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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 31, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein in the crossed-out reference has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kassel (4,997,367).
Kassel discloses with respect to claim 11 a method for non-invasive veneers, comprising a. placing a strip 10 around the front surface of a tooth (see figs. 1, 5), such that the tooth is isolated from the surrounding teeth (see figs. 1, 5), filling a portion of the interior of the strip with a resin (col. 4, ll. 41-42, col. 5, ll. 1-3, 47-50, col. 6, ll. 7-11), curing the resin (col. 5, ll. 47-48); and mechanically removing the resin (col. 5, ll. 47-50 such that it is trimmed which is mechanically removing it).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassel (4,997,367) in view of Karim et al. (2003/0114553).
With respect to claim 1, Kassel teaches a method for non-invasive veneers, comprising placing a transparent matrix 10 around the front surface of a tooth (see fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 11-12), the matrix placed into the gingival sulcus and extending from the front surface of the tooth (col. 4, ll. 47-49, specifically it is inserted subgingivally therefore it is placed into the gingival sulcus, further see figs. 5-6 which shows it extending form the front surface of the tooth, such that there is a space between the matrix and tooth); filling an interior of the matrix with a resin in an amount sufficient to overbuild the intended final shape of the tooth (col. 4, ll. 41-42, col. 5, ll. 1-3, 47-50, col. 6, ll. 7-11, such that since trimming and final forming and shaping is required, it is overbuilt); performing a first step of hardening the resin (col. 5, ll. 1-3, 47-50, col. 6, ll. 7-11, such that it is cured); and shaping the tooth to its final intended shape by mechanically removing the resin (col. 5, ll. 1-3, 47-50, col. 6, ll. 7-11, such that trimming is mechanically removing the resin). Kassel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the shaping step including mechanically removing the resin by heat-inducing friction, thereby also performing a second step of hardening the resin that remains once the tooth is shaped to its final intended shape.
Karim teaches a dental method including inserting a resin into the mouth in an amount sufficient to overbuild the intended final shape of the tooth, performing a first step of hardening the resin and shaping the tooth to its final intended shape by mechanically removing the resin by heat inducing friction, thereby also performing a second step of hardening the resin that remains once the tooth is shaped to is final intended shape (see pars. 129, 131-132). Such that Karim teaches the resin material is inserted into the mouth to mold it into its desired shape and then hardened by exposing it with a curing light (par. 132). Further Karim teaches griding the hardened resin material, which reads on the limitation of shaping the tooth to its final intended shape by mechanically removing the resin by heat inducing friction (see pars. 131-132, such that the shaping can be done between the successive curing steps). Such that the grinding of the thermoplastic resin would induce heat due to the friction which would also perform the claimed second step of hardening the resin as Karim teaches the resin is further cured, i.e. the final cure using heat. It is noted that the step of grinding, which induces heat, would cause the claimed second step as discussed above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the resin material and method taught by Kassel with the resin material and method of curing the resin material with light and heat as taught by Karim in order to be able to control the curing and easily shape the veneer. Such that it is noted that the step of shaping the veneer, i.e. the grinding, is more easily performed before the veneer is fully cured.
Kassel/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kassel further teaches with respect to claim 4, with respect to claim, wherein the method does not include a step of removing enamel of the tooth other than what is accomplished by surface etching (col. 4, ll. 41-49, ll. 67-68, col. 1-2, claim 12, such that the method only teaching using an etchant and does not teach mechanically removing the enamel of the tooth).
Kassel/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kassel further teaches with respect to claim 5, the method further including the step of etching the tooth (col. 4, ll. 41-49, ll. 67-68).
Kassel/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Karim further teaches with respect to claim 6, the step of placing the resin in the mouth includes heating the resin immediately before application (pars. 15-16, such that it does not need to be heated above room temperature, however, it is heated to room temperature).
Kassel/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Karim further teaches with respect to claim 8, further including the step of placing a putty mold behind the tooth (see fig. 6, such that the wings 16/17 fitted together form a mold and are placed behind the teeth).
Kassel/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kassel further teaches with respect to claim 9, wherein the step of filling the interior of the matrix with a resin is done in the order of the bottom region of the tooth (such that matrix is open at the top and closed at the bottom, such the bottom region would be filled first), the side regions (such that after the bottom is filled, the next region would include side regions of the tooth), the front surface (such that last portion of the matrix to be filled would be the end towards the open end which includes a from surface of the tooth).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassel (4,997,367) in view of Karim et al. (2003/0114553) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yarovesky (2009/0191511).
Kassel/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Karim teaching adding a secondary layer (par. 131, specifically “Once the final custom shape of the article has been obtained, it can be polished, painted, or other surface treated” such that a paint is a secondary layer), however, does not specifically teach the secondary layer is resin.
Yarovesky teaches a dental method including curing a first layer of resin (see pars. 30-31, the hardened dentin composite resin) and further with respect to claim 2, including the step of adding a secondary layer of resin (see par. 31, the enamel resin being the second layer) 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 Kassel/Karim to include the second layer to be resin in order to provide the tooth with an esthetic look (pars. 25, 33). Further it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the second layer taught by Kassel/Karim with the resin taught by Yarovesky since it has been held to be within the general skill of a workier in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 3, Kassel/Karim/Yarovesky teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Karim teaching the step of adding a secondary layer occurs after the step of mechanically removing the resin (see par. 131, explanation above).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassel (4,997,367) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yarovesky (2009/0191511).
Kassel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the method further includes the step of adding a secondary layer of resin after the step of mechanically removing the resin.
Yarovesky teaches a dental method including curing a first layer of resin (see pars. 30-31, the hardened dentin composite resin) and further with respect to claim 12, including the step of adding a secondary layer of resin (see par. 31, the enamel resin being the second layer) 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 Kassel/Yang to include the step of adding a second layer of resin in order to provide the tooth with an esthetic look (pars. 25, 33). Kassel/Yarovesky teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the step of adding a secondary layer of resin occurs after the step of mechanically removing the resin. However, Yarovesky does teach the step of adding the secondary layer does occur are the full curing of the first layer (see par. 30, such that the curing is both light and heat), therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention that the addition of the second layer as taught by Yarovesky is done after the mechanically removing step in order to ensure that the first layer is fully cured and further to ensure the tooth is the desired final shape.
Kassel/Yarovesky teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including with respect to claim 13, Kassel further teaches the step of mechanically removing the resin includes shaping the tooth into a desired shape (col. 5, ll. 47-50, col. 6, ll. 8-11).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassel (4,997,367) in view of Yarovesky (2009/0191511) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Karim et al. (2003/0114553).
Kassel/Yarovesky teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the step of mechanically removing the resin includes introducing heat to the resin.
Karim teaches placing a resin in the mouth, curing the resin and mechanically removing the resin (see pars. 129, 131-132) and further teaches with respect to claim 14, wherein the step of mechanically removing the resin includes introducing heat to the resin (see pars. 129, 131-132, such that griding would introduce heat). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the mechanically removing step of Kassel which teaches trimming and generic shaping to include grinding as taught by Karim as a matter of obvious design choice. Such that depending on the desired modifications needed any known shaping method could be used as desired by the user. It is noted that Karim teaches trimming and griding as known alternatives in finishing the shape of the tooth.
Kassel/Yarovesky/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Karim further teaches with respect to claim 15, the step of placing the resin in the mouth includes heating the resin immediately before application (pars. 15-16, such that it does not need to be heated above room temperature, however, it is heated to room temperature).
Kassel/Yarovesky/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kassel further teaches with respect to claim 16, wherein the step of filling an interior of the matrix with a resin includes overbuilding the resin on the tooth (col. 4, ll. 41-42, col. 5, ll. 1-3, 47-50, col. 6, ll. 7-11, such that since trimming and final forming and shaping is required, it is overbuilt).
Kassel/Yarovesky/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Yarovesky further teaches with respect to claim 17, wherein the step of adding a secondary layer of resin includes wherein the resin used is a different resin than the resin previously applied (pars. 6-7, 30-33).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassel (4,997,367) in view of Yarovesky (2009/0191511) in view of Karim et al. (2003/0114553). as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Leduc (WO 2018/201242).
Kassel/Yarovesky/Karim teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including with respect to claim 18, Kassel teaching the strip is a clear polymer matrix (col. 3, ll. 11-12), however, does not specifically teach the strip is BoPET.
Leduc teaches a dental matrix made of a clear BoPET (pars. 14-15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of the clear matrix taught by Kassel/Yarovesky/Karim to be BoPET since it has been held to be within the general skill of a workier in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that Leduc teaches that BoPET is selected due to specific properties that are advantageous for use as a matrix (see par. 15 of Leduc).
Kassel/Yarovesky/Karim/Leduc teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Yarovesky teaching with respect to claim 19 the secondary resin is weaker than the resin previously applied, however is more polished and color stable (pars. 30-31). It is noted that Yarovesky teaches the second resin being an enamel resin which is known to be the outer layer of the tooth and to be polished and that the second resin is only light cured. It is noted that Yarovesky teaches that the curing with light, pressure and heat makes the resin harder than if only light cured. Since the second layer is taught as only being light cured is would be weaker as claimed. It is noted that Yarovesky does not specifically teach the second layer being more color stable than the first layer, however, since the second layer is exposed and it is well known in the art to create a veneer to closely resemble the natural tooth, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to make the second resin more color stable than the first resin since it is the layer that is exposed and the user will see.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 20, the closet prior art is the applied prior art of Kassel. However, the prior art fails to teach step b of the claim, specifically each section of resin cured prior to adding resin to the subsequent region in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 11/20/2025