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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 11/12/25 is acknowledged.
However, as Applicant did not indicate which claims read on the elected species, the Examiner has reviewed the claims and determined that claims 35-40 read on the elected species.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/12/25. Claims 1-10 requires placing the baseline stent onto a mold/model of the patient’s teeth, which is directed to non-elected Species A.
Priority
The instant application has a priority date of 2/22/22 corresponding to US 63312786. However, based on a review thereon, the subject matter of elected Species B is not supported therein. Therefore, the examined claims 35-40, directed to elected species B are awarded a priority date of 02/22/2023, the filing date of the elected subject matter and instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
-The photographs of Figs. 1-13 and 16a-b are unclear and blurry; it is difficult to ascertain the details therein.
-Figs. 14a-15b are unclear, have broken lines and the reference numbers are difficult to read and understand.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 35, the term “the measured distance” is indefinite as the term lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear what measured distance the term refers to. It is unclear what distance is being measured. The term “a different person” is indefinite as it is unclear who or what a different person refers to. For example it is unclear if the different person refers to a person different from the patient, practitioner, the mold currently used, a different mold etc. The term “forming an augmented stent of the patient’s existing natural teeth using the augmented mold” is indefinite as it is unclear if the recited step simply includes the hardening of the material in the baseline stent, or another distinct step. If it points to another step, it is unclear what said step would encompass. The term “augmented mold” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the term intends to refer back to the previously recited “augmented impression mold” or another structure; as best understood it intends to refer back. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 40, the term “a sculpted temporary dental cover” is indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the term intends to refer back to the previously recited sculpted set of temporary coverings (or one thereof) or another structure. As best understood it intends to refer back, however it should read “overlaying one of said” or the like. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuillemot (US 2006/0115792 A1) in view of Penchas et al (US 2008/0299510 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Vuillemot discloses a method of forming a set of at least one temporary dental covering (e.g. veneers or restoration covering teeth; temporary if desired; see Figs. 1-16), comprising: disposing hardening material (14) to be hardened into a baseline stent (e.g. impression tray which implicitly holds impression material 14, not shown); placing the baseline stent with the hardening material onto actual teeth of the patient until the hardening material hardens (Fig. 2), thereby forming a direct augmented mold of the patient's natural teeth and gums (e.g. impression tray with hardened impression material formed from the impression of Fig. 2); forming an augmented stent (22/24) of the patient's existing natural teeth using the augmented mold (at least in part, see process as shown in Figs. 3-8); disposing hardening material (54) into the augmented stent (Fig. 13); preparing at least one natural tooth of the patient by reducing size and shape thereof to form at least one anchor tooth to be used for the set of at least one temporary dental covering (see Fig. 10, [0056]); forming an augmented impression mold by placing the augmented stent with the hardening material onto the patient's prepared teeth and gums (Figs. 13-14) to form an initial set of temporary teeth (Fig. 15); removing the initial set of temporary teeth from the augmented mold (see Fig. 15, teeth are removed from 24); sculpting the initial set of temporary teeth to make the set of temporary teeth more realistic to form a sculpted set of temporary dental coverings (e.g. smoothing/finishing and polishing the restored teeth; see [0036] and [0059]); and securing the sculpted temporary teeth to the prepared natural teeth and gums of the patient (teeth are secured via light cure bonding agent as shown in Fig. 12). Vuillemot, however, does not teach wherein the baseline stent (impression tray) is selected, based on the [a] measured distance, from amongst a plurality of sizes of baseline stents formed from a mold of natural teeth and gums of a different person; and wherein the direct augmented mold is inclusive of molded teeth in the shape of the different person's natural teeth and gums as required.
Penchas et al, however, teaches a similar method forming a temporary dental covering comprising the step of selecting a baseline stent (impression tray), based on the [a] measured distance, from amongst a plurality of sizes of baseline stents formed from a mold of natural teeth and gums of a different person (see [0018] and [0020]; as molds are formed in different sizes of the “general shape” of the patient’s teeth, provided in various shapes and sizes as described above, the mold would not be of the patient’s teeth but instead of a hypothetical “other person” who’s teeth correspond to that of the mold), and wherein a directed augmented mold is formed using a hardenable material, thereby forming a direct augmented mold of the patient’s natural teeth and gums and inclusive of molded teeth in the shape of the different person’s natural teeth and gums (see Fig. 3, steps s304-s307). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Vuillemot to include Penchas’ step of selecting and using a sized baseline stent with generic teeth, as such modification would provide an improved fit of the impression tray, allowing for more accurate impressions to be taken, and provide guidance and/or visualization of the desired final restoration.
Claim(s) 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuillemot in view of Penchas et al, as combined above, further in view of Podmore et al (US 2012/0037166 A1).
Regarding the above claims, Vuillemot/Penchas, as combined above, discloses all the features of the invention, including wherein the teeth are measured and the baseline stent is selected based on size and the measurement thereof (e.g. Penchas’ try in step which is part of the selecting), but does not explicitly teach wherein measuring a distance between (i) a first natural tooth on a left side of the patient's mouth and (ii) a second natural tooth on the right side of the patient's mouth; wherein measuring a distance includes measuring a distance that spans the front of the natural teeth from mirror image locations of the patient's natural left and right side teeth; further comprising generating a stent size identifier based on the measured distance between the first tooth on the left side of the patient's mouth and the second tooth on the right side of the patient's mouth; and wherein generating a stent size identifier includes generating a letter as required.
Podmore, however, teaches a method of measuring a patient’s dental arch for the selection of an appropriate sized and shaped appliance (see abstract), wherein the measuring comprises measuring a distance between (i) a first natural tooth on a left side of the patient's mouth and (ii) a second natural tooth on the right side of the patient's mouth (see Figs. 3-9, distance between teeth; per claim 36); wherein measuring a distance includes measuring a distance that spans the front of the natural teeth from mirror image locations of the patient's natural left and right side teeth (see Figs. 3-9), measuring arch size; per claim 37); further comprising generating a stent size identifier based on the measured distance between the first tooth on the left side of the patient's mouth and the second tooth on the right side of the patient's mouth (e.g. MA, MB, MC, MD Fig. 9; per claim 38); and wherein generating a stent size identifier includes generating a letter (e.g. MA, MB, MC and MD, for example; per claim 39). See also [0034]-[0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Vuillemot/Penchas, as combined above, to include Podmore’s specific measuring steps and size identifier, as such modification would provide improved accuracy when selecting stent size, taking into account multiple size considerations, and allow a user to quickly and easily identify the properly sized device.
Claim(s) 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuillemot in view of Penchas et al, as combined above, further in view of Ziskind et al (US 2022/0000582 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Vuillemot/Penchas, as combined above, does not teach installing at least one anchor in the patient's gums for use in anchoring a permanent dental covering; and wherein securing the sculpted temporary teeth to the prepared teeth and gums includes securing the sculpted temporary teeth to the prepared teeth and gums and overlaying a sculpted temporary dental covering over the at least one anchor as required.
Ziskind, however, teaches installing an implant for use with a permanent or temporary tooth covering, both of which can be secured thereto, the coving overlaying and covering the anchor as required (see [0162]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Vuillemot/Penchas, as combined above, to include Ziskind’s use of implants, as such modification would allow the use of the direct restoration technique of Vuillemot/Penchas on implants, allowing it to be used and restore areas without or missing natural teeth. The Examiner notes that should the device of Vuillemot/Penchas be modified with the teachings of Ziskind, as combined above, the final sculpted temporary dental coverings would be formed overlaying the at least one anchor used therewith, and be secured to other prepared teeth and gums (and anchor) meeting the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772