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 § 102
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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fecher et al 20160113845 (newly cited).
As a preliminary matter, it is noted that claims 8 and 15 only require that the prefabricated comprise a prefabricated crown, or, a try-in prefabricated crown and an actual prefabricated crown, and therefore does not require both. For purposes of this action, claim 8 is taken to read that the prefabricated crown comprises a “try in” prefabricated crown, only. The limitations in claim 8 drawn to the actual prefabricated crown are not being considered.
With regard to claim 8, Fecher et al discloses a prefabricated crown comprising a prefabricated crown, which can be called a “try-in” prefabricated crown. The term “try-in” does not impart any structural characteristics that distinguish the term “prefabricated crown”. See paragraph 64 which describes a molded (prefabricated) crown. Note that the prefabricated crown inherently has three-dimensional dimensions in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions. With regard to lines 8-12 of claim 8, these limitations are dependent upon the existence of an actual prefabricated crown, which is not required by claim 8. With regard to the newly presented limitation in the last line of claim 8, note that Fecher et al discloses in paragraph 64 that the crown may have a margin thickness of between .05mm and .4mm. These values all fall within applicant’s claimed range.
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.
Claims 8,9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haymann et al WO 2005007007 in view of Fecher et al 20160113845.
With regard to claim 8, Haymann et al disclose a prefabricated crown comprising a prefabricated crown, which can be called a “try-in” prefabricated crown. The term “try-in” does not impart any structural characteristics that distinguish the term “prefabricated crown”. See fig. 9b which shows a plurality of different sized crowns. Note that the prefabricated crowns have three-dimensional dimensions in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions. With regard to lines 8-12 of claim 8, these limitations are dependent upon the existence of an actual prefabricated crown, which is not required by claim 8.
Haymann et al do not disclose the prefabricated crown has margin thickness in the range recited in claim 8.
Fecher et al discloses a prefabricated crown. In paragraph 64 it is disclosed that the crown may have a margin thickness of between .05mm and .4mm. These values all fall within applicant’s claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the prefabricated crown of Haymann et al with a margin thickness of between .02 to .50mm, in view of the teaching of Fecher et al that a prefabricated crown may be formed with a margin thickness in this range.
With regard to claim 9, note that the crowns of fig. 9b could be used as either subgingival, or supragingival crowns.
Claims 8,9,12,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolz 20170189143 in view of Fecher et al 20160113845.
With regard to claim 8, Wolz discloses a prefabricated crown which can be called a “try-in” prefabricated crown. The term “try-in” does not impart any structural characteristics that distinguish the term “prefabricated crown”. See paragraph 98 which discloses a crown formed from a blank. The crown disclosed by Wolz inherently has three-dimensional dimensions in the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis directions.
Wolz does not disclose the prefabricated crown has a margin thickness in the range recited in claim 8.
Fecher et al discloses a prefabricated crown. In paragraph 64 it is disclosed that the crown may have a margin thickness of between .05mm and .4mm. These values all fall within applicant’s claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the prefabricated crown of Wolz with a margin thickness of between .02 to .50mm, in view of the teaching of Fecher et al that a prefabricated crown may be formed with a margin thickness in this range.
With regard to claim 9, note that Wolz discloses production of various sizes of blanks, which inherently result in various sizes of crowns. Thus, Wolz discloses blanks/crowns which could be used as a sub-gingival and a supra-gingival crown.
With regard to claim 12, note that Wolz discloses the prefabricated crown 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. The language “subtractive manufacturing” in line 2 is considered to constitute a product by process limitation, which is not given weight in an apparatus claim. Since Wolz discloses the final product required by claim 12, then it 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.
With regard to claim 14, note that the total weight % of the colorant 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 Wolz 20170189143 in view of Fecher et al 20160113845 and further in view of Kim et al 20180263863.
With regard to claim 15, Wolz/Fecher et al discloses all limitations of this claim, except for the try-in prefabricated crown exhibiting 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 ceramic prefabricated crown of Wolz/Fecher et al 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 and 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the newly applied grounds of rejection. The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendments to claims 8 and 15.
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 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