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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 2/5/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Briefly, regarding Applicant’s arguments to the objection to the drawings, the Examiner notes that as stated below the claimed features are not shown to be encompassed by the elected species’ figure. Applicant may provide specific explanation regarding the figures and specification as to how the limitations are supported, amend the claims and/or modify the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Applicant’s arguments against the prior art combination of record have been fully considered but are not persuasive as they do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second tooth are directly adjacent to each other and the interproximal surface of the first tooth is between the first and second tooth (per claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, the above features are not shown in elected species N, corresponding to Fig. 21, and instead appear to correspond to other non-elected species. As such, the claims should either be cancelled or withdrawn, or support for such features should be pointed out in Fig. 21. Alternatively Figure 21 could be amended to include reference numerals pointing out such features, however no new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 21-22, 25-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the terms “registers with an incisal surface” in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are indefinite as it is unclear whether or not the term intends to refer back to the previously recited “incisal…surface” or another surface. As best understood by the Examiner the term intends to refer back. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 6-7 and 11, the terms “an incisal surface” is indefinite for the same reasons as explained above. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 21, 26-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegland (US 20150182301 A1) in view of Spiry (US 4778386 A) in view of von Weissenfluh (US 4500288).
Regarding claim 1, Hegland discloses a tool (see Fig. 8) for forming a dental restoration, the tool comprising: a mold body (210/212) formed as an integral contiguous structure (see [0065]-[0069] and citations below) configured to combine with a first tooth (206) of a patient to define a mold cavity encompassing at least a portion of desired tooth structure of the first tooth (e.g. area enclosed by body, see [0065]-[0069]), the portion of desired tooth structure defining an interproximal surface of the first tooth (see Fig. 8; tool surrounds all surfaces of teeth, encompassing interproximal surfaces; capable of being used on a portion defining an interproximal surface), the mold body comprising: a first base member (210) engaging a first tooth and a second base member (212) coupled to the first base member (e.g. Fig. 8 shows 210 and 212 coupled together), the second base member engaging a second tooth, where the second tooth is not a tooth to be restored (capable of being used with a second tooth that is not intended to be restored); and an interproximal member (e.g. interproximal wall between 210/212) extending from the first base member (at least in part), configured to be disposed between two adjacent teeth of the patient, wherein the interproximal member extends through an interproximal space between the adjacent teeth, and wherein the interproximal member includes an interproximal surface corresponding with an interproximal surface of the first tooth, the interproximal surface defining a surface of the mold cavity (see Fig. 8).
In an alternate/additional interpretation (per claim 1 and 8), Hegland discloses wherein the first base member is further configured to conform to a lingual contour of the first tooth to provide a customized fit (e.g. lingual surface of 210) and the interproximal member is configured to be disposed between the first tooth (tooth in 210) and the second tooth (tooth in 212) when the mold body is positioned over the first tooth; interproximal member (e.g. interproximal wall between 210 and 212) extending from the first base member (at least in part), configured to be disposed between two adjacent teeth of the patient, wherein the interproximal member extends through an interproximal space between the adjacent teeth, and wherein the interproximal member includes an interproximal surface corresponding with an interproximal surface of the first tooth, the interproximal surface defining a surface of the mold cavity (see Fig. 8).
Hegland further discloses wherein the first and second teeth are directly adjacent to each other and the interproximal surface of the first tooth is between the first and second teeth (see Fig. 8; per claim 2); wherein the interproximal member extends entirely through an interproximal space between the adjacent teeth (see Fig. 8; per claim 4); wherein the interproximal member extends along an interproximal surface of the first tooth (see Fig. 8) and is configured to contact or cover at least a portion of an adjacent lingual or and adjacent facial surface of the first tooth (e.g. interproximal member interpreted to include portion which contacts or covers with a portion of the adjacent lingual and/or facial surfaces of the tool around the first tooth, see Fig. 8; per claim 9); wherein the interproximal member is configured to extend along an interproximal surface of the first tooth (see Fig. 8) and terminates adjacent a facial surface of the first tooth to define part of the mold cavity (see Fig. 8; e.g. as noted above, interproximal member extends and terminates into the facial surface, to form a part of the mold cavity encompassing the facial surface, which can be used to restore a facial surface if so desired; capable of being used as such; per claim 21); and wherein the mold body includes a region formed of a flexible material (see [0068]; per claim 26).
Hegland, however, does not teach wherein the first base member being configured to register with an incisal or occlusal surface of the first tooth, wherein when the first base member registers with an incisal surface of an anterior tooth, the first base member is further configured to cover at least a portion of an incisal edge of the first tooth and the second base member being configured to register with an incisal or occlusal surface of a second tooth, wherein when the second base member registers with an incisal surface of an anterior tooth, the second base member is further configured to cover at least a portion of an incisal edge of the second tooth, or a handle extending upward from a top region of the mold body and coupled to at least one of the first or second base members, or the interproximal member, the handle being configured to facilitate manipulation of the tool as required.
Spiry, however, teaches a tool for forming a dental restoration comprising a mold body (1) configured to combine with a tooth, the mold body being configured to register with an occlusal surface of the tooth (e.g. via occlusal cuspal rim (7/8)) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hegland to include Spiry’s teaching of providing an occlusal cuspal rim on the mold body, as such modification would allow for restoration of the occlusal surfaces of the tooth and improve the mechanical bond and fluid tightness of the mold (see Spiry, col 2, line 60 through col 3, line 19). It is noted that should the device of Hegland be modified to include Spiry’s occlusal cuspal rim, as combined above, the resultant tool would result with the first base member and second base members being configured to register with the occlusal surface of the first and second teeth as required (see teachings of Hegland’s customized shape and Spiry’s occlusal cuspal rim; per claim 1). The Examiner further notes that the claim provides a choice of incisal or occlusal surfaces, and Hegland/Spiry, as combined above, discloses registration with occlusal surfaces. Accordingly the term “wherein when the first (or second) base member registers with an incisal surface of an anterior tooth, the first base member is further configured to cover at least a portion of an incisal edge of the first (or second) tooth” which only refers to instances where the incisal surface is chosen, is not required.
Von Weissenfluh, however, teaches a similar tool for forming a dental restoration (Figs. 1-9) comprising a mold body with a first base member (1) and a handle (1’) extending upward from a top region of the mold body and coupled to at least the first base member, the handle being configured to facilitate manipulation of the tool (e.g. can be grasped). Von Weissenfluh further discloses wherein the first base member and handle are integrally formed as a single unit (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hegland/Spiry, as combined above, to include the handle of Von Weissenfluh, as such modification would provide easier insertion, removal and/or manipulation of the device. The Examiner notes that should the device of Hegland/Spiry be modified with the handle of von Weissenfluh, as combined above, the handle would be coupled to at last one of the first or second base member (as taught by von Weissenfluh), and would be positioned outside the interproximal space (as von Weissenfluh teaches it at an upper surface), and wherein the first base member, second base member and handle are integrally formed as a single unit (see Hegland and von Weissenfluh, citations above; per claim 27).
Regarding claim 30, Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, teaches wherein the mold body is formed from at least one of a resin or clear plastic (see [0069] Hegland; per claim 30). The Examiner notes that the term “printed” is a product by process limitation; that is the device is made by printing. The Examiner notes that product by process limitations are not limited by the specific steps of the process and only by the structure imparted thereby. In the instant case the structure is the unitary tool made of the resin or clear plastic, which Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh discloses.
Regarding claims 6-7, the Examiner notes that the claims depend from claim 1, which provide the choice of “incisal or occlusal”, which the Examiner choses occlusal for claim interpretation. Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 do not require the choice of incisal, instead stating that “when the first (and second) base member registers with an incisal surface of an anterior tooth”, and as such the limitations of claims 6-7 are optionally recited and directed to such instance which the Examiner does not choose for claim interpretation. In other words, the claim limitations therein are only required when the device covers incisal teeth, which for claim interpretation, the Examiner does not chose, as explained above.
Claim(s) 3, 11-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegland in view of Spiry in view of von Weissenfluh, as combined above, further in view of Vuillemot (US 2013/0130202 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 12, Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, discloses wherein the tool comprises first and second base members configured to engage first and second teeth, but does not teach wherein the tool comprises additional base members configured to engage additional teeth as required.
Vuillemot, however, teaches a tool for forming a dental restoration (see Figs. 4-5c) which comprising a plurality of base members corresponding to a plurality of teeth (e.g. 4 base members and 4 teeth shown); according teaching a third base member and third tooth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, to include Vuillemot’s teaching of providing a tool with multiple additional base members over respective teeth, as such modification would allow multiple teeth to be treated at the same time and/or provide improved stability to the device on the teeth. Regarding claim 3, should the device of Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, be modified with the teachings of Vuillemot as combined above (e.g. 4 base members and teeth), a second tooth can be interpreted as a tooth not directly adjacent to the first, with a third directly adjacent to the first such that the first and second teeth are not directly adjacent and the interproximal surface of the first tooth is between the first and a third tooth as required (per claim 3). Additionally, regarding claims 10 and 12, should the device of Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh be modified with the teachings of Vuillemot, as combined above (e.g. 4 base members and teeth), the base members (including a third or fourth) would register with occlusal surface of respective teeth (as taught by Spiry, per claim 10); and wherein the third tooth can be interpreted as an non-adjacent tooth to the first and third tooth, such that the first tooth is adjacent to a fourth and second tooth, with a 3rd tooth adjacent the fourth, such that the third tooth is not adjacent to the first or second tooth (per claim 12).
Regarding claim 22, Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, does not teach wherein when the first base member is configured to engage at least a portion of an incisal ridge of the first tooth and the second base member is configured to engage at least a portion of an incisal ridge of the second tooth as required.
Vuillemot, however, teaches a tool for forming a dental restoration (see Figs. 4-5c) which engages with and treats incisal teeth, including incisal ridges and edges, including mesiodistal centers thereof (see Figs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, to include Vuillemot’s teaching of forming the device to treat incisal teeth, including incisal edges and ridges, as such modification would allow different types and locations of teeth to be treated.
Regarding claim 11, Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh /Vuillemot, as combined above in regards to claim 10, teaches a third base member (Vuillemot) configured to register with a third occlusal surface (as Hegland/Spiry are directed to posterior teeth with occlusal surfaces), and as such the Examiner choses the interpretation of occlusal surfaces of claim 10. Accordingly, as claim 11 only specifies that the 3rd base member covers an incisal ridge at a center “when the third base member registers with an incisal surface of an anterior tooth”, the term is interpreted as optional and not required in the instance where the third base member covers an occlusal surface (as chosen as explained above).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegland in view of Spiry in view of von Weissenfluh, as combined above, further in view of Kvitrud et al (US 2005/0042577 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, does not teach wherein the mold body comprises a protrusion extending therefrom as required.
Kvitrud et al, however, teaches a tool for forming a dental restoration (see Fig. 6; 210) comprising a mold body (216 to 214) comprising a protrusion (250) extending from the mold body (see [0057]-[0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hegland/Spiry/von Weissenfluh, as combined above, to include Kvitrud’s teaching of providing a mold body with integral protrusion, as such modification would further facilitate manipulation during placement and removal of the tool in use (see Kvitrud, citations above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772