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 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10 change “into an exemplary shape of the abutment tooth” to “into a shape of the abutment tooth”.
Claim 1, line 12 change “into an exemplary shape of the crown” to “into a shape of the crown”.
Claim 1, line 13-14 change “to a milling block to be used for forming the crown” to “to the milling block used to form the crown”.
Claim 3, lines 4-5 delete “formed into an exemplary shape of the abutment tooth” .
Claim 3, line 7 delete “being formed into an exemplary shape of the crown and”.
Claim 10, line 1-2 change “A demonstration instrument used for demonstrating a crown appearance color confirming method” to “ A demonstration instrument for confirming a crown appearance color”.
Claim 10, line 7 delete “formed into an exemplary shape of the abutment tooth”.
Claim 10, lines 10-11 delete “being formed into the exemplary shape of the crown and”
Claim 11, line 6-7 delete “formed into a an exemplary shape of the abutment tooth”
Claim 11, lines 10-11 delete “being formed into an exemplary shape of the crown and”
Claim 13, line 11 delete “formed into a an exemplary shape of the abutment tooth”.
Claim 13 line 14-15 “being formed into an exemplary shape of the crown and”.
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.
Claim 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “confirming an appearance color of the crown sample before and after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity of the crown sample”, it is unclear what is being confirmed with regard to the appearance color of the crown sample before and after the abutment tooth portion, is the confirmation between the samples and the crown and abutment attached into the oral cavity for similarity or a confirmation of a specific color or hue. Clarification is required. The specification discloses” a crown sample having the appearance color confirmed in the confirming step that best matches an appearance color of the tooth of the patient”, as such the limitation is interpreted as the crown sample being confirmed to match the appearance color of the tooth of the patient.
Claim 2 is rejected based on claim dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “confirming step comprises obtaining an image or image data by imaging the appearance of the crown sample and 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”, as set forth above it is unclear what is being confirmed in the confirming step. Clarification required.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples”, it is unclear how the instrument can include at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples, when earlier in the claim it discloses instrument kit has “at least one abutment tooth sample” and “at least one crown sample”, as such it is unclear what the kit includes. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the instrument kit includes either a plurality of abutment samples and one crown sample or a plurality of crown samples and one abutment sample.
Claim 3 recites “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 requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “the plurality of crown samples constitutes at least one of a first crown sample group or a second crown sample group”. requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claims 4-9 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 3.
Claim 7 recites “a milling block” it is unclear if this is the same milling block recited in previous claims or an additional milling block. For the purpose of examination, the milling block is interpreted as the same milling block recited in previous claim.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples”, it is unclear how the instrument can include at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples, when earlier in the claim it discloses instrument kit has “at least one abutment tooth sample” and “at least one crown sample”, as such it is unclear what the kit includes. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the instrument kit includes either a plurality of abutment samples and one crown sample or a plurality of crown samples and one abutment sample.
Claim 10 recites “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 requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “the plurality of crown samples constitutes at least one of a first crown sample group or a second crown sample group”. requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples”, it is unclear how the instrument can include at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples, when earlier in the claim it discloses instrument kit has “at least one abutment tooth sample” and “at least one crown sample”, as such it is unclear what the kit includes. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the instrument kit includes either a plurality of abutment samples and one crown sample or a plurality of crown samples and one abutment sample.
Claim 11 recites “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 requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “the plurality of crown samples constitutes at least one of a first crown sample group or a second crown sample group”. requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the instrument kit includes the first abutment tooth sample group and the first crown sample group”, however earlier in the claim, the instrument kit is disclosed as having at least
Claim 11 recites “confirming an appearance color 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”, it is unclear what appearance color is being confirmed during this step after insertion of the selected abutment portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into each of the crown samples, is the confirmation between the samples and the crown and abutment attached into the oral cavity for similarity or a confirmation of a specific color or hue. Clarification is required. The specification discloses “a crown sample having the appearance color confirmed in the confirming step that best matches an appearance color of the tooth of the patient”, as such the limitation is interpreted as the crown sample being confirmed to match the appearance color of the tooth of the patient.
Claim 12 is rejected based on claim dependency on claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “the confirming step comprises 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 each of the plurality of crown samples”
Claim 13 recites “wherein the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples”, it is unclear how the instrument can include at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples, when earlier in the claim it discloses instrument kit has “at least one abutment tooth sample” and “at least one crown sample”, as such it is unclear what the kit includes. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the instrument kit includes either a plurality of abutment samples and one crown sample or a plurality of crown samples and one abutment sample.
Claim 13 recites “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 requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “the plurality of crown samples constitutes at least one of a first crown sample group or a second crown sample group”. requirement of only one of the first or second group, renders having only the second group indefinite as it would no longer have a first group. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “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, wherein the open cavity and the abutment tooth portion have shapes corresponding to each other and respectively selected from the second sample group and the second abutment tooth sample group”, it is unclear what the confirmation of the appearance color after the abutment tooth portion of the abutment tooth sample is inserted into the open cavity for each combination of the crown sample and the abutment tooth sample, is the confirmation between the samples and the crown and abutment attached into the oral cavity for similarity or a confirmation of a specific color or hue. Clarification is required. The specification discloses “a crown sample having the appearance color confirmed in the confirming step that best matches an appearance color of the tooth of the patient”, as such the limitation is interpreted as the crown sample being confirmed to match the appearance color of the tooth of the patient.
Claim 14 is rejected based on claim dependency on claim 13
Claim 14 recites “the confirming step comprises 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”, as set forth above it is unclear what is being confirmed in the confirming step. Clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, 3 and 10, the closest prior art is previously cited Watanabe (JPH 0531127 A) which discloses a crown appearance color confirming method comprising preparing an instrument kit that includes a 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 (par 10 of translation discloses the working model corresponds to the abutment tooth and color tone of the abutment tooth in the oral cavity), 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 reviewing 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 however, 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 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 and all additionally recited limitations in claim 1 or the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples and all additionally recited limitations in claims 3 and 10.
Ziskind (US 2022/0000582) teaches a crown and crown sample being formed by CAD/CAM 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). However, applicant persuasively argues on pages 14-15 no technical suggestion or motivation to modify Watanabe to have the crown sample being formed into a 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, as the crown sample of Watanabe and the manufactured restorations of Ziskind are all incorporated into the clinical restoration process and are not just used in a working model as “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 the crown” as set forth in claim 1. Claim 2 is indicated allowable subject matter based on claim 1.
Morisaki (WO 2019/135379 A1) 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). However, Applicant persuasively argues on pages 16-17 that the disclosure of Watanabe to be a clinical restoration which is manufacture/modified while on the model of the abutment and then placed into the oral cavity and Morisaki failure to disclose or relate to an abutment/crown structure as claimed , there is no clear motivation to modify Watanabe to have the instrument kit includes at least one of a plurality of abutment tooth samples or a plurality of crown samples as claimed in claims 3 and 10. Claims 4-9 are indicated allowable subject matter based on claim dependency on claim 3.
See office action mailed 1/21/2026 for the reasons of allowable subject matter for claims 11-14
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights