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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(1), because figure 1 show different views within the same figure.
The drawings are objected to because the lines, numbers and letters are not uniformly thick and well defined; and numbers and reference characters are not plain and legible for figures 3-6 and there is improper shading which will render insufficient reproduction characteristics.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because i. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-2, change “A crown appearance color confirming method of previously confirming an appearance color of a crown after an abutment tooth of a patient is inserted into an open cavity, the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including the open cavity and being formed by computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) using a milling block, the crown appearance color confirming method” to “A crown appearance color confirming method for confirming an appearance color of a crown after an abutment tooth of a patient is inserted into an open cavity of said crown, the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including the open cavity and being formed by computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) using a milling block”.
Claim 2, lines 1-3, change “wherein in the confirming step, an image or image data obtained by imaging an appearance of the crown sample is used, the image or image data being obtained before and after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample” to “wherein in the confirming step, obtaining an image or image data by imaging the appearance of the crown sample and the image or image data being obtained before and after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample”
Claim 3, line 3 change “and includes an abutment tooth portion” to “and the at least one abutment tooth includes an abutment tooth portion”.
Claim 7, line 2 change “the instrument kit is used for previously confirming an” to “the instrument kit is used for
Claim 13, line 1-2 change “A confirming method for an influence of a shape of an abutment tooth on an appearance color of a crown formed using a candidate milling block in adopting a milling block to be used for forming a crown by computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)” to “A confirming method for
Claim 14, line 5 change “in a stage in which a surface color pattern of a abutment tooth” to “inwherein a surface color pattern of the abutment tooth”.
Claim 14, lines 16-17 change “abutment tooth sample respectively including the open cavity and the abutment tooth portion having shapes corresponding to each other and respectively selected from the second crown sample group and the second abutment tooth sample group” to abutment tooth sample , wherein the open cavity and the abutment tooth portion have shapes corresponding to each other and respectively selected from the second crown sample group and the second abutment tooth sample group”.
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 1-12 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 in lines 8-10, “the abutment tooth sample including an abutment tooth portion that has a surface color pattern substantially identical to a surface color pattern of the abutment tooth and is formed into a standard shape of the abutment tooth”, specifically, the limitation “a standard shape of the abutment tooth” is indefinite. The term “standard shape abutment” is a term of art associated to a generic or premanufactured abutment, however the association to the previously cited “abutment tooth” which is disclosed in the preamble as a patient’s abutment tooth makes it unclear what defines a standard shape with context to the abutment tooth sample. The shape of the abutment can vary based on the location in the oral cavity and design objectives and the specification provides no clear guidance on a standard shape. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the abutment tooth sample being formed into a shape similar to the abutment tooth of interest in the oral cavity of the patient.
Claim 1 recites in lines 11-13 “the crown sample having a surface color pattern substantially identical to a surface color pattern of the crown, being formed into a standard shape of the crown by the CAD/CAM using a milling block substantially identical to a milling block to be used for forming the crown”. The limitation “a standard shape of the crown” is indefinite because there is no clear and unambiguous understanding or definition of a standard shape in reference to a crown which is disclosed as being a tooth crown prosthesis which is recited in the preamble as “formed by computer aided design (CAD)/computer aided manufacturing (CAM). The shape of a crown can vary based on the position in the oral cavity and patient specific parameters. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the crown sample being formed into a shape similar to the crown of interest in the oral cavity of the patient.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites in lines 2-3, “at least one abutment tooth sample that is configured as an exemplar of an abutment tooth of a patient and includes an abutment tooth portion formed into a standard shape of the abutment tooth”, specifically, the limitation “a standard shape of the abutment tooth” is indefinite. The term “standard shape abutment” is a term of art associated to a generic or premanufactured abutment, however the association to the previously cited “abutment tooth” which is disclosed as being an abutment tooth of a patient makes it unclear what defines a standard shape with context to the abutment tooth sample. The shape of an abutment can vary based on the location in the oral cavity and design objectives and the specification provides no clear guidance on a standard shape. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the abutment tooth portion being formed into a shape similar to the abutment tooth of interest in the oral cavity of the patient.
Claim 3 recites in lines 5-7 “at least one crown sample that is configured as an exemplar of a crown, the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including an open cavity into which the abutment tooth is to be inserted, the at least one crown sample being formed into a standard shape of the crown”. The limitation “a standard shape of the crown” is indefinite because there is no clear and unambiguous understanding or definition of a standard shape in reference to a crown which is disclosed as being a tooth crown prosthesis. The shape of a crown can vary based on the position in the oral cavity and patient specific parameters and the specification provides no clear definition on a standard shape. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the crown sample being formed into a shape similar to the crown of interest in the oral cavity of the patient.
Claims 4-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on claim 3.
Claim 10 recites in lines 4-5 “at least one abutment tooth sample that is configured as an exemplar of an abutment tooth of a patient and includes an abutment tooth portion formed into a standard shape of the abutment tooth; specifically, the limitation “a standard shape of the abutment tooth” is indefinite. The term “standard shape abutment” is a term of art associated to a generic or premanufactured abutment, however the association to the previously cited “abutment tooth” which is disclosed as being an abutment tooth of a patient makes it unclear what defines a standard shape with context to the abutment tooth sample. The shape of an abutment can vary based on the location in the oral cavity and design objectives and the specification provides no clear guidance on a standard shape. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the abutment tooth portion being formed into a shape similar to the abutment tooth of interest in the oral cavity of the patient.
Claim 10 recites in lines 7-10 “at least one crown sample that is configured as an exemplar of a crown, the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including an open cavity into which the abutment tooth is to be inserted, the at least one crown sample being formed into a standard shape of the crown”. The limitation “a standard shape of the crown” is indefinite because there is no clear and unambiguous understanding or definition of a standard shape in reference to a crown which is disclosed as being a tooth crown prosthesis. The shape of a crown can vary based on the position in the oral cavity and patient specific parameters and the specification provides no clear definition on a standard shape. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the crown sample being formed into a shape similar to the crown of interest in the oral cavity of the patient.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JPH 0531127 A) in view of Ziskind et al (US 2022/0000582) and Didler et al (US 2002/0064749).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a crown appearance color confirming method of previously confirming an appearance color of a crown after an abutment tooth of a patient is inserted into an open cavity, the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including the open cavity (abstract and figure 2) and the crown appearance color confirming method comprising:
preparing an instrument kit including a combination of an abutment tooth sample and a crown sample (see figures 1-2 and par 14 discloses providing a combination of the crown restoration and a working model),
the abutment tooth sample including an abutment tooth portion (working model 11) that has a surface color pattern substantially identical to a surface color pattern of the abutment tooth and is formed into a standard shape of the abutment tooth (par 10 of translation discloses the working model corresponds to the abutment tooth and color tone of the abutment tooth in the oral cavity and where a standard shape is interpreted as the same general shape of an abutment in the oral cavity, see figure 1 and par 10-12),
the crown sample (crown restoration 15) having a surface color pattern substantially identical to a surface color pattern of the crown (par 11 discloses the crown restoration corresponding to the crown in the oral cavity), and including an open cavity corresponding to the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample (see figure 2); and
confirming an appearance color of the crown sample after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample (par 20 of translation discloses adjusting the color tone of the restoration following the attachment of the crown restoration on the working model).
Watanabe fails to disclose the crown being formed by computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) using a milling block, crown sample being formed into a standard shape of the crown by the CAD/CAM using a milling block substantially identical to a milling block to be used for forming the crown and confirming the appearance color of the crown sample before the abutment portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample.
Ziskind teaches the crown and crown sample being formed by CAD/CAM using a milling block using a milling block substantially identical to a milling block to be used for forming the crown (par 139 discloses the fabrication of the dental restoration using a CAD from a solid block of material and par 173 discloses the construction of a model crown by CAD constructed by scanning of in mouth crowns) for the purpose of producing a desired crown and shape in minimal time and expense (par 139-140)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Watanabe to the crown being formed by computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) using a milling block and the crown sample being formed into a standard shape of the crown by the CAD/CAM using a milling block substantially identical to a milling block to be used for forming the crown as taught by Ziskind for the purpose of producing a desired crown and shape in minimal time and expense.
Didler discloses a two-part system for confirming a dental restoration (see figure 2 and abstract), the two parts being an abutment tooth sample (casing part 6) that is attached to crown sample (core part 5) that teaches confirming the appearance color of the crown sample (casing part 6) before the abutment portion attaches to the crown sample (par 34 discloses before selecting a core part, color matching the casing part to the reference object, specifically the enamel of the patient) for the purpose of enabling a step by step color comparison of the dentin and enamel to determine an appropriate restoration mass/color (par 37).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe/Ziskind to include confirming the appearance color of the crown sample before the abutment portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample as taught by Didler for the purpose of enabling step by step color comparison of the abutment tooth sample and dental crown sample to determine the appropriate color of the restoration.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Ziskind and Didler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2009/0168063).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe/Ziskind/Didler discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose the confirming step, an image or image data obtained by imaging an appearance of the crown sample is used, the image or image data being obtained before and after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample.
Kobayashi teaches the use of image or image data to obtain imaging of the crown sample (par 55-57 discloses the measurement and confirming of the color shade using a camera and image data) for the purpose of obtaining color measurement data (par 54).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe/Ziskind/Didler to have the confirming step to be image and image data obtained by imaging an appearance of the crown sample as taught by Kobayashi for the purpose of obtaining color measurement data.
Claims 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Morisaki (WO 2019/135379 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses an instrument kit (figures 1 and 2) comprising
at least one abutment tooth sample (working model 11) that is configured as an exemplar of an abutment tooth of a patient (par 10 of translation discloses the working model corresponds to the abutment tooth and color tone of the abutment tooth in the oral cavity ) and includes an abutment tooth portion formed into a standard shape of the abutment tooth (where a standard shape is interpreted as the same general shape of an abutment in the oral cavity, see figure 1 and par 10-12), and
at least one crown sample (crown restoration 15) that is configured as an exemplar of a crown (par 11 discloses the crown restoration corresponding to the crown in the oral cavity), the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including an open cavity into which the abutment tooth is to be inserted (par 11 discloses the crown restoration having a portion that corresponds to the abutment, figure 1 shows that it is an oral cavity, furthermore since the restoration of figure 1 is disclosed as being representative of a restoration in the mouth, the crown prosthesis positioned in the oral cavity also includes the open cavity) , the at least one crown sample being formed into a standard shape of the crown (where the standard shape of the crown is interpreted as being similar a similar to the shape of the crown, which is disclosed in par 12-13) and including an open cavity corresponding to the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample (see figure 1).
Watanabe fails to disclose the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples,
the plurality of abutment tooth samples constitutes at least one of a first abutment tooth sample group or a second abutment tooth sample group, the first abutment tooth sample group including the abutment tooth portions having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other, the second abutment tooth sample group including the abutment tooth portions having surface color patterns substantially identical to each other and having shapes different from each other, and
the plurality of crown samples constitutes at least one of a first crown sample group or a second crown sample group, the first crown sample group including the crown samples having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other, the second crown sample group including the crown samples having surface color patterns substantially identical to each other and having shapes different from each other.
However, Morisaki teaches an instrument kit (demonstration device 10) that includes a plurality of crown samples (restoration samples 50), the crown samples constitute a first crown sample group including the crown samples having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other( par 34 discloses the shape and size if the artificial teeth be uniform in shape and size and par 48 discloses the restoration samples are one type of structure with varied shades) for the purpose of simulating and confirming restoration color and shade range compatibility for restoration (par 21).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe to have the instrument include a plurality of crown samples that constitute a first crown sample group including the crown samples having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other as taught by Morisaki for the purpose of simulating and confirming restoration color and shade range compatibility for restoration.
Claim 4, Watanabe/Morisaki discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3. Morisaki further teaches the surface color patterns of the at least one abutment tooth sample and the at least one crown sample are configured using a plurality of colors including a color corresponding to one selected from 18 shades representing a color of a tooth (par 39-40 discloses the restoration having at least one shade of the VITA shade guide in the pattern of color on the surface) for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses demonstration instrument used for demonstrating the crown appearance color confirming method according to claim 1 (the limitation being interpreted as intended use of the claimed invention), the demonstration instrument comprising: an instrument kit (figures 1 and 2) comprising:
at least one abutment tooth sample (working model 11) that is configured as an exemplar of an abutment tooth of a patient (par 10 of translation discloses the working model corresponds to the abutment tooth and color tone of the abutment tooth in the oral cavity ) and includes an abutment tooth portion formed into a standard shape of the abutment tooth (where a standard shape is interpreted as the same general shape of an abutment in the oral cavity, see figure 1 and par 10-12); and
at least one crown sample (crown restoration 15) that is configured as an exemplar of a crown (par 11 discloses the crown restoration corresponding to the crown in the oral cavity), the crown being a tooth crown prosthesis including an open cavity into which the abutment tooth is to be inserted (par 11 discloses the crown restoration having a portion that corresponds to the abutment, figure 1 shows that it is an oral cavity, furthermore since the restoration of figure 1 is disclosed as being representative of a restoration in the mouth, the crown prosthesis positioned in the oral cavity also includes the open cavity), the at least one crown sample being formed into a standard shape of the crown (where the standard shape of the crown is interpreted as being similar a similar to the shape of the crown, which is disclosed in par 12-13) and including an open cavity corresponding to the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample (see figure 1),
Watanabe fails to disclose the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples, the plurality of abutment tooth samples constitutes at least one of a first abutment tooth sample group or a second abutment tooth sample group, the first abutment tooth sample group including the abutment tooth portions having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other, the second abutment tooth sample group including the abutment tooth portions having surface color patterns substantially identical to each other and having shapes different from each other, and the plurality of crown samples constitutes at least one of a first crown sample group or a second crown sample group, the first crown sample group including the crown samples having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other, the second crown sample group including the crown samples having surface color patterns substantially identical to each other and having shapes different from each other, wherein the number of the plurality of crown samples is 2 to 18, and the plurality of crown samples are each arranged in a state capable of receiving insertion of the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample into the open cavity.
However, Morisaki teaches an instrument kit (demonstration device 10) that includes a plurality of crown samples (restoration samples 50), the crown samples constitute a first crown sample group including the crown samples having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other( par 34 discloses the shape and size if the artificial teeth be uniform in shape and size and par 48 discloses the restoration samples are one type of structure with varied shades) and the number of the plurality of crown samples is 2 to 18 (see figure 1) for the purpose of simulating and confirming restoration color and shade range compatibility for restoration (par 21).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe to have the instrument include a plurality of crown samples that constitute a first crown sample group including the crown samples having shapes substantially identical to each other and having surface color patterns different from each other and the number of the plurality of crown samples is 2 to 18 as taught by Morisaki for the purpose of simulating and confirming restoration color and shade range compatibility for restoration.
Watanabe discloses the abutment tooth portion (12) of the abutment sample constitutes the shape of the open cavities of the plurality of crown sample (see figure 2). Therefore, it would be an obvious design choice to modify Watanabe/Morisaki to have the plurality of crown samples are each arranged in a state capable of receiving insertion of the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample into the open cavity.to duplicate Watanabe for the purpose of facilitating the reproduction of the color tone of a crown restoration (abstract, Watanabe), as it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 5 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al in view of Morisaki et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gleditzsch et al (US 2011/0115210).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe/Morisaki discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3, but fails to disclose the at least one crown sample is formed by the CAD/CAM using a milling block that is made of a hybrid resin or ceramics.
However, Gleditzsch teaches a dental restoration is formed by a CAD/CAM using a milling block that is made of a hybrid resin or ceramics (par 41-42 discloses the dental restoration item which is formed by a CAM from a blank).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe/Morisaki to have at least one crown sample is formed by the CAD/CAM using a milling block that is made of a hybrid resin or ceramics as taught by Gleditzsch for the purpose of creating a patient specific crown sample.
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe/Morisaki/Gleditzsch disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 5. The limitation “the instrument kit is used for previously confirming an appearance color of the crown after the crown is mounted onto the abutment tooth of the patient, the crown being formed by the CAD/CAM using a milling block substantially identical to a milling block used for forming the crown sample” is considered intended use of the claim invention. Statements of intended use and other functional statements do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over Watanabe/Morisaki/ Gleditzsch which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al in view of Morisaki et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Muller (US 2021/0251733).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe/Morisaki discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3, but fails to disclose the at least one abutment tooth sample further includes a pinch portion that extends from the abutment tooth portion to an opposite side in a direction of insertion into the open cavity.
Muller teaches an abutment tooth sample (stump 300) further including a pinch portion (handle 360) extending from an abutment tooth portion (stump replica 300) to an opposite side in a direction of insertion into an open cavity (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe/Morisaki to have the at least one abutment tooth sample further includes a pinch portion that extends from the abutment tooth portion to an opposite side in a direction of insertion into the open cavity as taught by Muller for the purpose of providing support for the abutment sample and crown sample.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al in view of Morisaki et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ziskind et al.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe/Morisaki disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3, but fails to disclose including the first abutment tooth sample group and the shapes of the abutment tooth portions of the plurality of abutment tooth samples constituting the first abutment tooth sample group coincide with the shapes of the open cavities of the plurality of crown samples constituting the first crown sample group on a one-to-one basis.
However, Ziskind teaches an abutment group (element 660) that is identical in shape and has different color patterns from each other (see figure 28 and par 150 which discloses the sleeve element 620 of an abutment portion of a tooth 620 being various pigments) for the purpose of providing a desired color for the dental restoration (par 151).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicants filing to modify Watanabe/Morisaki to include the first abutment tooth sample group as taught by Ziskind for the purpose of providing a replica color for the dental restoration.
Watanabe discloses the abutment tooth portion (12) of the abutment sample constitutes the shape of the open cavities of the plurality of crown sample (see figure 2). Therefore, it would be an obvious design choice to modify Watanabe/Morisaki/Ziskind all of the plurality of abutment tooth samples and the plurality crown samples being shaped to have the abutment portion of the first abutment sample group to coincide with the first crown sample group to duplicate Watanabe for the purpose of facilitating the reproduction of the color tone of a crown restoration (abstract, Watanabe), as it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al in view of Morisaki et al as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Engman (US 2006/0099549) and Ziskind et al.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe/Morisaki disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 3, but fails to disclose the instrument kit includes the second abutment tooth sample group and the second crown sample group, and the plurality of crown samples constituting the second crown sample group includes crown samples including the open cavities having shapes corresponding to all the shapes of the abutment tooth portions of the plurality of abutment tooth samples constituting the second abutment tooth sample group.
Engman teaches a kit that includes a second abutment tooth sample group (see figures 3a-c) which has identical surface color patterns substantially identical to each other and having shapes different from each other (par 72 discloses the abutments having different shapes) for the purpose of providing different anatomical areas and positions (par 72).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify Watanabe/Morisaki to have the instrument kit include a second abutment tooth sample group as taught by Engman for the purpose of providing representation of different restoration sites in the oral cavity of the patient.
However, Ziskind teaches a kit including the second crown sample group (see figure 33, which show different crown 700,710,720 that share the same shade but different sizes) and the plurality of crown samples (prefabricated crowns 700,710,720) constituting the second crown sample group includes crown samples including the open cavities having shapes corresponding to all the shapes of an abutment tooth portions of the abutment (see figure 33 which shows an opening which is shaped to correspond to a tooth abutment portion as seen in figure 35).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe/Morisaki to have the instrument kit include the second crown sample group the plurality of crown samples constituting the second crown sample group includes crown samples including the open cavities having shapes corresponding to all the shapes of the abutment tooth portions of the plurality of abutment tooth samples constituting the second abutment tooth sample group as taught by Ziskind for the purpose of providing options to represent the desired shape and shade of a dental restoration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, specifically the 112b rejections set forth for claim 3, as claim 11 incorporates the kit of claim 8 which is rejected based on dependency from claim 3 and claim 13 incorporates the kit of claim 9 which is rejected based on dependency on claim 3.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, Didler discloses a method comprising the steps of preparing the instrument kit (figure 1), selecting a first abutment sample (core part 5, see par 33 which discloses selecting a core part which matches the reference object), confirming an appearance color after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity (par 35-36) discloses modularly constructing the casing part and the core part and comparing to the natural tooth to determine color match), and determining a crown sample which has an appearance color confirmed in the confirming step to match the color of the tooth (par 34-35 disclose the selection of a casing part based on the matching to the enamel of the patient before and after positioning on the core part). However, Didler and the prior art of record fails to disclose the use of the color matching information obtained in the method to be used to adopt a milling block to be used for forming a crown by CAD/CAM, the preparation of the kit being in accordance with claim 8, the step of confirming a after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample selected in the selecting step is inserted into the open cavity for each of the plurality of crown samples constituting the first crown sample group, and adopting a milling block that is substantially identical to a milling block used for forming the determined crown sample. Claim 12 is indicated allowable subject matter based on claim dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record being Muller that discloses a correlation between the thickness and concavity of a veneer placed on a replica stump and the confirmation of the color (par 6), but the provided instrument kit gives a variation of colors and the same or similar shape stump (par 73 discloses a standard shape of the stump and par 70 discloses a variety of colors/shades). However, Muller and the prior art of record fail to disclose or render obvious, “which the surface color patterns of the abutment tooth portions of the plurality of abutment tooth samples constituting the second abutment tooth sample group are substantially identical to or similar to a surface color pattern of the abutment tooth” and “confirming the appearance color after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity, for each of combinations of the crown sample and the abutment tooth sample respectively including the open cavity and the abutment tooth portion having shapes corresponding to each other and respectively selected from the second crown sample group and the second abutment tooth sample group”, where the second abutment tooth sample group having the same color and different shapes in combination with all recited claims of claim 13. Claim 14 is indicated allowable subject matter based on claim dependency on claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799