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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 31, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11. and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is noted that the claims reference “the first veneer” and “the second veneer” which are believed to be in error for -the first individual tooth veneer- and -the second individual tooth veneer-. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coreil et al. (2023/0181284) in view of Beveridge (2014/0113250) in view of Baaske et al. (2022/0061968).
Coreil teaches a dental laminate 100 comprising a first individual tooth veneer (see annotated figure below) having a first and second surfaces, which are opposite surfaces (surface 104 being the first surface and surface 106 being the second surface), the first surface of the first individual tooth veneer having a curvature configured to match a front surface of a first tooth (see fig. 7, pars. 5, 33) and the first individual tooth veneer having a first shape configured to directly cover the front surface of the first tooth (see figs. 5-7, the individual veneer for a single tooth being the first structure, pars. 31, 33, 58, see annaoted figure), and the second surface of the first individual tooth veneer configured to present a desired oral appearance of the first tooth (see pars. 5, 33-34, 49-50); a second individual tooth veneer (see annotated figure below) adjacent to the first individual tooth veneer and having first and second surfaces, which are opposite surfaces, the first surface 104 of the second individual tooth veneer having a curvature configured to match a front surface (see fig. 7, pars. 5, 33) of a second tooth and the second individual tooth veneer having a second shape configured to directly cover the front surface of the second tooth (see figs. 5-7, pars. 31, 33, 58); and a connector provided only between the first and the second individual tooth veneers to connect the first individual tooth veneer to the second individual tooth veneer (see figs. 4-7, such that the connector is the portion connecting the veneer bodies such as the interdental space, see annotated figure below), wherein the connector includes a protrusion configured to fit into an embrasure provided between the first tooth and the second tooth (pars. 39, 59, 89, such that portion 114 is on the connector, i.e. the interdental space, and configured to fit into an embrasure as claimed), wherein at least one of the first individual tooth veneer or the second individual tooth veneer includes a tip structure 118 configured to extend toward at least a part of the incisal surface (see fig. 7, such that it can cover a portion of the incisal edge), wherein the first individual tooth veneer, the second individual tooth veneer, the connector and the protrusion are formed form the same material such that the first veneer, the second veneer, the connector and the protrusion are unitary (see pars. 31-32, 81), wherein the first veneer, the second veneer, the connector, the tip structure and the protrusion are formed of the same material, the material being a polymer (see pars. 31-32). Coreil teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the second surface being polished to have a glossy texture (see par. 50), however, does not specifically teach the first surfaces of the first and second veneers and the second surfaces of the first and second veneers have different roughness and wherein the first veneer, the second veneer, the connector, the tip and the protrusion are formed from PMMA.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
438
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Beveridge teaches a dental laminate 106 comprising a first veneer having first and second surfaces (110 being the first surface and surface 108 being the second surface), which are opposite surfaces, the first surface 110 of the veneer having a curvature configured to match a front surface of a first tooth and the first veneer having a first shape configured to cover the front surface of the first tooth (see fig. 2, 11), wherein first surface and the second surface have different surface roughness from each other (see pars. 29, 35, fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first surface for facing the tooth of Coreil with the roughened surface taught by Beveridge in order to improve the adhesive bonding on the dental laminate to the tooth while allowing the second surface to be glossy as desired. Coreil/Beveridge teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the first veneer, the second veneer, the connector and the protrusion are formed from PMMA.
Baaske teaches a dental device comprising first and second individual teeth that are made of PMMA (see abstract, pars. 70, 87). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polymer material of the first veneer, the second veneer, the connector, the tip structure and the protrusion with the specific PMMA taught by Baaske since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 3, wherein for the first individual tooth veneer, the curvature of the first surface is different form a curvature of the second surface (see par. 33, such that the surfaces are shaped differently from each other which would result in different curvatures).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 4, wherein for the second individual tooth veneer, the curvature of the first surface is different form a curvature of the second surface (see par. 33, such that the surfaces are shaped differently from each other which would result in different curvatures).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 6, wherein the connector is capable of being longer than a depth of the embrasure. It is noted that the embrasure is not claimed as it is part of the human anatomy and therefore, depending on the depth of the embrasure the dental laminate is placed on, the connector can be longer than the depth of the embrasure. Therefore, it is noted that the claimed limitations met by the prior art.
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 9, wherein the protrusion is configured to be shorter than a thickness of the first tooth or the second tooth (see figs. 4, 7, par. 33). It is noted that the teeth are not positively claimed as they are part of the human anatomy. Therefore, the limitation is functional. Such that depending on the anatomy the laminate is placed on; the protrusion is capable of being shorter than the thickness of the teeth. It is further noted that fig. 4 of Coreil teaches the protrusion 114 being shorter than a thickness of the teeth.
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 11, wherein the first surface of the first veneer is configured to directly contact the front surface of the first tooth and the first surface of the second veneer is configured to directly contact the front surface of the second tooth (see fig. 7, par. 38).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above; Beveridge further teaches with respect to claim 12, wherein the roughness of the first surface is greater than the roughness of the second surface (see pars. 35, 40, claim 3).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 16 wherein a length of the first tip structure is greater than a thickness of the incisal surface (par. 40, such that it is shaped like a hook).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, Coreil further teaches with respect to claim 17, wherein the connector is a bridge structure (such that it bridges, i.e. connects, the first and second structure).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coreil et al. (2023/0181284) in view of Beveridge (2014/0113250) in view of Baaske et al. (2022/0061968)applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collodoro (2007/0298381).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the dental laminate further includes an adhesive material provided on the first surface of at least one of the first veneer or the second veneer to temporarily fix the first and second individual tooth veneers to the first and second teeth.
Collodoro teaches a dental laminate a first surface (surface next to layer 72) and a second surface 38 and an adhesive material 72 provided on the first surface of the veneer (see fig. 4B) to temporarily fix the first and second individual tooth veneers to the first and second teeth (pars. 1, 3, 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske with the teaching of Collodoro which teaches an adhesive, in order quickly and easily apply the temporary dental laminate to the tooth. Such that the adhesive is applied during the manufacturing and the user does not need to apply it later.
PNG
media_image3.png
214
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coreil et al. (2023/0181284) in view of Beveridge (2014/0113250) in view of Baaske et al. (2022/0061968) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamed et al. (2021/0322134).
Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske teaches the dental laminate as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach a length of the first tip structure is shorter than a thickness of the incisal surface.
Hamed teaches a dental laminate (see fig. 22) comprising a first veneer having a curvature corresponding to at least a part of a first tooth and a shape corresponding to a front surface of the first tooth to cover the front surface of the first tooth (such that a single veneer element covering a single tooth is the first structure); a second veneer adjoining the first structure and having a curvature corresponding to at least a part of a second tooth adjoining the first tooth and a shape corresponding to a front surface of the second tooth to cover the front surface of the second tooth (the second veneer being an adjacent veneer element to the first veneer); and a connector connecting the first veneer to the second veneer (the interproximal connection element being the bridge), wherein at least a part of the bridge structure is located between the first tooth and the second tooth (see figs 21-23). Hamed further teaches wherein the first veneer further includes a first tip structure extending toward at least a part of an incisal surface of the first tooth and a wherein a length of the first tip structure is shorter than a thickness of the incisal surface (par. 91, such that is does not extend to the lingual side). It is noted that the lingual edge is NOT claimed and therefore, the limitation is functional. Such that since the tip only extends on the occlusal surface and NOT to the lingual side, depending on the size of the incisal surface the laminate is placed on, it is capable of being shorter than the thickness of the incisal surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the length of the tip taught by Coreil to be shorter as taught by Hamed in order to provide a dental laminate that is less obtrusive and less cumbersome and provides a more natural feel (see par. 72 of Hamed). It is further noted that Hamed teaches the tip extending longer and to a portion of the lingual side, therefore, the different tip lengths are known to be alternatives in the art as evidence by Hamed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tip structure taught by Coreil/Beveridge/Baaske with the tip structure taught by Hamed in order to provide the patient with a customized veneer based on their needs. It is noted that Hamed teaches the tip can extend various lengths and therefore, the length of the tip extending it taught by Hamed as a design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Coriel teaches a kit which includes the veneer body with replaceable/temporarily individual tooth veneers to allow individual improve their oral appearance. The applicant argues that the individual tooth veneers and veneer body cannot correspond to the claimed individual tooth veneers or connectors as claimed. However, it is noted that the embodiment of the kit with the attachable veneers is NOT being used in the rejection above. The rejection above uses the embodiment of the monolithic construction as taught in par. 31 of Coriel and discussed in the figures used in the above rejection. The embodiment in which the individual veneers and connectors being a single piece of material as taught in pars. 31-31 of Coriel reads on the required claim limitations of the claimed veneer bodies, tip, connector, and protrusion being unitary and of one piece. It is noted that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the applicant is arguing a different embodiment than the one used in the rejection.
The applicant further argues that the prior rat of Beveridge teaches away from the claimed invention and destroys the intended function of Coriel since it teaches permanently bonding the veneers to the teeth. However, it is noted that Beveridge also teaches as step in which the textured surface helps temporally affix the veneer to the teeth (see par. 29). It is further noted that the method is not being claimed and therefore, it is well known in the art to temporarily affix veneers to the teeth using a temporary adhesive. This is taught by the cited prior art of Collodoro and Hamed. It is also well known in the art that adhesive has a hard time affixing to a smooth surface and therefore, in order to assist in the affixing the tooth to a surface using an adhesive, whether temporally or permanently to provide a roughened surface to assist in the connection between the adhesive and veneer surface. The roughened surface would provide the advantage of improving the bond of the temporarily adhesive also and therefore, the prior art of Beveridge does not destroy the intended function of Coriel. Further it is noted that Coriel is directed to both temporary and permanent veneers (see par. 24 of Coriel).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
It is noted the the cited prior art of Collodoro and Hamed both teach temporary veneers and using an adhesive to help retain them and therefore, hindsight was not used for the modification of providing a roughened surface to improve the bonding of an adhesive, weather temporary or permanent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Petrelli which teaches the use of an adhesive to temporarily affix a veneer to the teeth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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 on 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
11/18/2025