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 were received on February 5, 2026. These drawings are accepted and entered.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (713,273) in view of Fishman et al. (20090004629).
Alexander teaches a dental restoration device comprising a sleeve 1/2 having an exterior surface and an interior pocket (see annotated figure below) that is at least partially filled with a dental cement 8 (see col. 2, ll. 45-52, fig. 3), and a crown 6 having an exterior surface and an interior pocket (see fig. 1, annotated figure below) that is at least partially filled with a dental cement (see col. 2, ll. 52-56), the crown abutting the sleeve (see fig. 3), wherein the sleeve forms an outer surface of the dental restoration device on a gingival-facing part of thereof while the crown forms the outer surface of the dental restoration on the occlusal side thereof (see fig. 3), wherein the crown has an occlusal surface and a sidewall surface forming the interior pocket therein, and the sleeve is substantially ring-shaped and the crown is substantially cup shaped (see fig. 1). Alexander teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the sleeve is constructed with a thickness to enhance translucency.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fishman teaches a dental restoration 200 device comprising a sleeve having an exterior surface and an interior pocket constructed with a thickness to enhance translucency (see fig. 2, par. 23 regarding the restoration being hollow to accommodate the teeth of the user, par. 24 regarding the thickness of the wall being constructed to enhance translucency, i.e. provide desired translucency). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the sleeve taught by Alexander to have a thickness to enhance the translucency of the sleeve in order to provide an aesthetic dental restoration having the desired translucency.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patch (4,504,230) in view of in view of McDonald et al. (2011/0117524) in view of Hagne et al. (5,567,156).
Patch teaches a method of performing a dental restoration comprising preparing an affected tooth (col. 4, ll. 24-32), filling a substantially ring-shaped sleeve with a first dental adhesive (col. 4, ll. 46-52), placing the sleeve over the tooth (see fig. 3), curing the first adhesive (such that the amalgam is cured to form a bond with the tooth and ring), filling a substantially cup shaped crown with a second dental cement (see col. 5, ll. 1-7, such that it has a concave surface making it substantially cup shaped), placing the filled crown over the prepared tooth and sleeve (see fig. 4) and bonding it with the second dental cement (col. 5, ll. 1-23). Patch teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including both the ring shaped sleeve and cup shaped crown can be made of a ceramic or porcelain material (col. 3, ll. 1-5), however, does not specifically teach the ring-shaped sleeve is partially translucent, the first adhesive is a first light curing dental cement, curing the first light curing dental cement through the sleeve surface, the prepared tooth extends through the ring shape of the sleeve and the second dental cement is a second light curing cement and curing the second light curing dental cement through the crown surface.
McDonald teaches a method of performing a dental restoration comprising preparing an affected tooth 36 (par. 26), filling a substantially ring-shaped sleeve 14 with a first light cured dental adhesive (par. 39, such that when placed it is filled in that excess cement may escape and the matrix may remain in place and NOT be removed), placing the sleeve over the prepared tooth such that a top of the prepared tooth extends through the ring shape of the sleeve (see figs. 5a-5b), filling a substantially cup-shaped crown with a second light curing dental cement, placing the filled crown over the prepared tooth and curing the second light curing dental cement (see fig. 4, 5a-5b, par. 39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Patch to teach light cured dental cement and the prepared tooth extending through the ring in order to assist in aligning and retaining the restoration on the tooth and to prevent the cement from curing before the restoration is properly placed. McDonald further teaches the cap can be a ceramic material (see par. 26) and is filled with a light curved composite resin or cement (par. 39), however, does not specifically teach curing the first or second light curing cement through the sleeve surface and crown surface respectively.
Hagne teaches a method of performing a dental restoration comprising preparing an affected tooth (see fig. 6, such that the tooth has been prepared with cavity 20), providing a partially translucent restoration element (col. 3, ll. 67-39, col. 4, ll. 7-10, see figs.), filling a cavity with a light curing dental material (col. 5, ll. 39-41) and curing the light curing dental material through the restoration surface (abstract, col. 1, ll. 61-67, col. 2, ll. 1-8, col. 5, ll. 45-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Patch/McDonald with the step of curing the light curing dental cement through the restorations as taught by Hagne in order to rapidly fix the restorations and to ensure proper placement before curing. It is noted that the combination of the references would teach the method as claimed, such that Patch teaches a dental adhesive in each of the ring-shaped sleeve and cap and curing them (i.e. hardening them) as claimed, therefore, the modification would result in each of the adhesives being modified with the light curing adhesive as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 3/19/2026