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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/04/2024 and 09/08/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 02/08/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Claims 21-34 are directed towards a different invention, i.e. “a dental impression system”, which comprises additional elements not required by the elected invention, such as “a mold base and a mold top”, or “wherein the corresponding molded edge of the mold top is shaped as a negative space of the molded edge of the mold base”, etc.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Divjak (US 5520539 A).
Regarding claim 15, Divjak discloses an apparatus for producing dental impressions (Figure 1, Abstract), the apparatus comprising: a base (1) comprising: an inner surface (3) that is shaped based on a gum of a patient mouth (since it is place on a patients jaw, see col 3, lines 25-30); and a first recess (first recess formed where the jaw A rest, as shown in Figure 2) that is defined on an outer surface based on at least one tooth of the patient mouth (col 3, lines 25-30); and a top (2) comprising: a second recess (6) having at least one aperture (Annotated Figure 1, below), wherein: the first recess and the second recess collectively form a cavity (cavity shown in Figure 2, where the impression material is received) while the base and the top are mated (Figure 2); and the cavity is configured to receive wax via the at least one aperture (the cavity has all the necessary structures and shapes to be configured to receive wax via the at least one aperture).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1.)]
Regarding claim 18, Divjak discloses wherein: the gum is of an upper jaw of the patient mouth, and the at least one tooth is of a lower jaw of the patient mouth (since the apparatus is for a partially toothless jaw or a toothless jaw, col 1, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 20, Divjak discloses wherein the first recess and the second recess are U-shaped (as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and
the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divjak as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Davis (US 20250114172 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17 the claimed phrases “the base and the top are additively- manufactured” and “the base and the top are additively- manufactured” are being treated as a product-by-process limitation and a product-by-process claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 16, Divjak fails to disclose wherein the base and the top are additively- manufactured.
Davis discloses an apparatus for producing dental impressions (Abstract) wherein the (130) base and the top (120) are additively- manufactured (3D printing [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Divjak’s apparatus for producing dental impressions in order to make it additively- manufactured, since such modification would be a case of use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Divjak and Davis disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Davis discloses wherein: the base and the top are additively-manufactured as a single component (3D printed [0049]); and the top is configured to detach from the base by removing at least one sacrificial coupling (The Examiner notes that the device created by the modification, above and being 3D printed, has all the necessary structures to be configured to detach from the base by removing at least one sacrificial coupling).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divjak as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Mayweather (US 6318997 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Divjak fails to disclose the specific material of the base and the top; therefore, it fails to disclose “wherein the base and the top comprise a material having a higher melting point than the wax”.
Mayweather discloses an impression tray and its casting material (Abstract), wherein the tray is made of plastic (col 2, lines 56-60) and the casting material is wax (col 2, line 65 to col 3, line 2). Therefore, Mayweather discloses wherein the tray comprise a material having a higher melting point than the wax. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Divjak’s base and the top in order to make them of a material having a higher melting point than the wax; since such modification would guarantee the tray’s functionality, being plastic a well know material for this type of device (col 2, lines 59-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 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 on (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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772