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
Claims 1, 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 change “the maxillary” to “a maxillary”.
Claim 1, line 9 change “resting mostly on a mucosa of a maxilla or a mandible of a jaw” to “configured to rest mostly to rest on a mucosa or a maxilla of a mandible of a jaw”.
Claim1, line 11 change “is essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or the mandible” to “configured to match the shape of the maxilla or the mandible”.
Claim 1, line 12 change “a central part placed on an interior surface of the jaw” to “a central part configured to be placed on an interior surface of the jaw”.
Claim 1, line 14 change “widely perforated along a maxillary or mandibular ridge of the jaw” to “widely perforated when secured along a maxillary or mandibular ridge of the jaw”.
Claim 3, line 2 change “guide base placed on the interior surface of the jaw” to “ guide place configured to be placed on the interior surface of the jaw”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2018/0333229) in view of Groscurth et al (US 2021/0369407).
Regarding claim 1, Watson discloses a surgical guide system (figures 1-11) for placement of dental implants (see abstract) comprising: a guide base (fixation base 100) capable of being attached to the maxillary or mandibular bone (par 30 and figure 5B), an aligner (first dental guide 122) capable of being attached to the guide base and of being positioned in the mouth relative to the remaining reference tooth, teeth or other anatomical landmarks (see par 30 which discloses the guide attachment to the fixation base and seen in figure 4, par. 35), and a drilling guide (second dental guide 124) capable of being attached to the guide base (par 36 discloses the guide is attachable to the fixation base 100) and comprising at least one drill guide hole (bores 126) for guiding a drill (par 36), wherein the guide base (100):
-is substantially rigid (par 32 discloses the fixation base can be made of a metal, metal alloy or strong material which are considered rigid);
-is resting mostly on a mucosa of a maxilla or a mandible of a jaw (interpreted as intended use of the claimed apparatus, see figures 5B and 8, where when installed the fixation base is pushed against the tissue of the jaw and par 48 discloses cutting back gum tissue after it is placed, therefore it is contact with the gums prior to cutting );
-is essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (par 30 discloses the base is configured and dimensioned to fit flush against the maxillary or mandibular structure of a patient), and
-is widely perforated (slots 118/ bores 116) along the maxillary or mandibular ridge (see figures 1 and 3).
Watson fails to disclose the guide base having a central part placed on an interior surface of the jaw, which forms lingual or palatal support and the widely perforated along the maxillary or mandibular ridge allows teeth still present at the start of the operation or implants to be installed during operation.
However, Groscurth teaches a guide base (base frame 200b) having a central part (second arm 206, having connector 204) placed on the interior surface of a jaw forming lingual or palatal support (see figure 12, intended use shows the arm 206 being placed on the lingual side enabling support) and the guide base (200b) having a wide perforation (space defined by lateral contact 202a) along the maxillary or mandibular ridge allows teeth still present at the start of the operation or implants to be installed during operation (see figure 12) for the purpose of stabilizing the guide to the jaw along the gum tissue securely positioning the guide against the jawbone (par 49).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watson to have the guide base having a central part placed on the interior surface of the jaw, intended to provide lingual or palatal support and the widely perforated along the maxillary or mandibular ridge allows teeth still present at the start of the operation or implants to be installed during operation as taught by Groscurth for the purpose of stabilizing the guide to the jaw along the gum tissue securely positioning the guide against the jawbone prior to surgery .
Regarding claim 2, Watson further discloses wherein the guide base (100) is attached to the bone by means of screws and/or pins (fasteners 112, see par 30 and figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Watson/Groscurth discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 2. Groscurth further teaches the central part of the guide base (206) placed on the internal face of the jaw and constituting a lingual or palatal support does not include any fixation in the bone (see figures 9 and 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Watson further discloses a prosthesis (10) capable of being attached to the guide base (via abutment jig see step 11 in figure 12D) and having an access hole right at the position of each drill guide hole (see figures 12f-h, where the holes are adapted to fit the copings which are attached to the implants which are in the same position as the drill guide holes).
Regarding claim 6, Watson further discloses the access hole has a diameter greater than the diameter of an abutment, said abutment being capable of attaching to an implant by one end and to the prosthesis by the other end (in view of par 54 which discloses the use of blocking material to seal the holes between the dental prostheses, coping and abutment, which is the result of the hole being bigger than the abutment and coping).
Regarding claim 8, Watson further discloses wherein the aligner , the drilling guide and the prosthesis are alternately attached to the guide base, one at a time essentially in place of one another and have an essentially identical attachment interface that is capable of being attached to a similar interface on the guide base (see figures 12A-E which discloses the connection between each of the first and second dental guides separately and par 34-35 which discloses the connection being by slot and pin).
Regarding claim 10, Watson/Groscurth disclose the guide system as defined in claim 1. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or the mandible (step 2, see figure 12B, additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, Watson/Groscurth disclose the guide system as defined in claim 2. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or the mandible (step 2, see figure 12B),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, Watson/Groscurth disclose the guide system as defined in claim 3. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
--attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, Watson/Groscurth disclose the guide system as defined in claim 5. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
--removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Watson/Groscurth disclose the guide system as defined in claim 6. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, Watson/Groscurth disclose the guide system as defined in claim 8. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Groscurth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jamison (US 2015/0265373).
Regarding claim 4, Watson/Groscurth disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Groscurth teaches a drilling guide (surgical drill guide section 400) comprises a removable drill bushing (bushing 309a, par 78 discloses the bushings being interchangeable) for the purpose of limiting or controlling drilling depth (par 78).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson/Groscurth to have the drilling guide comprises a removable drill bushing as taught by Groscurth for the purpose of limiting or controlling drilling depth.
Watson/Groscurth fail to disclose the drill bushing snapping into place for each drill guide hole.
However, Jamison teaches drill bushing (drill guide 106) which snaps into place for a drill guide hole (surgical ring 104, see par 36) for the purpose of temporarily securing the bushing (par 36).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watson/Groscurth to have the drill bushing snapping into place for each drill guide hole as taught by Jamison for the purpose of temporarily securing the bushing.
Regarding claim 15, Watson/Groscurth/Jamison disclose the guide system as defined in claim 4. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Groscurth as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of De Clerck (US 2020/0397540) and Llop (US 2014/0272780).
Regarding claim 7, Watson/Groscurth discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 5. Watson further discloses the aligner is attached to the guide base (par 35 discloses it is by a slot and tab), the drilling guide is attached to the guide base (par 36 discloses a connection by pins) and the prosthesis is attached to the guide base (via coping and abutment guide, see figure 12H, pars. 9-10, 44-45). Watson/Groscurth fails to disclose the aligner is attached to the guide base by means of screws, the drilling guide is attached to the guide base by means of screws and the prosthesis is attached to the guide base by means of screws.
However, De Clerck teaches an aligner (bone crest part 2) is attached to a guide base (support piece 3) by means of screws (see figure 9 and par 52 which shows the flanges 6 connect the bone crest part to the support piece by screw), a drilling guide (drilling template 9) is attached to the guide base (3) by means of screws (see figure 10 and par 71) for the purpose of detachably attaching the various components (par 62).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson/Groscurth to have the aligner is attached to the guide base by means of screws and the drilling guide is attached to the guide base by means of screws as taught by De Clerck for the purpose of detachably attaching the aligner and drilling guide to the guide base in a secure manner.
Llop teaches a prosthesis (prosthesis cover 60) is attached to a guide base (prosthesis base 22) by means of screws (par26 discloses the attachment of the cover to the base using a fastener).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson/Groscurth to have the prosthesis is attached to the guide base by means of screws as taught by Llop for the purpose of securing the prosthetic to the guide base in a removable manner.
Regarding claim 18, Watson/Groscurth/De Clerck/Llop disclose the guide system as defined in claim 7. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Groscurth as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Van Rensburg et al (US 2020/0352679).
Regarding claim 9, Watson/Groscurth discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 5. Watson further discloses the guide base (100) is made of titanium, a cobalt-chromium alloy, or of class I or II a biocompatible resin (par 32 discloses a chromium cobalt alloy) but fails to disclose the aligner is made of class I biocompatible resin, the drilling guide is made of titanium, cobalt-chromium allot or class I or II a biocompatible resin, and the prosthesis is made of class II a biocompatibility resin.
However, Rensburg teaches an aligner (tooth aligner portion 108) made if class I biocompatible resin (par 132 discloses a printed resin and the system being used in an oral setting) and the drilling guide (144) made of titanium, cobalt-chromium alloy or class I or II a biocompatible resin (par 123 discloses material such as printed resin material or cobalt chrome) and a prosthesis (par 120 discloses the TBF system including a prosthetic) is made of class II a biocompatibility resin (par 123 discloses the TBF system being made of a printed resin material, wherein the system being used in an oral setting).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson/Groscurth to have the aligner is made of class I biocompatible resin, the drilling guide is made of titanium, cobalt-chromium allot or class I or II a biocompatible resin, and the prosthesis is made of class II a biocompatibility resin as taught by Rensburg for the purpose of provided structural durability (Rensburg, par 334).
Regarding claim 20, Watson/Groscurth/Rensburg disclose the guide system as defined in claim 9. Watson further discloses a method of implementing the guide system and placing a dental implant (abstract) comprising following steps:
assembling the guide base and the aligner (step 1, see figure 12A),
-placing said assembly in the mouth, the aligner ensuring proper positioning of the assembly and therefore of the substantially rigid guide base resting mostly on the mucosa and essentially matching the shape of the maxilla or mandible (step 2, see figure 12B additionally par 48 which discloses placement of the fixation base on the gum tissue prior to cutting back the gum tissue),
-attaching the guide base to the bone (step 3, figure 12B);
-removing the aligner (step 4, see figure 12C);
-possible tooth extraction (step 5, see figure 12C);
-attaching the drilling guide to the base (step 7, see figure 12D)
-drilling the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-placing the implants in the bone (step 9, see figure 12E);
-removing the drill guide (step 10, see figure 12D);
-attaching the prosthesis to the guide base (steps 10-17, see figures 12D-H, wherein the prosthesis is attached to the guide base via the abutment jig);
-placing the abutments in the implants (step 12, see figure 12F);
-removing the guide base (step 24-25, figure 12L), and
-attaching the prosthesis to the abutments (step 26-27, see figure 12M).
Groscurth further teaches when placing said guide base (200b) in the mouth of the patient, the central part (206) is placed on the interior surface of the jaw, to provide lingual or palatal support (see figure 12), for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Groscurth as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Palmer (US 2022/0015875).
Regarding claim 11, Watson/Groscurth disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 10, but fails to disclose placing the abutments in the implant is preformed via screw into said implants.
However, Palmer teaches placement of the abutments (94) in the implant is preformed via screw into said implants (95, see par 13) for the purpose of securing the artificial teeth to the reduced bone (par 13).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watson/Groscurth to place the abutments in the implant is preformed via screw into said implants as taught by Palmer for the purpose of securing the artificial teeth to the reduced bone.
Regarding claim 12, Watson further discloses the attaching the prosthesis to the abutments is performed by cementing the prosthesis in place (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant set forth in Remarks, on pages 13-15, Watson fails to disclose a guide base :resting mostly on the mucosa”, arguing that the disclosure of widening gum flapping in par 48 is in opposition to applicant’s invention which is “mucosa-borne system”, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As set forth in par 48, discloses cutting back gum tissue after it is placed, therefore it is contact with the gums prior to cutting. Additionally, the limitation “resting mostly on the mucosa” is a recitation of the intended use with respect to the claimed apparatus and it is noted that the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim with respect to the claimed apparatus.
Applicant sets forth in Remarks, on page 15, that Watson fails to disclose the claimed integral unitary chassis structure and the combination with Groscurth lingual support arm is a piecemeal assembly. The examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an integral guide base) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant sets forth in Remark, on page 15-16 applicant argues that the combination of Watson and Groscurth uses impermissible hindsight reasoning. The examiner does not find this argument persuasive, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
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 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 6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights