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
Withdrawn claim 8 is not proper. If a claim is withdrawn, it must still contain the claim limitations. See section 714 II (c) of the mpep: (C) Claim Text: The text of all pending claims under examination and withdrawn claims must be submitted each time any claim is amended. The text of pending claims not being currently amended, including withdrawn claims, must be presented in clean version, i.e., without any markings. Any claim presented in clean version will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims. A claim being canceled must be indicated as "canceled;" the text of the claim must not be presented. Providing an instruction to cancel is optional.
Therefore, since no text was provided for claim 8, it should be “cancelled” and not “withdrawn”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amendment of independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 to include the new limitation: “…having a first flexural strength… and …having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base…” changes the scope of the claim, thus necessitating new search, new interpretation of the prior art, and subsequently, new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim(s) 2-7, 9-10; 12-15; and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the amendment of claim(s) 1, 11, and 16, upon which they are dependent (respectively), necessitates new grounds of rejection thus claim(s) 2-7, 9-10; 12-15; and 17-20 would be examined to include such.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “A” in lines 2, 5, and 9 of the claim should read “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “having and apex” should read “having an apex”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 11-15 and 20 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first radiused surface" and “the second radiused surface” in lines 26-28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim defines “a first horizontally radiused surface” and “a second horizontally radiused surface”, respectively thus it is unclear whether “the first radiused surface” and “the second radiused surface” refers to the previously defined “a first horizontally radiused surface” and “a second horizontally radiused surface”, respectively in lines 24 and 25 of the claim. For continued examination, the examiner would interpret “the first radiused surface” refers to the previously defined “a first horizontally radiused surface”, and “the second radiused surface” refers to the previously defined “a second horizontally radiused surface”. Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim(s) 12-15 are dependent on claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, therefore claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first radiused surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. . Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the arch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. . Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first radiused surface" and “the second radiused surface” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim defines “a first horizontally radiused surface” and “a second horizontally radiused surface”, respectively thus it is unclear whether “the first radiused surface” and “the second radiused surface” refers to the previously defined “a first horizontally radiused surface” and “a second horizontally radiused surface”, respectively in lines 1-5 of the claim. For continued examination, the examiner would interpret “the first radiused surface” refers to the previously defined “a first horizontally radiused surface”, and “the second radiused surface” refers to the previously defined “a second horizontally radiused surface”. Appropriate corrections are needed.
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, 2, 9, 11, 14, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”).
Regarding claim 1, Fisker teaches a dental prosthetic appliance (600 Fig. 18) comprising: A base (601 Fig. 18) comprising a first material ([0073]: … the denture base should be manufactured in a material that resembles the gum surface (said material that resembles the gum surface is interpreted by the examiner as the first material)…), the base having a proximal surface (see annotated Fig. 18) and a distal surface that is adapted to receive a dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; see that the annotated distal surface contains element 604 (a continuous recess) to receive a dentition 602); A dentition (602 Fig. 18) comprising a second material ([0073]: …the teeth should be manufactured in a material that resembles the teeth (said material that resembles the teeth is interpreted by the examiner as the second material)), the dentition further having a lower surface (see annotated Fig. 18) that is adapted to be removably secured to the distal surface of said base ([0150-151]:… design of element 602 ensures the relative position of the artificial teeth and facilitates easy placement of the teeth in the denture base 601; Furthermore, the dentition is adapted to be removably secured by using a temporary adhesive ([0136 and 0141])), an upper surface, an inner surface and an outer surface (see annotated Fig. 18); and, A dentition channel (604 Fig. 18) that is disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base (see annotated Fig. 18) and is adapted to receive the dentition ([0152]: … to receive both the artificial teeth and the common placement support a single continuous recess 604 is formed in the artificial gingiva), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 18), a first side and a second side (see annotated Fig. 18) so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel is adjacent to the lower surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; in assembled configuration, bottom surface of element 604 would be adjacent to the annotated lower surface of element 602), the first side of the dentition channel extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side of the dentition channel extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; [0151]: element 603 is provided such that it is visibly hidden when element 602 is placed in 601 thus, the first and second sides of element 604 must extend
PNG
media_image1.png
385
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
upwards toward the annotated upper surface of 602 for at least a length of element 603).
Fisker discloses the dental prosthetic appliance (Fig. 18) comprising a base comprising a first material and a dentition comprising a second material (see above), Fisker is silent, wherein the first material has a first flexural strength and the second material has a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base; the proximal surface of the base is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw.
Morales teaches an analogous device (300 Fig. 3A) comprising a base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) and a dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A). Morales further teaches the base comprising a first material ([0047]: … an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure…) having first flexural strength ( In a specific embodiment, the monolithic support structure comprises a material having higher … flexural strength…) and the dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A; [0047]: artificial teeth) comprising a second material ([0047]: … an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure…) having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base ([0047]: …the monolithic support structure comprises a ceramic material having a flexural strength value greater than about 650 MPa, or greater than about 800 MPa, when tested in accordance with ISO-6872:2008, which is greater than the flexural strength of the material used to form the artificial teeth (dentition)); and the proximal surface (see Fig. 3; the surface of the monolithic support structure (a base) on which elements 308 and 309 are localized) of the base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw ([0044]: In FIGS. 3A and 3B, the guide cylinders (308) comprise metal inserts (309) that guide an attachment means, such as a screw, for attaching the implant-supported dental device to a patient's implants).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker to be configured such that the base comprises a first material having first flexural strength and the dentition comprises a second material having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base; and the proximal surface of the base is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw, as taught by Morales, in order to create a base for a dentition that may protect the dentition from chipping, wear, breakage and/or loosening of the artificial teeth as a result of the material properties of the base and said base is securely affixed to a patient’s implant to improve effectiveness of the device during usage.
Regarding claim 2, Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. The combination of Fisker, and Morales does not disclose that the first material of the base has a flexural strength of at least 800 megapascals.
PNG
media_image2.png
547
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morales further teaches an analogous device wherein the first material ([0047]; In one embodiment, an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure) of the base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) has a flexural strength of at least 800 megapascals ([0047]; In one embodiment, the monolithic support structure comprises a ceramic material having a flexural strength value greater than about 650 MPa, or greater than about 800 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a first material that has a flexural strength of at least 800 megapascals, as taught by Morales et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order create a base (monolithic support structure) for a dentition that may protect the dentition from chipping, wear, breakage and/or loosening of the artificial teeth as a result of the material properties of the base (monolithic support structure), as suggested by Morales et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
616
886
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Fisker further discloses the appliance of claim 1 further comprising a first dentition indent defined by a first radiused surface disposed adjacent to the first side of the dentition channel (604 Fig. 18) and a second radiused surface disposed adjacent to the second side of the dentition channel (604 Fig. 18) so that the second radiused surface opposes the first radiused surface, wherein the dentition channel extends between the first radiused surface and the second radiused surface so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel ([0152]: element 604 is a continuous recess; see annotated Fig. 18 - see that element 604 extends between the annotated first and second radiused surfaces), the first radiused surface is adapted to engage the outer surface of the dentition and the second radiused surface is adapted to engage the inner surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18 ).
Regarding claim 11, Fisker discloses a dental prosthetic appliance (600 Fig. 18) comprising: A base (601 Fig. 18) comprising a first material ([0073]: … the denture base should be manufactured in a material that resembles the gum surface (said material that resembles the gum surface is interpreted by the examiner as the first material)…), the base having a proximal surface (see annotated Fig. 18) and a distal surface that is adapted to receive a dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; see that the annotated distal surface contains element 604 (a continuous recess) to receive a dentition 602), an interior surface and an exterior surface (see annotated Fig. 18); A dentition (602 Fig. 18) defining a plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig. 18) comprising a second material ([0073]: …the teeth should be manufactured in a material that resembles the teeth (said material that resembles the teeth is interpreted by the examiner as the second material)), the dentition further having a lower surface (see annotated Fig. 18) ([0150-151]:… design of element 602 ensures the relative position of the artificial teeth and facilitates easy placement of the teeth in the denture base 601; Furthermore, the dentition is adapted to be removably secured by using a temporary adhesive ([0136 and 0141]), an upper surface defining a chewing surface for the plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig. 18), an inner surface forming a lingual surface for the plurality of teeth and an outer surface defining a buccal
PNG
media_image1.png
385
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
surface for the plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig. 18);
A dentition channel (604 Fig. 18) that is disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base (see annotated Fig. 18) and is adapted to receive the dentition ([0152]: … to receive both the artificial teeth and the common placement support a single continuous recess 604 is formed in the artificial gingiva), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 18), a first side and a second side (see annotated Fig. 18) so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel is adjacent to the lower surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; in assembled configuration, bottom surface of element 604 would be adjacent to the annotated lower surface of element 602), the first side of the dentition channel extends towards the upper surface of the dentition to a first point disposed on the outer surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; see that the annotated first point defines a height from the bottom of the dentition channel that would cover at least a portion of element 602 when element 602 is fitted into the dentition channel) and the exterior surface of the base extends towards the upper surface of the dentition to a second point disposed on the outer surface of the dentition wherein the second point to which the exterior surface extends is closer to the upper surface of the dentition than the
PNG
media_image4.png
741
952
media_image4.png
Greyscale
first point to which the first side of the dentition channel extends (see annotated Fig. 18); and,
a first dentition indent (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2) defined by a portion of the first side of the dentition channel and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel (2 Fig. 1) (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2) wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2) corresponding to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth defined by the dentition (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2; see that when aligned, the first horizontally radiused surface would correspond to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth) and the portion of the second side has a second horizontally radiused surface that opposes the first radiused surface and corresponds to the radius of the lingual surface of the first tooth so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2), the first radiused surface is adapted to engage the buccal surface of the first tooth and the second radiused surface is adapted to engage the lingual surface of the first tooth (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2; [0150-151]:… design of element 602 ensures the relative position of the artificial teeth and facilitates easy placement of the teeth in the denture base 601; it is obvious that the radius of the buccal surface of the first tooth would engage
PNG
media_image5.png
730
1023
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the first horizontally radiused surface of the first dentition indent).
Fisker discloses the dental prosthetic appliance (Fig. 18) comprising a base comprising a first material and a dentition comprising a second material (see above), Fisker is silent, wherein the first material has a first flexural strength and the second material has a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base; the proximal surface of the base is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw.
Morales teaches an analogous device (300 Fig. 3A) comprising a base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) and a dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A). Morales further teaches the base comprising a first material ([0047]: … an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure…) having first flexural strength ( In a specific embodiment, the monolithic support structure comprises a material having higher … flexural strength…) and the dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A; [0047]: artificial teeth) comprising a second material ([0047]: … an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure…) having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base ([0047]: …the monolithic support structure comprises a ceramic material having a flexural strength value greater than about 650 MPa, or greater than about 800 MPa, when tested in accordance with ISO-6872:2008, which is greater than the flexural strength of the material used to form the artificial teeth (dentition)); and the proximal surface (see Fig. 3; the surface of the monolithic support structure (a base) on which elements 308 and 309 are localized) of the base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw ([0044]: In FIGS. 3A and 3B, the guide cylinders (308) comprise metal inserts (309) that guide an attachment means, such as a screw, for attaching the implant-supported dental device to a patient's implants).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker to be configured such that the base comprises a first material having first flexural strength and the dentition comprises a second material having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base; and the proximal surface of the base is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw, as taught by Morales, in order to create a base for a dentition that may protect the dentition from chipping, wear, breakage and/or loosening of the artificial teeth as a result of the material properties of the base and said base is securely affixed to a patient’s implant to improve effectiveness of the device during usage.
PNG
media_image6.png
758
990
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11. Fisker further discloses a second dentition indent that is adjacent to the first dentition indent (see annotated Fig. 18) so that the first side of the dentition channel includes a third radiused surface that is adjacent to the first radiused surface of the first dentition indent (see annotated Fig. 18), so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel, the dentition channel interconnects the first dentition indent and the second dentition indent (see annotated Fig. 18) and the first radiused surface engages the buccal surface of the first tooth and the third radiused surface engages the buccal surface of a second tooth (see annotated Fig. 18; Though not shown, it would be obvious that when the bottom portion (the portion proximate to 603 and the annotated “a lower surface of element 602”) of the dentition 602 engages the dentition channel (604), the annotated first “horizontally” radiused surface would engage the buccal surface of the first tooth and the annotated third radiused surface would engage the buccal surface of the second tooth given that element 602 can only be inserted into element 604 in one specific orientation).
PNG
media_image7.png
712
950
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Fisker further discloses that the base includes an interior surface and exterior surface and the exterior surface defines a dentition arch engaging a portion of the outer surface of the dentition and having and apex interconnected by a first papilla and a second papilla, each of which extend from the bottom surface of the dentition channel by a distance that is greater than the distance by which the apex extends from the bottom surface of the dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 18).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Kim (KR 20050081978 A) .
Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. The combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose that the first material of the base contains at least 90% by weight zirconia dioxide.
Kim teaches abutments for dental implants and aesthetic surface treatment method, wherein the first material (page 7: zirconia) of the base (ceramic struts; page 7) contains at least 90% by weight zirconia dioxide (paragraph 7: Ceramic struts were manufactured by pressing a mold using a raw material containing by weight or more of zirconia; note that the ceramic strut (base) is a support for artificial dental (dentition) (page 7-8)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a first material containing at least 90% by weight zirconia dioxide, as taught by Kim, in order to make a base with high mechanical strength and fracture toughness.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Silva et al. (WO 2019008368 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. The combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose that the second material of the dentition has a flexural strength of at least 70 megapascals but no greater than 250 megapascals.
Silva et al. teaches an analogous device (10 Figs. 10a-c) comprising a base (see annotated Fig 10a) and a dentition (see annotated Fig. 10a). Regarding claim 4, Silva et al. further teaches the analogous device wherein the second material (the dental prosthesis including the dentition can be comprising of a polymeric material (abstract, page 6 lines 29 – 31)) of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 10a) has a flexural strength of at least 70 megapascals but no greater than 250 megapascals (page 8 line 34 – page 9 line 3; the polymeric material preferably may have a flexural strength of at least 100 megapascals (MPa), more preferably at least 145 MPa or in the range 145 – 180 MPa, which is a flexural strength of at least 70 MPa but not greater than 250 MPa).
PNG
media_image8.png
222
500
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dentition of the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a second material that has a flexural strength of at least 70 megapascals but no greater than 250 megapascals, as taught by Silva et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create an improved dental prosthesis, as suggested by Silva et al., which would enhance the ease of utility and durability of the dental prosthesis.
Regarding claim 13, Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11. The combination of Fisker and Morales is silent regarding claim 13, wherein the second material of the dentition has a flexural strength that is within the range of no less than 100 megapascals and no greater than 240 megapascals.
Silva et al. further teaches the analogous device wherein the second material (the dental prosthesis including the dentition can be comprising of a polymeric material (abstract, page 6 lines 29 – 31)) of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 10a) has a flexural strength that is within the range of no less than 100 megapascals and no greater than 240 megapascals (page 8 line 34 – page 9 line 3; the polymeric material preferably may have a flexural strength of at least 100 megapascals (MPa), more preferably at least 145 MPa or in the range 145 – 180 MPa, which is a flexural strength of no less than 100 MPa and no greater than 240 MPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dentition of the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a second material that has a flexural strength that is within the range of no less than 100 megapascals and no greater than 240 megapascals, as taught by Silva et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create an improved dental prosthesis, as suggested by Silva et al., which would enhance the ease of utility and durability of the dental prosthesis.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Loshe et al. (WO 2011083121 A2).
Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. The combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose that second material of the dentition contains at least 90% by weight polymethyl methacrylate.
Loshe et al. teaches an artificial tooth made of synthetic or ceramic material wherein the second material (polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA)) of the dentition (1/2 Fig. 1) contains at least 90% by weight polymethyl methacrylate (see highlight 1 of attached translation WO-2011083121-A2; …the tooth (1/2 Fig.1) is made using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) of 25 – 96% by mass. See claims 11 and 12. It is the interpretation of the examiner that elements 1/2 can be made of PMMA of at least 90% by weight as informed by the 25 – 96% by mass range of PMMA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filling date of the claimed invention to modify the dentition of the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a second material contains at least 90% by weight polymethyl methacrylate, as taught by Loshe et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide the dentition with the required strength and chemical resistance, as suggested by Loshe et al.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1).
Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. The combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose an implant housing for receiving an implant abutment, wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel so that an outer surface of the implant housing is laterally spaced from the first side and the second side of the dentition channel and an inner surface of the implant housing forms a conduit through which the implant may pass.
Stobbe et al. teaches an analogous dental device (abstract) comprising a base (100 Fig. 1) comprising a dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 1). Stobbe et al. further teaches the analogous dental device further comprising an implant housing (110 see annotated Fig. 1) for receiving an implant abutment (page 4 line 31 – page 5; element 110 is an implant attachment device), wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel so that an outer surface of the implant housing is laterally spaced from the first side and the second side of the dentition channel and an inner surface of the implant housing forms a conduit through which the implant may pass (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
608
1159
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured to comprise an implant housing for receiving an implant abutment, wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel so that an outer surface of the implant housing is laterally spaced from the first side and the second side of the dentition channel and an inner surface of the implant housing forms a conduit through which the implant may pass, as taught by Stobbe et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a means for the prosthesis to be effectively affixed to a jawbone, as suggested by Stobbe et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1) and further in view of Berger (WO 2016113737 A1).
Fisker as modified by Morales and Stobbe discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 6. The combination of Fisker, Morales, and Stobbe et al. does not disclose that the implant housing has a top portion that is vertically spaced from the bottom surface of the dentition channel and a base portion that is adjacent to the bottom surface of the dentition channel.
Stobbe et al. further teaches the analogous dental device wherein the implant housing (110 see annotated Fig. 1) has a top portion that is vertically spaced from the bottom surface of the dentition channel and a base surface that is adjacent to the bottom surface of the dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image10.png
608
1159
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales/Stobbe et al. to be configured such that the implant housing has a top portion that is vertically spaced from the bottom surface of the dentition channel and a base surface that is adjacent to the bottom surface of the dentition channel, as taught by Stobbe et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as described in claim 6 above and in order to secure the overdenture (dentition) to the base, as suggested by Stobbe et al.
Furthermore, the device of Fisker/Morales/Stobbe et al. does not disclose that the inner surface at the top portion has a diameter that is less than the diameter of the inner surface at the base portion.
PNG
media_image11.png
766
476
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Berger teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a base (20 Fig. 1A) and a dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B). Berger further teaches the implant housing (25/27 Figs. 4A-B) comprising a top portion (see annotated Figs. 4A-B) wherein the inner surface at the top portion has a diameter that is less than the diameter of the inner surface at the base portion (see annotated Figs. 4A-B; see the annotated diameter of the inner surface at the base is larger than the diameter at the top portion, and said diameter of the inner surface is configured for true-position mounting over the abutments (page 11 lines 19 - 22)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales/Stobbe et al. to be configured such that the inner surface at the top portion has a diameter that is less than the diameter of the inner surface at the base portion, as taught by Berger, in order to facilitate true-position mounting of the base over the abutments thus effectively securing the base to the abutments.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Minakuchi et al. (EP 3108851 A1) (hereafter, “Minakuchi”).
Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. The combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose the appliance of claim 1 further comprising a post disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and a post receiving opening defined in the distal surface of the base and adapted to removably secure the dentition to the base.
Minakuchi teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a base (11 Figs. 2) and a dentition (10 Figs. 1). Minakuchi further teaches a post (21a Fig. 5(a)) disposed on the lower surface of the dentition (Fig. 5(a): see that element 21a is disposed at a lower surface of an artificial tooth (21) which is part of the dentition (see Fig. 1)) and a post receiving opening (13a Fig. 5(a)) defined in the distal surface of the base (13 see Figs. 2 and 5(a)) and adapted to removably secure the dentition to the base (see that the post (21a) is configured to fit into the recess 13a; the limitation as stated is functional thus, while Minakuchi does not have to disclose the claim limitation as stated, the device of Minakuchi is capable to function as stated therefore satisfying the claim requirement; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a post disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and a post receiving opening defined in the distal surface of the base and adapted to removably secure the dentition to the base, as taught by Minakuchi, in order to provide a means to hold the tooth of the dentition in place to prevent it from unwanted rotation of the tooth within the recess.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Jahns et al. (US 20110236860 A1).
Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11. The combination of Fisker and Morales is silent regarding claim 12, wherein the first material of the base has a flexural strength of at least 1000 megapascals.
Jahns et al. teaches a dental article wherein the first material (dental ceramic article comprising zirconium oxide and at least two different coloring substances (abstract)) of the base (paragraph 0002; the dental article can be used in the field of dentistry for producing dental crowns and bridges; the dental article also include dental support structures which as interpreted by the examiner can be a base/support for a dentition) has a flexural strength of at least 1000 megapascals (paragraphs 0123 – 0127; the dental article has a breaking resistance of at least about 1000 MPa and the breaking resistance is determined according to the biaxial flexural strength).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a first material that has a flexural strength of at least 1000 megapascals, as taught by Jahns et al. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to use the dental article as taught by Jahns et al. to make the base of the device disclosed by Fisker/Morales in order to create a base with high durability and stability, as suggested by Jahns et al.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1) and Sillard (US 4931016 A).
Fisker as modified by Morales discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11. The combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose an implant housing for receiving an implant abutment, wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel.
PNG
media_image12.png
503
959
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Stobbe et al. teaches an analogous dental device (abstract) comprising a base (100 Fig. 1) comprising a dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 1). Stobbe et al. further teaches the analogous dental device further comprising an implant housing (110 see annotated Fig. 1) for receiving an implant abutment (page 4 line 31 – page 5; element 110 is an implant attachment device), wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured such that the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel, as taught by Stobbe et al. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a means for the prosthesis to be effectively affixed to a jawbone, as suggested by Stobbe et al.
Furthermore, the combination of Fisker and Morales does not disclose a first protuberance and a second protuberance, each of which is disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and are adapted to be received by the dentition channel, wherein the first protuberance is laterally spaced from the second protuberance by a distance that is at least as great as a width of the implant housing.
PNG
media_image13.png
661
825
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Sillard teaches an analogous device (Figs. 2 and 3) comprising a dentition (26 Fig. 2) and a base (16 Fig. 2). Regarding claim 15, Sillard further teaches the analogous device further comprising a first protuberance and a second protuberance (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), each of which is disposed on the lower surface of the dentition (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3) and are adapted to be received by the dentition channel (see that the annotated protuberances are designed to be received by the annotated channels on the base (16 Fig. 2)), wherein the first protuberance is laterally spaced from the second protuberance by a distance that is at least as great as a width of the implant housing (see that the spacing between the annotated protuberances are at least great as a width of the annotated implant housing; annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales be configured to comprise a first protuberance and a second protuberance, each of which is disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and are adapted to be received by the dentition channel, wherein the first protuberance is laterally spaced from the second protuberance by a distance that is at least as great as a width of the implant housing, as taught by Sillard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively align the dentition to the dentition channel of the base, allowing for precising fitting of the dentition to the base, as suggested by Sillard.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and further in view of Minakuchi et al. (EP 3108851 A1) (hereafter, “Minakuchi”).
Regarding claim 16, Fisker discloses a dental prosthetic appliance (600 Fig. 18) comprising: A base (601 Fig. 18) comprising a first material ([0073]: … the denture base should be manufactured in a material that resembles the gum surface (said material that resembles the gum surface is interpreted by the examiner as the first material)…), the base having a proximal surface (see annotated Fig. 18) and a distal surface that is adapted to receive a dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; see that the annotated distal surface contains element 604 (a continuous recess) to receive a dentition 602);
A dentition (602 Fig. 18) comprising a second material ([0073]: …the teeth should be manufactured in a material that resembles the teeth (said material that resembles the teeth is interpreted by the examiner as the second material)), the dentition further having a lower surface (see annotated Fig. 18) that is adapted to be removably secured to the distal surface of said base ((see annotated Fig. 18) ([0150-151]:… design of element 602 ensures the relative position of the artificial teeth and facilitates easy placement of the teeth in the denture base 601; Furthermore, the dentition is adapted to be removably secured by using a temporary adhesive ([0136 and 0141])), an upper surface, an inner surface and an outer surface (see annotated Fig. 18);
A dentition channel (604 Fig. 18) that is disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base (see annotated Fig. 18) and is adapted to receive the dentition ([0152]: … to receive both the artificial teeth and the common placement support a single continuous recess 604 is formed in the artificial gingiva), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 18), a first side and a second side (see annotated Fig. 18) so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel is adjacent to the lower surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; in assembled configuration, bottom surface of element 604 would be adjacent to the annotated lower surface of element 602), the first side of the dentition channel extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side of the dentition channel extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 18; [0151]: element 603 is provided such that it is visibly hidden when element 602 is placed in 601 thus, the first and second sides of element 604 must extend upwards toward the annotated upper surface of 602 for at least a
PNG
media_image1.png
385
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
length of element 603).
Fisker discloses the dental prosthetic appliance (Fig. 18) comprising a base comprising a first material and a dentition comprising a second material (see above), Fisker is silent, wherein the first material has a first flexural strength and the second material has a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base; the proximal surface of the base is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw.
Morales teaches an analogous device (300 Fig. 3A) comprising a base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) and a dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A). Morales further teaches the base comprising a first material ([0047]: … an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure…) having first flexural strength ( In a specific embodiment, the monolithic support structure comprises a material having higher … flexural strength…) and the dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A; [0047]: artificial teeth) comprising a second material ([0047]: … an implant-supported dental device comprises artificial teeth that comprise a first material having different material properties than a second material used to form the monolithic support structure…) having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base ([0047]: …the monolithic support structure comprises a ceramic material having a flexural strength value greater than about 650 MPa, or greater than about 800 MPa, when tested in accordance with ISO-6872:2008, which is greater than the flexural strength of the material used to form the artificial teeth (dentition)); and the proximal surface (see Fig. 3; the surface of the monolithic support structure (a base) on which elements 308 and 309 are localized) of the base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; [0041]) is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw ([0044]: In FIGS. 3A and 3B, the guide cylinders (308) comprise metal inserts (309) that guide an attachment means, such as a screw, for attaching the implant-supported dental device to a patient's implants).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker to be configured such that the base comprises a first material having first flexural strength and the dentition comprises a second material having a second flexural strength that is less than the first flexural strength of the base; and the proximal surface of the base is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw, as taught by Morales, in order to create a base for a dentition that may protect the dentition from chipping, wear, breakage and/or loosening of the artificial teeth as a result of the material properties of the base and said base is securely affixed to a patient’s implant to improve effectiveness of the device during usage.
Furthermore, Fisker does not disclose a plurality of securing posts of disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and a plurality of corresponding post receiving openings defined in and extending below the distal surface of the base and being adapted to receive the plurality of securing posts to removably secure the dentition to the base.
Minakuchi teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a base (11 Figs. 2) and a dentition (10 Figs. 1). Minakuchi further teaches a plurality of securing posts (21a Fig. 5(a)) of disposed on the lower surface of the dentition (Fig. 5(a): see that element 21a is disposed at a lower surface of an artificial tooth (21) which is part of the dentition (see Fig. 1)) and a plurality of corresponding post receiving openings (13a Fig. 5(a)) defined in and extending below the distal surface of the base (13 see Figs. 2 and 5(a)) and being adapted to receive the plurality of securing posts to removably secure the dentition to the base (see that the post (21a) is configured to fit into the recess 13a; the limitation as stated is functional thus, while Minakuchi does not have to disclose the claim limitation as stated, the device of Minakuchi is capable to function as stated therefore satisfying the claim requirement; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales to be configured with a plurality of securing posts of disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and a plurality of corresponding post receiving openings defined in and extending below the distal surface of the base and being adapted to receive the plurality of securing posts to removably secure the dentition to the base, as taught by Minakuchi, in order to provide a means to hold the tooth of the dentition in place to prevent it from unwanted rotation of the tooth within the recess.
Regarding claim 17, Fisker as modified by Morales and Minakuchi discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 16. Fisker further discloses a dentition arch (see annotated Fig. 18) formed in a portion of the first side of the dentition channel, the arch including a first papilla and a second papilla (see annotated Fig. 18), each of which extend from the bottom surface of the dentition channel by a distance that is at least 50% of the distance by which the second side of the dentition channel extends from the bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 18; see that the annotated first and second papilla extends from the bottom surface of the dentition channel by a distance that is at least 50% of the distance by which the annotated second side of the dentition channel extends from the annotated bottom surface
PNG
media_image14.png
704
940
media_image14.png
Greyscale
of the dentition channel).
Regarding claim 20, a first dentition indent (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2) defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel (2 Fig. 1) (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2) wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2) corresponding to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth defined by the dentition (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2; see that when aligned, the first horizontally radiused surface would correspond to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth) and the portion of the second side has a second horizontally radiused surface that opposes the first radiused surface and corresponds to the radius of the lingual surface of the first tooth so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2), the first radiused surface is adapted to engage the buccal surface of the first tooth and the second radiused surface is adapted to engage the lingual surface of the first tooth (see annotated Fig.18_copy 2; [0150-151]:… design of element 602 ensures the relative position of the artificial teeth and facilitates easy placement of the teeth in the denture base 601; it is obvious that the radius of the buccal surface of the first tooth would engage the first horizontally radiused surface of the first dentition indent).
PNG
media_image5.png
730
1023
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”) and Minakuchi et al. (EP 3108851 A1) (hereafter, “Minakuchi”) and further in view of Sillard (US 4931016 A).
Fisker as modified by Morales and Minakuchi discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 16. The combination of Fisker, Morales and Minakuchi does not disclose a dentition protuberance disposed on the lower surface of the dentition wherein the protuberance carries the plurality of securing posts and is adapted to be received by the dentition channel so that the securing posts are received by the securing post receiving openings.
Sillard teaches an analogous device (Figs. 2 and 3) comprising a dentition (26 Fig. 2) and a base (16 Fig. 2). Sillard further taches the analogous device further comprising a dentition protuberance (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3) disposed on the lower surface of the dentition wherein the protuberance carries the plurality if securing posts (see annotated Fig. 3: see that the annotated first protuberance further comprises a smaller projection which forms the securing post) and is adapted to be received by the dentition channel (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3) so that the securing post are received by the securing post receiving openings (see Fig. 3: see that disposed within the annotated dentition channel is a groove that is adapted to receive the projection that is disposed on the first protuberance).
PNG
media_image15.png
657
693
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales/Minakuchi be configured to comprise a dentition protuberance disposed on the lower surface of the dentition wherein the protuberance carries the plurality of securing posts and is adapted to be received by the dentition channel so that the securing posts are received by the securing post receiving openings, as taught Sillard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a dental prosthesis wherein the dentition component can be fixed to the base component by cooperation of securing post and corresponding recess, as suggested by Sillard.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker (US 20200022790 A1) in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1) (hereafter, “Morales”), Minakuchi et al. (EP 3108851 A1) (hereafter, “Minakuchi”) and Sillard (US 4931016 A), and further in view of Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1).
Fisker as modified by Morales, Minakuchi and Sillard discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 18. The combination of Fisker, Morales, Minakuchi and Sillard does not disclose an implant housing for receiving an implant abutment, wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel.
Stobbe et al. teaches an analogous dental device (abstract) comprising a base (100 Fig. 1) comprising a dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 1). Stobbe et al. further teaches the analogous dental device further comprising an implant housing (110 see annotated Fig. 1) for receiving an implant abutment (page 4 line 31 – page 5; element 110 is an implant attachment device), wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition
PNG
media_image12.png
503
959
media_image12.png
Greyscale
channel (see annotated Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales/Minakuchi/Sillard to be configured such that the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel, as taught by Stobbe et al. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a means for the prosthesis to be effectively affixed to a jawbone, as suggested by Stobbe et al.
Furthermore, the combination of Fisker, Morales, Minakuchi and Sillard does not disclose a second protuberance that is disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and is adapted to be received by the dentition channel, wherein the second protuberance is laterally spaced from the first protuberance by a distance that is at least as great as a width of the implant housing.
PNG
media_image13.png
661
825
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Sillard teaches an analogous device (Figs. 2 and 3) comprising a dentition (26 Fig. 2) and a base (16 Fig. 2). Sillard further taches the analogous device further comprising a second protuberance (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3) that is disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and is adapted to be received by the dentition channel (see annotated Figs. 2 and 3), wherein the second protuberance is laterally spaced from the first protuberance by a distance that is at least as great as a width of the implant housing (see that the spacing between the annotated protuberances are at least great as a width of the annotated implant housing; annotated Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fisker/Morales/Minakuchi/Sillard be configured to comprise a first protuberance and a second protuberance, each of which is disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and are adapted to be received by the dentition channel, wherein the first protuberance is laterally spaced from the second protuberance by a distance that is at least as great as a width of the implant housing, as taught by Sillard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to effectively align the dentition to the dentition channel of the base, allowing for precising fitting of the dentition to the base, as suggested by Sillard.
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 CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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 at (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.
/C.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights