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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 15-17, 23, 27, 30-31 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The use of the term “about” in claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, 16 and 27 renders the claims indefinite, as the scope of the claimed invention is not clearly defined.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 15, 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffeiner. Raffeiner discloses in the Figures and specification (see in particular Figs. 1 & 2 and paragraphs [0019-23] a dental model arch model comprising a first member 12 having a plurality of first openings, a second member 22 at least partly disposed within the first member (as shown in the Figures) and having a plurality of second openings which are aligned with the first openings as recited, and a plurality of model teeth each having a tooth portion 16 and a connecting portion 18, where the connecting portion of each tooth is selectively received within a corresponding opening. Raffeiner further suggests a clearance between each tooth portion and the corresponding opening of the second member (Fig. 2 shows a clearance, see also paragraph [0023], which discloses that the first member “surrounds the teeth in a manner that is like the manner in which natural gums surround teeth”, This suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art a clearance as recited, since there is a such clearance between teeth and gums in human anatomy. Raffeiner further discloses at paragraph [003] that the model is configured such that a tooth moves laterally when pressure is exerted to model the movement of real teeth. While Raffeiner does not explicitly disclose an elastic modulus of the first material or a lateral movement of the tooth having the respective recited ranges, these ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given that the materials to form the model and the amount of movement of the tooth members are both configured to model the corresponding characteristics of a human dental arch.
With respect to claims 3-7, the recited ranges also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the configuration of the device to model the characteristics of a human dental arch. With respect to claim 8, the upper surfaces of the tooth members of Raffeiner are shaped to resemble human teeth, as shown in the Figures. With respect to claims 15 and 16, the recited relative widths of the portions of the teeth and the second openings appear to be shown in the Figures. With respect to claim 27, Raffeiner discloses or suggests each of the recited limitations as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 9, 30, 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffeiner in view of Baekgard. Raffeiner discloses or suggests the limitations of claims 9 and 30 with the exception of the provision of a low modulus filling material at least partially filling the clearance. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Baekgard (see bridge elements C, D, E as disclosed at paragraphs [0046-48], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of facilitating movement of the teeth relative to the jawbone in a desired fashion. While the specific modulus ratio recited in the claim is not explicitly taught by Baekgard, the claimed ration is obvious in light of the disclosure in Baekgard that the filler elements are “more elastically deformable than the teeth and the jawbone” (paragraph [0047]) and that the relative elasticity of the filler elements is adjustable (paragraph [0046]). With respect to claims 45 and 46, Baekgard further discloses at paragraphs [0019] and [0020] the provision of dental matrices, which act as a dental restorative material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Raffeiner by providing dental matrices the purpose of facilitating use of the device as a dental restoration training device.
Claims 10, 12 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffeiner in view of Ose. Raffeiner discloses or suggests the limitations of claim 10 with the exception of each of the second openings having a second greater width than its first width such that retaining surfaces are formed to accommodate tubular segments of the second members having narrow and wide parts corresponding to the openings as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Ose (see tubular element 3 and wider element 7 configured to be retained by openings 5 having first and second widths as disclosed in Figs. 2 & 3 and paragraph [0027]), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of facilitating secure yet removable placement of the tooth members in the openings. With respect to claims 23 and 31, Ose shows in Figs. 2 & 3 that the wider element 7 comprises a pair of retention legs having a slot therebetween, each leg having a protrusion configured to engage the retaining portion of the opening as recited.
Claims 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffeiner in view of El-Siblani. Raffeiner discloses or suggests the limitations of claim 17 with the exception of the provision of a bridge member. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Adell (see element 62 as shown in Figs. 1A & 1B), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another and for the purpose of providing additional structural integrity to the device. With respect to claim 23, El-Siblani also discloses channels 202a-i along a bottom surface of the device (see Fig. 5 and paragraph [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Raffeiner by providing channels along a bottom surface of its device as taught by El-Siblani for the purpose of reducing the surface area of the bottom surface to facilitate removal from a support surface.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffeiner in view of El-Siblani, and further in view of Adell. Raffeiner as viewed in combination with El-Siblani discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of one or more detachable labeling plates as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Adell at col. 1, lines 44-49, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing information about the device to a user.
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 KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
January 28, 2026