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 Objections
Claim 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “said stiffener bars are tapered between 0o and 5o degrees along their respective lengths. Applicant has provided the symbol for degrees but ALSO included the term degrees. It should be revised to have either or.
Claim 22 recites “said slots are tapered between 0o and 5o degrees along their respective lengths. Applicant has provided the symbol for degrees but ALSO included the term degrees. It should be revised to have either or.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of adjoining segments forming an entirety” in line 1 wherein it is unclear what applicant means by it being formed an entirety. It is unclear if the segments are integral to one another OR if the segments are separate components that can be connected together. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being integral to one another.
Claims 4-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 1.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “a plurality of adjoining segments forming an entirety” in line 1 wherein it is unclear what applicant means by it being formed an entirety. It is unclear if the segments are integral to one another OR if the segments are separate components that can be connected together. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being integral to one another.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 2.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of adjoining segments forming an entirety” in line 1 wherein it is unclear what applicant means by it being formed an entirety. It is unclear if the segments are integral to one another OR if the segments are separate components that can be connected together. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being integral to one another.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 3.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 recites “the stiffener bars have a handle that clips into a segment” in lines 1-2 wherein it is unclear if the bars each have a handle or share a handle. Further, it is unclear what the segment it is clipping to such as is it clipping to the stiffener bars or if it is clipping to one of the segments. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the bars sharing a bar and the handle being clipped to one of the segments.
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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-16, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (DE 837437 C, see machine translated ver) in view of Cohen (US 20210290340 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Gruber teaches a dental impression tray (Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 1) comprising:
a plurality of adjoining segments (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 8b) forming an entirety thereof (Fig. 8a-8b), at least one of the segments having a slot (Fig. 8a-8b where the slots are elements 36/37; Par. 20 therein;
a stiffening element (35) removably extending through the slot in said segments for selectively locking the segments together during the use thereof for taking a dental impression (Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 20), and selectively unlocking the segments for removing a stone model from the tray (Par. 19-20 discloses that it is engaging with the sidewalls and is fully capable of being removed. As such, it is capable of selectively unlocking the segments for removing a stone model from the tray);
wherein said stiffening element are configured for pulling said segments against each other and for increasing the moment of inertia of the tray to resist bending stress (Par. 19-20 wherein because it is configured to pull the segments against one another it is fully capable of increasing the moment of inertia of the tray to resist bending stress).
However, Gruber is silent to each of the segments having slots therein and a plurality of stiffening elements.
Cohen teaches a dental tray (Fig. 19) in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a stiffening bar 41 to secure the plurality of segments (22/24/26; Annotated Figure B of Fig. 19) from flexing under pressure (Par. 164). The stiffening bar is found to be a clamp or a screw which would extend through a recess/slot to fix the segments (Par. 164). It should also be noted that Cohen discloses that the tray can have a singular stiffening bar or a plurality of stiffening bars resulting it to have a plurality of recesses/slots in each segments to house the bars through them (Par. 164).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental tray of Gruber to have each segment have a plurality of slots and the tray to comprise a plurality of stiffening elements in which would be extending through said slots as taught by Cohen to provide further securement of the tray and reduce chances of flexing during the application of stress.
PNG
media_image1.png
339
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
PNG
media_image2.png
350
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
Re. Claim 2¸ Gruber teaches a dental impression tray (Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 1) comprising:
a plurality of adjoining segments (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 8b) forming an entirety thereof (Fig. 8a-8b), at least one of the segments having a slot (8a-8b where the slots are elements 36/37; Par. 20) therein;
a hinge (Par. 20 where it is disclosed that the segments comprise hinge connections 31/32; Annotated Figure C of Fig. 8b) means between each of said adjoining segments allowing movement of said segments relative to each other (Par. 20; Fig. 8a-8b); and
a stiffening element (35) removably fitly sliding in said segment slot for selectively locking the segments together, during the use of the tray for taking a dental impression (Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 20), and selectively unlocking the segments for removing a stone model from the tray (Par. 19-20 discloses that it is engaging with the sidewalls and is fully capable of being removed. As such, it is capable of selectively unlocking the segments for removing a stone model from the tray);
wherein said stiffening elements and said slots increase the moment of inertia of the tray to resist bending stress (Par. 19-20 wherein because it is configured to pull the segments against one another it is fully capable of increasing the moment of inertia of the tray to resist bending stress).
However, Gruber is silent to each of the segments having slots therein and a plurality of stiffening elements.
Cohen teaches a dental tray (Fig. 19) in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a stiffening bar 41 to secure the plurality of segments (22/24/26; Annotated Figure B of Fig. 19) from flexing under pressure (Par. 164). The stiffening bar is found to be a clamp or a screw which would extend through a recess/slot to fix the segments (Par. 164). It should also be noted that Cohen discloses that the tray can have a singular stiffening bar or a plurality of stiffening bars resulting it to have a plurality of recesses/slots in each segments to house the bars through them (Par. 164).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental tray of Gruber to have each segment have a plurality of slots and the tray to comprise a plurality of stiffening elements in which would be extending through said slots as taught by Cohen to provide further securement of the tray and reduce chances of flexing during the application of stress.
PNG
media_image3.png
516
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C
Re. Claim 3¸ Gruber teaches dental impression tray (Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 1) comprising:
a plurality of adjoining segments (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 8b) forming an entirety thereof (Fig. 8a-8b), at least one of the segments having a slot (Fig. 8a-8b where the slots are elements 36/37; Par. 20) therein;
a hinge (31/32; Par. 20) means between each of said adjoining segments allowing movement of said segments relative to each other (Par. 20; Fig. 8a-8b; Annotated Figure A/C of Fig. 8a);
a stiffening element (35) removably extending through the slot in said segments for selectively locking the segments together during the use thereof for taking a dental impression (Fig. 8a-8b; Par. 20), and
selectively unlocking the segments for removing a stone model from the tray wherein each of said hinges has engaging shoulders there along (Par. 19-20 discloses that it is engaging with the sidewalls and is fully capable of being removed. As such, it is capable of selectively unlocking the segments for removing a stone model from the tray; 33/34 is found to be the shoulders), said shoulders being configured for preventing a movement of said hinge along an axis thereof (See Fig. 8 where the shoulders can be found which are at sections where the tray is hinged. As such, it is fully capable of preventing a movement of said hinge along an axis), and
wherein said stiffening elements are configured for pulling said segments against each other and for increasing the moment of inertia of the tray to resist bending stress (Par. 19-20 wherein because it is configured to pull the segments against one another it is fully capable of increasing the moment of inertia of the tray to resist bending stress).
However, Gruber is silent to each of the segments having slots therein and a plurality of stiffening elements.
Cohen teaches a dental tray (Fig. 19) in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a stiffening bar 41 to secure the plurality of segments (22/24/26; Annotated Figure B of Fig. 19) from flexing under pressure (Par. 164). The stiffening bar is found to be a clamp or a screw which would extend through a recess/slot to fix the segments (Par. 164). It should also be noted that Cohen discloses that the tray can have a singular stiffening bar or a plurality of stiffening bars resulting it to have a plurality of recesses/slots in each segments to house the bars through them (Par. 164).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the dental tray of Gruber to have each segment have a plurality of slots and the tray to comprise a plurality of stiffening elements in which would be extending through said slots as taught by Cohen to provide further securement of the tray and reduce chances of flexing during the application of stress.
Re. Claim 4¸Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 1, wherein Gruber teaches at least one segment of said tray is dissolvable in a solution (It should be noted that the segments can be dissolvable in a solution such as a strong acid or base).
Re. Claim 6, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 1, wherein Gruber teaches said tray is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: plastic, metal, silicone, and rubber (Par. 1 discloses that metal is commonly used as a means to make dental trays. Par. 8 discloses that this teaching is applied to a different embodiment of Gruber. As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tray of Gruber to have the tray be made of metal as taught by a different embodiment of Gruber as it is a design choice as to the material the tray is made. By making the tray out of metal it provides the tray durability).
Re. Claim 7, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 1, wherein Gruber teaches said stiffening element are stiffening bar (Fig. 8a-8b shows that the stiffening elements is a bar). The combination of the different embodiments of Gruber provides teaching that the plurality of stiffening elements are stiffening bars.
Re. Claim 8, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 7, wherein Cohen teaches said stiffening bars have a cross-sectional T-shape (Fig. 19 shows that the stiffening bar comprises a T shape and as such would have a T-shaped cross section).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the stiffening bars of Gruber and Cohen to have a cross-sectional T-shape as taught by Cohen to provide a locking means and prevent anti-slip of the bars from the segments.
Re. Claim 9, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 1, wherein Cohen teaches said stiffening elements are tension rods which are tightened using a method selected from the group consisting of: threads (Par. 164 discloses that the stiffening elements can be screws and as such would have threads).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the stiffening elements of Gruber and Cohen to be threads as taught by Cohen as to provide an adjustable stiffening means.
Re. Claim 10, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 1, wherein Gruber teaches said tray comprises three segments (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 8b).
Re. Claim 11, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 2, wherein Gruber teaches at least one segment of said tray is dissolvable in a solution (It should be noted that the segments can be dissolvable in a solution such as a strong acid or base).
Re. Claim 13, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 2, wherein Gruber teaches said tray is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: plastic, metal, silicone, and rubber (Par. 1 discloses that metal is commonly used as a means to make dental trays. Par. 8 discloses that this teaching is applied to a different embodiment of Gruber. As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tray of Gruber to have the tray be made of metal as taught by a different embodiment of Gruber as it is a design choice as to the material the tray is made. By making the tray out of metal it provides the tray durability).
Re. Claim 14, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 2, wherein Cohen teaches said stiffening elements are tension rods which are tightened using a method selected from the group consisting of: threads (Par. 164 discloses that the stiffening elements can be screws and as such would have threads).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the stiffening elements of Gruber and Cohen to be threads as taught by Cohen to provide an adjustable stiffening means.
Re. Claim 15, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 2, wherein Gruber teaches said tray comprises three segments (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 8b).
Re. Claim 16, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 3, wherein Gruber teaches at least one segment of said tray is dissolvable in a solution (It should be noted that the segments can be dissolvable in a solution such as a strong acid or base).
Re. Claim 18, Gruber and Cohen teaches the the dental impression tray of claim 3, wherein Gruber teaches said tray is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: plastic, metal, silicone, and rubber (Par. 1 discloses that metal is commonly used as a means to make dental trays. Par. 8 discloses that this teaching is applied to a different embodiment of Gruber. As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the tray of Gruber to have the tray be made of metal as taught by a different embodiment of Gruber as it is a design choice as to the material the tray is made. By making the tray out of metal it provides the tray durability).
Re. Claim 19, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 3, wherein Cohen teaches said stiffening elements are tension rods which are tightened using a method selected from the group consisting of: threads (Par. 164 discloses that the stiffening elements can be screws and as such would have threads).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the stiffening elements of Gruber and Cohen to be threads as taught by Cohen to provide an adjustable stiffening means.
Re. Claim 20, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 3, wherein Gruber teaches said tray comprises three segments (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 8b).
Re. Claim 21, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 7, wherein Cohen teaches said stiffener bars are tapered between 0 and 5 degrees along their respective lengths (Fig. 19 which shows the stiffening bar where it displays that the bars are found to not tapered and as such would have a taper of 0 degrees.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the stiffening elements of Gruber and Cohen to be tapered by 0 degrees as taught by Cohen to provide an adjustable stiffening means provided by the non-tapering structure.
Re. Claim 22, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 7, wherein Cohen teaches said slots are tapered between 0 and 5 degrees along their respective lengths (Fig. 19 shows that the bar does not taper and as such the slots would need to have a 0 degree taper along the length to ensure the element can extend through).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the slots of Gruber and Cohen to be tapered by 0 degrees as taught by Cohen to provide an adjustable stiffening means provided by the non-tapering structure.
Re. Claim 23, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 7, wherein Cohen discloses the stiffener bars have a handle that clips into a segment, limiting the axial movement of the stiffener bars (Fig. 20 discloses an embodiment similar to that shown in Fig. 19 which implements a handle 41a that can be clipped/clamped into place by the screws 41b to reduce the movement of the tray and also the stiffening bars).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the stiffening bars of Gruber and Cohen to have a handle that clips into a segment, limiting the axial movement of the stiffener bars as taught by a different embodiment of Cohen to allow for easy handling by the user.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber (DE 837437 C, see machine translated ver) in view of Cohen (US 20210290340 A1) and Hagman (US 3399457 A).
Re. Claim 15, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 4, but are silent to said dissolvable segment is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: reversible and or irreversible hydrocolloids, reversible polymers (linear, branched, crosslinked or a combination thereof), sodium alginate, cellulose, sugar and cornstarch.
Hagman discloses a dental impression tray in the same field of endeavor and further discloses that the tray is made of a resinous material including cellulose (Col. 1, lines 25-30 and Col. 3, lines 17-21).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled the art before the effective filing date to have at least one segment of Gruber and Cohen to be made of cellulose as taught by Hagman as it is a design choice as to the type of material used. Further, it is well known in the art that cellulose is found to be dissolvable in a solution.
Re. Claim 12, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 11, but are silent to said dissolvable segment is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: reversible and or irreversible hydrocolloids, reversible polymers (linear, branched, crosslinked or a combination thereof), sodium alginate, cellulose, sugar and cornstarch.
Hagman discloses a dental impression tray in the same field of endeavor and further discloses that the tray is made of a resinous material including cellulose (Col. 1, lines 25-30 and Col. 3, lines 17-21).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled the art before the effective filing date to have at least one segment of Gruber and Cohen to be made of cellulose as taught by Hagman as it is a design choice as to the type of material used. Further, it is well known in the art that cellulose is found to be dissolvable in a solution.
Re. Claim 17, Gruber and Cohen teaches the dental impression tray of claim 16, but are silent to said dissolvable segment is formed from a material selected from the group consisting of: reversible and or irreversible hydrocolloids, reversible polymers (linear, branched, crosslinked or a combination thereof), sodium alginate, cellulose, sugar and cornstarch.
Hagman discloses a dental impression tray in the same field of endeavor and further discloses that the tray is made of a resinous material including cellulose (Col. 1, lines 25-30 and Col. 3, lines 17-21).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled the art before the effective filing date to have at least one segment of Gruber and Cohen to be made of cellulose as taught by Hagman as it is a design choice as to the type of material used. Further, it is well known in the art that cellulose is found to be dissolvable in a solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
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, 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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
12/30/2025