specific jaws (upper or lower as in instant application Claim 17) or specific types of teeth (central, lateral, cuspid, first bicuspid, second bicuspid, first molar and second molar teeth as in instant application Claim 18).
However it would be obvious to include such teeth in the set of teeth depending on where the dentures or partial dentures are intended to be used in the patient’s mouth. Ruppert teaches that fabricated teeth are typically adapted to the patient’s specific oral situation (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included upper or lower teeth and specific types of teeth in the set of teeth depending on the patient’s specific needs.
Regarding Claim 23, Ruppert discloses the prosthetic tooth according to claim 1, as presented above. Ruppert may not disclose each projection extending specifically 120 µm from the surface of the prosthetic tooth. However, Ruppert does disclose 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 filed 07/14/2025 and requested for continued examination on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, the applicant argues on page 7 of their remarks that no specific height is cited by Ruppert for the projections in Figure 5B. However Ruppert does state in paragraph 82 about the embodiment shown in Figure 5B, line 938: "In this embodiment, the width of the adhesive gap 20 is therefore determined by the heights of the projections 48 and 49." The preferred height of the adhesive gap disclosed by Ruppert in paragraph 25 applies to all embodiments presented, as the embodiments vary in locations and shapes of protrusions, not in the desired adhesive gap, which is determined based on the heights of projections. Therefore each projection does extend the adhesive gap, which is stated as being between 0.05 mm and 1.5 mm and such a preferred adhesive gap applies to all embodiments disclosed.
Regarding the further argument that two of the projections shown in Figure 5B extend beyond the width of the adhesive gap, paragraph 27 of Ruppert provides for the option of a depression being present in the tooth socket of the denture base such that the height of the projection would then be the adhesive gap size plus the depression depth. This is stated and shown as only being an option and not required. Additionally, as seen in Figure 5B, the depression depth is smaller than the protrusion height, so even if the optional depressions were present, the protrusion height would still fall within the claimed range.
The applicant argues on page 8 of their remarks 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 0.2-0.6 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 applicant further argues that projections on the surface of the prosthetic teeth as taught by Ruppert serve a different function than those of the instant application. However, claim 15 of the instant application does recite that the projections serve to keep a uniform space from the denture base. Positioning teeth at the correct distance from the base is a part of correctly positioning the teeth, as recited in claim 22. No structural differences are claimed that would result in a different structure from that disclosed by Ruppert, as the prior art does teach 2-4 projections with the size and shapes claimed.
Conclusion
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 - Thursday 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
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772