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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/24/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al 20220096205 (newly cited) in view of Fecher et al 20160113845.
As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the Prasad et al publication enjoys priority to provisional application number 63/075,427, which has a filing date of 9/8/2020. Therefore, the Prasad et al reference has an effective filing date under 102(a)(2) of 9/8/2020, which is earlier than applicant’s earliest priority date.
Prasad et al discloses a set of a try-in prefabricated crown and an actual prefabricated crown (see paragraph 4, which discloses a kit that has a prefabricated crowns and try-in crowns), wherein the try-in prefabricated crown is a dental restoration used in a preliminary procedure for determining a shape and size of a tooth to be restored, and the actual prefabricated crown is a dental restoration used in a subsequent restorative procedure to restore actual teeth according to the shape and size determined by the try-in prefabricated crown, wherein the try-in prefabricated crown and the actual prefabricated crown each has three-dimensional dimensions X, Y, Z, (see the figures which clearly show the crowns being three dimensional).
Prasad et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the three-dimensional dimensions of the try-in prefabricated crown are smaller than the three-dimensional dimensions of the actual prefabricated crown by 1.5% to 0.3%. However, it is noted in paragraphs 4 and 29 that the crowns may be provided in different sizes, as well as different sizes per tooth (paragraph 4).
Further, it appears that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the dimensions of the try-in prefabricated crowns and actual fabricated crowns of Prasad et al to be within the claimed ranges, as it only involves adjusting the sizes of both the try-in prefabricated crowns and actual fabricated crowns to accommodate a particular use, as taught by Prasad et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the three-dimensional dimensions of the try-in prefabricated crowns to be than the three-dimensional dimensions of the actual prefabricated crowns of Prasad et al by 1.5% to 0.3%, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that "[W]here 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 (CCPA1955).
Prasad et al, as modified above does not explicitly disclose the try-in prefabricated crowns and the actual prefabricated crowns to each have a margin thickness of 0.20 to 0.50 mm.
Fecher et al discloses in paragraph 64 that a crown may have a margin thickness of between .05mm and .4mm, which includes thicknesses that fall within applicant’s claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the try-in prefabricated crowns and the actual prefabricated crowns of Prasad et al to have a margin thickness of between 0.20 to 0.50, in view of the teaching of Fecher et al that a crown may have a margin thickness that falls within this range.
With regard to claim 9, it is noted that the crowns in the set of Prasad et al can be considered to be “subgingival” or “supragingival” since these terms merely designate how the crowns are ultimately used (either with the margin being above or below the gumline).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al 20220096205 in view of Fecher et al 20160113845, and further in view of Wolz 20170189143.
With regard to claim 12, Prasad et al/Fecher et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the try-in prefabricated crown and the actual prefabricated crown each comprises a zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium oxide or a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide. However, it is noted that Prasad et al disclose that the crowns in the set may be formed of zirconia. See paragraph 4.
Wolz discloses a prefabricated crown that comprises a zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium oxide or a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide. See paragraphs 41 and 42.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the crowns in the set of Prasad et al/Fecher et al out of a zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium oxide or a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide, in view of the teaching of Wolz that a dental crown may be formed of a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide.
With regard to the limitation “manufactured by subtractive manufacturing”, this limitation is considered to constitute a product by process limitation, which is not given weight in an apparatus claim. Since Prasad et al/Fecher et al/Wolz discloses the final product required by claim 12, then the combination meets the claim.
With regard to claim 13, note that Wolz discloses wherein the colorant comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of erbium (Er203), terbium oxide (Tb407), thulium oxide (Tm203), red iron oxide (Fe203), yellow iron oxide (Fe203), molybdenum oxide (MnO3), manganese dioxide (MnOz), cerium oxide (CeQ2), barium oxide (BaQ), vanadium pentoxide (V20s), vanadium trioxide (V203), cobalt oxide (CO304) and titanium dioxide (Ti02). See paragraph 102 of Wolz.
With regard to claim 14, note that the total weight % of the colorant disclosed by Wolz is between 0% and 0.5%. See paragraph 42 which discloses that “other oxides” (colorants) other than the zirconium oxide ceramic are less than 0.5%.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al 20220096205 in view of Fecher et al 20160113845, and further in view of Wolz 20170189143 and Kim et al 20180263863.
With regard to claim 15, Prasad et al/Fecher et al disclose (see above rejection of claim 8) a prefabricated crown set comprising a try-in prefabricated crown and an actual prefabricated crown, wherein the try-in prefabricated crown is a dental restoration used in a preliminary procedure for determining a shape and size of a tooth to be restored, and the actual prefabricated crown is a dental restoration used in a subsequent procedure to restore the tooth according to the shape and size determined by the try-in prefabricated crown, and wherein the try-in prefabricated crown and the actual prefabricated crown each has a margin thickness of 0.02 to 0.50 mm. See above rejection.
Prasad et al/Fecher et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the try-in prefabricated crown and the actual prefabricated crown each comprises a zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium oxide or a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide. However, it is noted that Prasad et al disclose that the crowns in the set may be formed of zirconia. See paragraph 4.
Wolz discloses a prefabricated crown that comprises a zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium oxide or a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide. See paragraphs 41 and 42.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the crowns in the set of Prasad et al/Fecher et al out of a zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium oxide or a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide, in view of the teaching of Wolz that a dental crown may be formed of a zirconium oxide ceramic containing a colorant stabilized with yttrium oxide.
Prasad et al/Fecher et al/Wolz do not disclose the try-in prefabricated crown in the set to exhibit a color of pink, blue or black.
Kim et al discloses prefabricated crowns that may be formed of ceramic, and exhibit a pink color. See paragraph 24.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the try-in prefabricated crown in the set of Prasad et al/Fecher et al/Wolz with a pink color, in view of the teaching of Kim et al that ceramic crowns may have a pink color.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8,9,12-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly applied grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights