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 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, 3-6, 8, 10-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schottlander (WO 2021/181114), in view of Faust et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2019/0175315). Regarding Claim 1, Schottlander shows that it is known to carry out a method for producing a dental prosthesis, wherein the dental prosthesis has a plurality of prosthetic teeth and a prosthesis base, wherein the prosthesis base includes a gum-colored plastic and wherein the prosthetic teeth and the prosthesis base are firmly connected together in the method (Abstract; Page 4, lines 1-4), wherein the method comprises the following steps: A) providing a milling body for producing the prosthetic teeth from a material suitable for prosthetic teeth and providing a prosthesis base preform, wherein the prosthesis base preform has a holding structure on an oral side of the prosthesis base preform (Page 7, lines 21-24); B) producing a connecting surface between the prosthetic teeth and the prosthesis base in a surface of the milling body with the assistance of a subtractive CAM method in accordance with a virtual three-dimensional model of the connecting surface of the prosthetic teeth to the prosthesis base in the dental prosthesis (Page 4, lines 25-26; Page 5, lines 21-24; Page 7, lines 21-24); C) producing a mating holding structure in the surface of the milling body, wherein the mating holding structure forms a counterpart which fits with the holding structure of the prosthesis base preform, or the milling body has the mating holding structure which fits with the holding structure of the prosthesis base preform (Page 7, lines 21-24; Page 11, lines 5-6, 25-35); D) after steps A), B), and C), attaching the prosthesis base preform with the holding structure to the mating holding structure of the milling body, wherein, apart from at the mating holding structure, the prosthesis base preform is attached spaced apart from the machined surface of the milling body such that an interspace open to the outside is obtained between the prosthesis base preform and the milling body (Page 5, lines 21-24); E1) after step D), introducing at least one fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive into the interspace between the milling body and the prosthesis base preform and into the volume in the surface of the milling body machined away in step B) (Page 5, lines 26-27); F) after step E1), curing or partially curing the at least one fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive, wherein, on curing, a cured plastic material is obtained in the interspace or, on partial curing, a partially polymerized plastic material is obtained in the interspace, wherein the cured plastics plastic material or the partially polymerized plastic material connects the prosthesis base preform firmly and flush to the material of the milling body (Page 5, lines 26-27; Page 15, lines 1-2). Schottlander does not describe post-curing processing. Faust et al., hereafter “Faust,” show a process of making dental prosthesis including, after curing, subtractively machining the cured or partially polymerized plastic material, the prosthesis base preform, and the milling body by a CAM method in accordance with a virtual model of an outer surface of the dental prosthesis, such that the dental prosthesis is subtractively carved out from the prosthesis base preform, the cured or partially polymerized plastic material, and the material of the milling body (0023). It would have been obvious to use Faust’s post-curing machining within Schottlander’s process in order to insure an appropriate fit for the dental prosthesis.
Regarding Claim 3, Shottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the milling body has a surrounding wall, wherein the surrounding wall of the milling body is retained in steps B) to F) (Figure 8, element 9: there is a wall feature around each tooth space).
Regarding Claim 4, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the prosthesis base preform is fixed to the milling body in step D) (Page 5, lines 21-24).
Regarding Claim 5, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the prosthesis base preform comprises of a gum-colored plastic (Page 4, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 6, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the prosthesis base preform is produced before step A) by a CAM method (Page 3, lines 31-35; Page 4, line 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the prosthesis base preform is preformed at least on a basal side to lie against gums, wherein the basal side is opposite the oral side (Figure 8, Page 1, lines 16-17; Page 10, lines 7-9: soft tissue=gums).
Regarding Claim 10, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein in step D), the prosthesis base preform is pressed against the milling body until a limit stop is reached, wherein, apart from at the mating holding structure, the limit stop determines the spacing in the interspace between the prosthesis base preform and the machined surface of the milling body, wherein the holding structure of the prosthesis base preform and the mating holding structure of the milling body (Page 12, lines 11-23).
Regarding Claim 11, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the holding structure of the prosthesis base preform and the mating holding structure are arranged on the milling body within dental prosthesis to be produced (Page 7, lines 21-24; Page 11, lines 5-6, 25-35).
Regarding Claim 12, Schottlander shows method of claim 1 above, including one wherein a defined spacing of the prosthesis base preform from the machined surface of the milling body is produced in step D) (Page 11, lines 5-15; Page 12, lines 11-20).
Regarding Claim 13, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein a spacing of the prosthesis base preform from the machined surface of the milling body of at least 0.02 mm and at most 2 mm (Page 11, line 17: 0.12mm).
Regarding Claim 14, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the at least one fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive is filled in step E1) at least to such a filling level in the interspace that the connecting surface of the prosthetic teeth and an oral surface of the prosthesis base preform, which is completely located within the virtual model of the prosthesis base, is completely wetted with the fluid polymerizable plastic (Page 11, lines 5-15).
Regarding Claim 15, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the surface of the milling body, in which the connecting surface between the prosthetic teeth and the prosthesis base is produced in step B), is a planar surface (Page 6, lines 14-15: square has a planar surface).
Regarding Claim 16, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the cured plastic material or the partially polymerized plastic material once completely cured has material properties and/or a color which deviate from the gum-colored plastic of the prosthesis base preform, wherein the cured plastic material or the partially polymerized plastic material once completely cured (Page 4, lines 1-4: tooth color, pink color).
Regarding Claim 17, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show post-curing machining. Faust shows that it is known to carry out a method wherein the dental prosthesis is carved in step G) by subtractive machining of the prosthesis base preform and the material of the milling body from the prosthesis base preform, the cured or partially polymerized plastic material and the material of the milling body (0023). It would have been obvious to use Faust’s post-curing machining within Schottlander’s process in order to insure an appropriate fit for the dental prosthesis.
Regarding Claim 18, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the prosthesis base preform is attached spaced apart from the connecting surface of the milling body in step D) (Page 5, lines 21-24).
Regarding Claim 19, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the introduction in step E1) of the at least one fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive into the interspace between the milling body and the prosthesis base preform and into the volume in the surface of the milling body machined away in step B) proceeds such that the at least one fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive connects the machined milling body to the prosthesis base preform (Page 5, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 20, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein an indentation in the surface of the milling body is made in step B) adjacent to the connecting surface between the prosthetic teeth and the prosthesis base with the assistance of the subtractive CAM method (Page 4, lines 25-26; Page 7, lines 21-24: subtractive=indentation).
Regarding Claim 21, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the at least one fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive, on introduction in step E1), completely wets the surfaces of the milling body machined in step B) and/or wets the oral surface of the prosthesis base preform at least in places (Page 5, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 22, Schottlander shows method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the oral side of the prosthesis base preform is produced in accordance with the virtual three-dimensional model of the shape of the connecting surface of the prosthetic teeth to the prosthesis base in the dental prosthesis (Page 4, lines 6-11).
Regarding Claim 23, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show post-curing machining. Faust shows a method comprising subtractive machining of the cured or partially polymerized plastic material, the prosthesis base preform, and the milling body proceeds in step G) from a direction of an underside of the milling body, which is opposite the surface of the milling body machined in step B), by the CAM method in accordance with an occlusal surface and an oral surface of the virtual model of the dental prosthesis and/or subtractive machining of the cured or partially polymerized plastic material, the prosthesis base preform and the milling body proceeds in step G) from a direction of the surface of the milling body machined in step B) by the CAM method in accordance with a basal surface of the virtual model of the dental prosthesis (0023). It would have been obvious to use Faust’s post-curing machining within Schottlander’s process in order to insure an appropriate fit for the dental prosthesis.
Regarding Claim 24, Schottlander shows method of claim 1 above, including one wherein the holding structure of the prosthesis base preform and the mating holding structure form three defined contact points, such that, on attachment of the prosthesis base preform with the holding structure to the mating holding structure of the milling body in step D), the prosthesis base preform is attached to the mating holding structure of the milling body via the three defined contact points of the holding structure (Page 12, lines 11-20).
Regarding Claim 26, Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, including one wherein a cavity for receiving the fluid polymerizable plastic or adhesive is arranged on the surface of the milling body intended for machining by the subtractive CAM method, wherein the cavity has a bottom and, starting from the edge of the bottom, is laterally bounded by a surrounding wall, wherein the surrounding wall is annular and wherein the material suitable for prosthetic teeth forms the bottom and extends to an underside of the milling body which is arranged opposite the upper side of the milling body (Figures 8-9).
Claim(s) 2 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schottlander and Faust, in view of Bae et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0383878). Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show photopolymerization. Bae et al., hereafter “Bae,” show that it is known to carry out a method of attaching prosthetic teeth to a denture base using an adhesive that is photopolymerized (0047). It would have been obvious to use Bae’s photopolymerization as the curing method in Schottlander’s method because there is art recognized suitability for photopolymerization to bond teeth to a denture base (Bae).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schottlander and Faust, in view of Gerth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0110730). Schottlander shows the method of claim 1 above, but he does not show the holding structures are implemented in pairs of posts and recesses. Gerth et al., hereafter “Gerth,” show that it is known to carry out a method of attaching prosthetic teeth to a denture base wherein the holding structure of the prosthesis base preform and the mating holding structure are implemented in pairs by projecting posts and recesses which fit with the projecting posts (element 118, 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Gerth’s posts/recesses as holding structures in Schottlander’s method because configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 31-42 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Schottlander does not suggest the instant claims because he does not disclose that all of the single prosthetic teeth are produced from a single milling body. This is not persuasive because this is not commensurate in scope with the currently-claimed invention.
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 MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742