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 Arguments
The 112 rejections are withdrawn based upon the claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 1-4, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under Steger have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Daniel et al. (DE 102018121822 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daniel et al. (DE 102018121822 A1), herein Daniel.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (DE 102018121822 A1). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
301
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 1, Daniel teaches a blank to produce the prosthetic
restoration [0001, Fig. 2a]. The blank comprises an axially elongate dental machining portion and has a cylindrical base body having a longitudinal axis, a top surface, a base surface and a lateral surface [Fig 2a, 0008-0009, 0019, 0021]. The blank further comprises a fixing region, which is arranged radially along the machining portion, for fixing the machining portion to a holder of the machining device including an indentation/flattened area [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0019-0020, 0022, 0041]. The blank may be mounted in the holder with the aid of the fixing area in such a way that it may be processed in parallel to the longitudinal axis in the mounted state [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0026, 0028, 0062]. The blank has a prefabricated implant connection (2) for fixing the blank to a dental implant, wherein the implant connection (2) is arranged at the end facing the fastening area [Fig. 2a, 0061].
In regards to claim 2, Daniel further teaches the height/length of the processing area corresponds to the length of the piece being processed [ Figs. 2a- b, 0061].
In regards to claim 3, Daniel further teaches the fixing region has at least one lateral holding surface, which is configured as an indentation, on which clamping elements of the holder press in the mounted state [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0008, 0033, 00051].
In regards to claim 4, Daniel further teaches the fixing region is formed in an annular shape around a section of the lateral surface of the piece being processed [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0022, 0028, 0033].
In regards to claim 8, Daniel teaches a kit comprising a dental blank and a holder [0057]. The blank comprises an axially elongate dental machining portion and has a cylindrical base body having a longitudinal axis, a top surface, a base surface and a lateral surface [Fig 2a, 0008-0009, 0019, 0021]. The blank further comprises a fixing region, which is arranged radially along the machining portion, for fixing the machining portion to a holder of the machining device including an indentation/flattened area [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0019-0020, 0022]. The blank may be mounted in the holder with the aid of the fixing area (F) in such a way that it may be processed in parallel to the longitudinal axis in the mounted state [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0026, 0028, 0062]. The blank has a prefabricated implant connection (2) for fixing the blank to a dental implant, wherein the implant connection (2) is arranged at the end facing the fastening area [Fig. 2a, 0042, 0061]. The holder for holding the dental piece/blank has a holding area for the dental piece being processed, wherein there is formed a clamping device in the holding area, wherein the clamping device clamps around a fastening area formed on the piece being processed radially around the longitudinal axis thereof in the state of the piece being processed being mounted on the holder [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0008, 0049, 0051, 0055].
In regards to claim 10, Daniel further teaches wherein the clamping device comprises at least one clamping element, wherein the clamping element engages in a lateral holding surface on the fastening area in the state of the piece being processed being mounted on the holder [ Figs. 2a, 3 a-b, 0008, 0028-0029, 0051, 0055].
In regards to claim 11, Daniel further teaches wherein the clamping device comprises a holding ring, wherein the holding ring clamps the fastening area in the state of the piece being processed being mounted on the holder [ Fig. 3 a-b, 0026, 0028, 0062].
In regards to claim 18, Daniel further teaches the dental restoration is a crown [0008, 0010, 0016].
In regards to claim 19, Daniel further teaches the dental restoration is a crown [0008, 0010, 0016].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (DE 102018121822 A1), herein Daniel, as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 5, Daniel teaches the blank has a cylindrical base body having upper and lower areas [0019]. Daniel teaches the cylindrical shape of the upper and lower areas are different [0019]. Daniel does not expressly teach wherein the lateral diameter of the fastening area is larger than the lateral diameter of the processing area.
Daniel discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the lateral diameter of the fastening area is larger than the lateral diameter of the processing area. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjusted the lateral diameter of the fastening area to be larger than the lateral diameter of the processing area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (DE 102018121822 A1), herein Daniel, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Steger (US 20150099243 A1) [IDS dated 01/29/2024].
In regards to claim 13, Daniel does not expressly teach the holder has at least 2 holding areas for holding the blanks.
Steger further teaches a holder (3) for holding a dental piece being processed (1), which is configured in particular according to claim 1, having a holding area for the dental piece being processed (1), wherein there is formed a clamping device in the holding area, wherein the clamping device clamps around a fastening area (F) formed on the piece being processed (1) radially around the longitudinal axis (X) thereof in the state of the piece being processed (1) being mounted on the holder (3) [0026-0027, 0047, Figs. 7-8, 11-12].
Steger further teaches the holder comprises three holding areas [Fig. 6, 0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have adjusted the holder of Daniel to have 3 holder areas as taught by Steger. One would have been motivated to do so as Steger teaches it is conventionally known to use holders with 3 holding areas when processing dental blanks in CAD/CAM milling processes and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, one would have been motivated to do so to speed up the processing of the blanks.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daniel et al. (DE 102018121822 A1), herein Daniel, in view of Steger (US 20150099243 A1) [IDS dated 01/29/2024].
In regards to claim 15, Daniel teaches dental machining device comprising CAD/CAM milling machine, at least one holder for holding a dental blank, and at least one milling machining head [0004, 0055].
Steger teaches dental machining device comprising a housing, at least one holder for holding a dental blank, and at least one machining head [claim 20, Figs. 9-10, 16].
Daniel does not expressly teach that the CAD/CAM milling machine has a housing but housing are conventionally known to be a part of CAD/CAM milling machines as taught Steger. Thus, one would have been motivated to ensure the milling machine of Daniel has a housing as taught by Steger. One would have been motivated to do so as a housing are conventionally known to be a part of CAD/CAM milling machines and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The housing would further protect the machines parts as well as entrap the milling waste.
The blank comprises an axially elongate dental machining portion and has a cylindrical base body having a longitudinal axis, a top surface, a base surface and a lateral surface [Fig 2a, 0008-0009, 0019, 0021]. The blank further comprises a fixing region, which is arranged radially along the machining portion, for fixing the machining portion to a holder of the machining device including an indentation/flattened area [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0019-0020, 0022]. The blank may be mounted in the holder with the aid of the fixing area (F) in such a way that it may be processed in parallel to the longitudinal axis in the mounted state [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0026, 0028, 0062]. The blank has a prefabricated implant connection (2) for fixing the blank to a dental implant, wherein the implant connection (2) is arranged at the end facing the fastening area [Fig. 2a, 0042, 0061]. The holder for holding the dental piece/blank has a holding area for the dental piece being processed, wherein there is formed a clamping device in the holding area, wherein the clamping device clamps around a fastening area formed on the piece being processed radially around the longitudinal axis thereof in the state of the piece being processed being mounted on the holder [Figs. 2a, 3a-b, 0008, 0049, 0051, 0055].
In regards to claim 16, Daniel does not expressly teach that the milling machine comprises a calibration device, wherein the position of the at least one machining portion relative to the receiving device can be detected by the calibration device.
Steger further teaches in order to know the position of the holder or the machining portion relative to the receiving device there is preferably provided a calibration device, wherein the position of the at least one machining portion relative to the receiving device can be detected by the calibration device [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the milling machine of Daniel has a calibration device as taught by Steger. One would have been motivated to do so as a calibration device is conventionally known to be a part of CAD/CAM milling machines and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it would have been the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 17, Daniel does not expressly teach that the milling machine comprises a control or regulating unit.
Steger further teaches the device comprises a control or regulating unit, by which the machining head, a movement of the receiving device and/or the calibration device can be controlled or regulated [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have ensured the milling machine of Daniel has a control or regulating unit as taught by Steger. One would have been motivated to do so as a control or regulating unit is conventionally known to be a part of CAD/CAM milling machines and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it would have been the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 20, Daniel further teaches the dental restoration is a crown [0008, 0010, 0016].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 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 prior art taken either in singularity or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest all the limitations of the dependent claims 9 and 12. Namely, Daniel does not teach or suggest a three-point-clamping system as claimed nor a clamping device movable in two axes as required by the claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784