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 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(s) 1, 14, 16, 18-19, 39-41, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (WO 2014069005 A1, see machine translated version) in view of Wood (US 1692928 A)
Re. Claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a removable partial denture (10 where the partial denture is fully capable of being removed; Fig. 1; Par. 11 and 31) comprising:
a frame (11/22) sized and shaped to conform to a mouth inner surface (Fig. 1, 4-5 and 7), the frame including a projecting mounting structure (18); and
a segment (16) having a slot (see Fig. 4-5 and 7 where element 16 is fitted onto element 18; Par. 36-37) for slidably receiving the projecting mounting structure when the segment is assembled to the frame (Fig. 4-5 and 7; Par. 36-37).
However, Nakagawa is silent to the projecting mounting structure is positioned on the frame such that the segment has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure selected from buccal, lingual, anterior, and posterior directions when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface.
Wood discloses a partial denture in the same field of endeavor and further discloses the projecting mounting structure (3b) to be positioned on the frame (4/6) such that a segment (3) having a slot (see where element 3b is fitted into in Fig. 7) has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure from an posterior direction when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface (see Fig. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the projecting mounting structure of Nakagawa to be positioned on the frame such that the segment has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure from an posterior direction when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface as taught by Wood to provide a different means of attaching the segment to the frame.
Re. Claim 14, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 wherein Nakagawa discloses the frame includes at least one additional projecting mounting structure (18 see Fig. 4), and the removable partial denture includes at least one additional segment (16; see Fig. 1, and 4-5), each additional segment having a slot (see Fig. 4-5 and 7 where element 16 is fitted onto element 18) for slidably receiving one of the additional projecting mounting structures when the additional segments are assembled to the frame (Fig. 4-5; Par. 36-37).
(first interpretation) Re. Claim 16, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 Nakagawa further discloses comprising: a clasp retainer attached to the frame (Fig. 1, 3-5 shows element 11 being a C-clasp and is denoted as the fitting body; Par. 36).
(first interpretation) Re. Claim 19, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 16 wherein Nakagawa further discloses the clasp retainer comprises a wrought wire clasp (Par. 36 wherein it is disclosed that the clasp 11 can be elastically deformed and is made of a metallic material).
(second interpretation) Re. Claim 16, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 Nakagawa further discloses comprising: a clasp retainer attached to the frame (Fig. 12 shows element 11 being a ring clasp and is denoted as the fitting body; Par. 45).
(second interpretation) Re. Claim 18, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 16 wherein Nakagawa discloses the clasp retainer comprises a circumferential clasp (Fig. 12 shows element 11 being a ring clasp).
(second interpretation) Re. Claim 19, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 16 wherein Nakagawa further discloses the clasp retainer comprises a wrought wire clasp (Par. 45 wherein it is disclosed that the clasp 11 can be elastically deformed and is made of a metallic material).
(first interpretation) Re. Claim 39, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1, Nakagawa further discloses comprising:
a wrought wire clasp including a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the frame or the tooth segment (Fig. 12 shows element 11 being a ring clasp; Fig. 11-12; Par. 45 wherein it is disclosed that the clasp 11 can be elastically deformed and is made of a metallic material).
(first interpretation) Re. Claim 40, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 39 wherein Nakagawa further discloses the section of the wrought wire clasp matingly engages corresponding structure in the frame (Fig. 11-12).
(second interpretation) Re. Claim 39, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1, Nakagawa further discloses comprising:
a wrought wire clasp including a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the tooth segment (22; see Fig. 25; Par. 36).
(second interpretation) Re. Claim 41, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 39 wherein Nakagawa further discloses the section of the wrought wire clasp matingly engages corresponding structure in the tooth segment (Fig. 25).
Re. Claim 57, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1, Nakagawa further discloses comprising:
a clasp retainer (11), wherein the tooth segment and the clasp retainer are formed as one piece (Par. 69 and 77).
Claim(s) 1, 46-47 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shemper (WO 2017144727 A1, see machine translated version) in view of Wood (US 1692928 A).
Re. Claim 1, Shemper discloses a removable partial denture (Fig. 3 wherein it is fully capable of being removed; Par. 4) comprising:
a frame sized (102) and shaped to conform to a mouth inner surface, the frame including a projecting mounting structure (Fig. 3); and
a segment (106).
However, Shemper is silent to the segment having a slot for slidably receiving the projecting mounting structure when the segment is assembled to the frame wherein the projecting mounting structure is positioned on the frame such that the segment has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure selected from buccal, lingual, anterior, and posterior directions when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface.
Wood discloses a partial denture in the same field of endeavor and further discloses the projecting mounting structure (3b) to be positioned on the frame (4/6) such that a segment (3) having a slot (see where element 3b is fitted into in Fig. 7) has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure from an posterior direction when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface (see Fig. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the projecting mounting structure of Shemper to be positioned on the frame such that the segment has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure from an posterior direction when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface as taught by Wood to provide a different means of attaching the segment to the frame.
Re. Claim 46, Shemper and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 and Shemper further discloses comprising:
a removable gingival shroud (104) including a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base when the gingival shroud is assembled to the base (Fig. 1 and 3).
Re. Claim 47, Shemper and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 46 wherein: the section of the gingival shroud includes one or more protrusions, and the corresponding structure of the frame defines one or more holes for receiving the one or more protrusions (See Fig. 7a-7b which presents the connection between the gingival shroud 706 and the base 702 where the protrusion of the shroud is fitted into the hole 704 of the base; Par. 38).
Re. Claim 70, Shemper and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 wherein: Shemper further discloses the frame comprises a polymer (Abstract).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (WO 2014069005 A1, see machine translated version) in view of Wood (US 1692928 A) and Bowman (US 1386762 A).
Re. Claim 4, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 but are silent to the projecting mounting structure comprises an I-beam.
Bowman discloses a projecting mount in the same field of endeavor and further discloses the projecting mounting structure (Fig. 4) comprising an I-beam used to attach a tooth segment (1) to a frame (17) to distribute the strain placed on the tooth segment and frame (Col. 39-46).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the projecting mounting structure of Nakagawa and Wood to have an I-beam as taught by Bowman to distribute the strain placed on the tooth segment and frame.
Re. Claim 5, Nakagawa, Wood and Bowman discloses the removable partial denture of claim 4 wherein: Bowman discloses a longitudinal axis of the I-beam extends distally to mesially (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 4 where the longitudinal axis is defined to be a line running along the length of the object. As such, the interpretation of where the longitudinal axis of the I-beam is broad so long as it runs along the length of the I-beam. In this case, it is found to run the same plane as the two ends of the “I” extend longitudinally. As such, when viewed in Fig. 2 and the Annotated Figure, the I-beam would extend distally to mesially).
PNG
media_image1.png
375
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Re. Claim 6, Nakagawa, Wood and Bowman discloses the removable partial denture of claim 4 wherein: a longitudinal axis of the I-beam extends buccally to lingually (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 2 where it should be noted that the definition for a longitudinal axis is a line that runs along a length of an object.; Fig. 2; As such, the interpretation of where the longitudinal axis of the I-beam is broad so long as it runs along the length of the I-beam. In this particular interpretation, the longitudinal axis extends from where the middle portion of the “I” extends resulting in the “I” to also extend buccally to lingually).
PNG
media_image2.png
407
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
Re. Claim 7, Nakagawa, Wood and Bowman discloses the removable partial denture of claim 4 wherein: Bowman further discloses the I-beam comprises opposed end plates connected by a midsection (Annotated Figure C of Fig. 4), the midsection includes a channel (Annotated Figure C of Fig. 4), the tooth segment includes a throughhole (9), and the channel and the throughhole are aligned when the tooth segment is assembled to the frame (Fig. 2 and 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
375
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (WO 2014069005 A1, see machine translated version) in view of Wood (US 1692928 A), Bowman (US 1386762 A) and Saffir (US 2398671 A).
Re. Claim 8, Nakagawa, Wood, and Bowman discloses the removable partial denture of claim 7 further comprising but are silent to a fastener positioned in the channel and the throughhole for immobilizing the tooth segment on the frame when the tooth segment is assembled to the frame.
Saffir discloses an artificial tooth mount in the same field of endeavor and further discloses an mounting projecting structure of various shapes (Fig. 18-30) that can comprise grooves or fasteners placed externally or within the channel of the mount (Fig. 20-21 and 24) used to provide more securement between the tooth and base (Col. 6, lines 5-24; Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the projecting mounting structure of Nakagawa, Wood and Bowman to have a fastener positioned in the channel and the throughhole for immobilizing the tooth segment on the frame when the tooth segment is assembled to the frame as taught by Saffir to provide more securement between the tooth and base.
Re. Claim 9, Nakagawa, Wood, Bowman, and Saffir discloses the removable partial denture of claim 8 wherein: Saffir discloses the fastener comprises a cured resin (Col. 7, lines 30-32).
Re. Claim 10, Nakagawa, Wood, Bowman, and Saffir discloses the removable partial denture of claim 8 wherein: Saffir further discloses the fastener comprises a pin (It should be noted that the definition of a pin is a solid material used for fastening things together where the serrated fasteners pointed as element 70 is found to provide such and as such reads upon the limitation of a pin).
Claim(s) 17, 21 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (WO 2014069005 A1, see machine translated version) in view of Wood (US 1692928 A) and Eggen (US 1700124 A).
Re. Claim 17, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 16 but are silent to the clasp retainer comprises an I bar clasp.
Eggen discloses a clasp retainer (D) in the same field of endeavor and further the retainer comprises an I bar clasp (see Fig. 1-5) to provide easy replacement of the clasp if it is torn down or if the plate is needed to be detached (Pg. 1, Lines 23-31).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the clasp retainer of Nakagawa and Wood to comprise an I bar clasp as taught by Eggen to provide easy replacement of the clasp if it is torn down or if the plate is needed to be detached.
Re. Claim 21, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 20 but are silent to the wrought wire clasp includes a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base section of the frame (element E is the frame where the corresponding structure it engages with is element 11; Fig. 1).
Eggen discloses a clasp retainer (D) in the same field of endeavor and further the retainer comprises an I bar clasp (see Fig. 1-5) to provide easy replacement of the clasp if it is torn down or if the plate is needed to be detached (Pg. 1, Lines 23-31). Eggen further discloses that the clasp includes the I section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base section of the frame.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the clasp retainer of Nakagawa and Wood to comprise an I bar clasp as taught by Eggen to provide easy replacement of the clasp if it is torn down or if the plate is needed to be detached. The combination of Nakagawa and Eggen would provide the teaching of the wrought wire clasp includes a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base section of the frame.
Re. Claim 39-40, Nakagawa and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 and Nakagawa further discloses comprising:
a wrought wire clasp including a section (Fig. 12 shows element 11 being a ring clasp; Fig. 11-12; Par. 45 wherein it is disclosed that the clasp 11 can be elastically deformed and is made of a metallic material).
However, they are silent to the clasp being matingly engages corresponding structure in the frame or the tooth segment.
Eggen discloses a clasp retainer (D) in the same field of endeavor and further the retainer comprises an I bar clasp (see Fig. 1-5) to provide easy replacement of the clasp if it is torn down or if the plate is needed to be detached (Pg. 1, Lines 23-31). Eggen further discloses that the clasp includes the I section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base section of the frame.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the clasp retainer of Nakagawa and Wood to comprise an I bar clasp as taught by Eggen to provide easy replacement of the clasp if it is torn down or if the plate is needed to be detached. The combination of Nakagawa and Eggen would provide the teaching of the wrought wire clasp includes a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base section of the frame.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 20090047627 A1, herein denoted as Nakagawa ‘627) in view of Nakagawa (WO 2014069005 A1, see machine translated version, herein denoted as Nakagawa ‘005) and Wood Wood (US 1692928 A).
Re. Claim 1, Nakagawa ‘627 discloses a removable partial denture (Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a frame (11) sized and shaped to conform to a mouth inner surface (Abstract discloses that it is a denture that is placed into the mouth and conforms to a mouth inner surface); and
a segment (1) assembled to the frame (Fig. 2).
However, Nakagawa ‘627 is silent to the frame comprising a projecting mounting structure and the segment having a slot for slidably receiving the projecting mounting structure when the segment is assembled to the frame. Further, Nakagawa ‘627 is silent to the projecting mounting structure is positioned on the frame such that the segment has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure selected from buccal, lingual, anterior, and posterior directions when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface.
Nakagawa ‘005 discloses a removable partial denture and further discloses a frame (11/22) sized and shaped to conform to a mouth inner surface (Fig. 1, 4-5 and 7), the frame including a projecting mounting structure (18); and a segment (16) having a slot (see Fig. 4-5 and 7 where element 16 is fitted onto element 18; Par. 36-37) for slidably receiving the projecting mounting structure when the segment is assembled to the frame (Fig. 4-5 and 7; Par. 36-37) to provide a stable connection between the two elements (Par. 37).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the removable partial denture of Nakagawa ‘627 to have the frame comprising a projecting mounting structure and the segment having a slot for slidably receiving the projecting mounting structure when the segment is assembled to the frame as taught by Nakagawa ‘005 to provide a stable connection between the two elements.
Wood discloses a partial denture in the same field of endeavor and further discloses the projecting mounting structure (3b) to be positioned on the frame (4/6) such that a segment (3) having a slot (see where element 3b is fitted into in Fig. 7) has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure from an posterior direction when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface (see Fig. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the projecting mounting structure of Nakagawa ‘627 and Nakagawa ‘005 to be positioned on the frame such that the segment has a path of insertion on the projecting mounting structure from an posterior direction when the frame conforms to the mouth inner surface as taught by Wood to provide a different means of attaching the segment to the frame.
Re. Claim 14, Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 wherein Nakagawa ‘005 further discloses the frame includes at least one additional projecting mounting structure (18 see Fig. 4), and the removable partial denture includes at least one additional segment (16; see Fig. 1, and 4-5), each additional segment having a slot (see Fig. 4-5 and 7 where element 16 is fitted onto element 18) for slidably receiving one of the additional projecting mounting structures when the additional segments are assembled to the frame (Fig. 4-5; Par. 36-37).
Re. Claim 16, Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 1 wherein Nakagawa ‘627 discloses a clasp retainer (4) attached to the frame (Fig. 1-2).
Re. Claim 18, Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 16 wherein Nakagawa ‘005 discloses the clasp retainer comprises a circumferential clasp (Fig. 11-12).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the clasp retainer of Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood to be a circumferential clasp as taught by Nakagawa ‘005 to provide more securement of the denture.
Re. Claim 19, Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 16 wherein Nakagawa ‘627 discloses the clasp retainer comprises a wrought wire clasp (Par. 12 and 101 discloses that the conventional wire clasp is used due to its comfortable feeling).
Re. Claim 20, Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 19 wherein: the wrought wire clasp is embedded in a base section of the frame, the base section being below a tooth segment (Fig. 4 where the base is pointed as element 11 as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; Par. 62).
Re. Claim 21, Nakagawa ‘627, Nakagawa ‘005, and Wood discloses the removable partial denture of claim 20 wherein: Nakagawa ‘627 discloses the wrought wire clasp includes a section that matingly engages corresponding structure in the base section of the frame (Fig. 4; Par. 62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
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 HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights