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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s provisional election of claim(s) 1 – 7 and 9 – 20 in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “…distal surface said base…” should read “…distal surface of said base…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “…dentition least 90% by weight polymethyl methacrylate” should read “dentition contains at least 90% by weight polymethyl methacrylate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “distal surface said base” should read “distal surface of said base” and “A plurality securing posts” should read “A plurality of securing posts”. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 11 – 15, 17, 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 7 recites the limitation "the base portion" in lines 4 – 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. portion” for proper antecedent.
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. Thus, claim(s) 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum, JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1).
Berger discloses an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
A base (20 Fig. 1A) comprising a first material (page 10 lines 30 – page 11 line; the base can be made from any rigid, metallic or non-metallic material including, but not limited to, gold, titanium, chrome-cobalt, different forms of zirconium, porcelain, plastic, acrylic, or polymeric materials, composite materials, and combinations thereof, glass, carbon, materials reinforced with glass and/or carbon fibers, natural stone, silicates, silicon, etc.), the base having a proximal surface (39 Fig. 1A) that is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw (page 11 lines 19 -22) and a distal surface (36 Fig. 1A) that is adapted to receive a dentition (page 12 lines 2 – 8);
A dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B) comprising a second material (page 13 lines 3 - 27), the dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B) having a lower surface (52 Figs. 1A-B) that is adapted to be removably secured to the distal surface (36 Fig.1A) said base (20 Fig. 1A) (page 11 lines 23 – 30; The removable superstructure 40 has a labial face 41, a lingual face 43 and a proximal face 45. The proximal face 45 is formed with a proximally-facing bar-receiving groove 48 being generally arced and designed (e.g., having a shape and size) so as to snugly fit, at high precision, over at least a portion of the corresponding support bar 20), an upper surface (44 Fig. 1B), an inner surface (48 Fig. 1A) and an outer surface (50 Figs. 1A-B); and,
PNG
media_image1.png
328
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 4A) that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface (36 Fig. 4A) of the base (20 Figs. 1A and 4A), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition (see annotated Fig. 4A).
Berger is silent regarding claim 1 wherein a dentition channel that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base and is adapted to receive the dentition, wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side 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, the first side extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition.
Slocum JR. et al. teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a base (121/122 Fig. 1A) and a dentition (131/132 Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 1, Slocum JR. et al. further teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a dentition channel (see annotated Figs. 1A-B) that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface (see annotated Figs. 1A-B) of the base (121/122 Figs. 1A-B) and is adapted to receive the dentition (see Figs. 1A and 9; note that Fig. 9 is a schematic of the base of Figs. 1A-B and will be referenced for clarity and illustration of the engagement between the dentition and the base elements (paragraph 0019)), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side (see annotated Figs. 1A-B and 9) so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel is adjacent to the lower surface (910 Fig. 9) of the dentition (900 Fig. 9), the first side extends along a portion (Dt Fig. 9) of the outer surface (901 Fig. 9) of the dentition (900 Fig. 9) towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition (see
PNG
media_image2.png
747
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
403
974
media_image3.png
Greyscale
annotated Fig. 9).
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 Berger to be configured with a dentition channel that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base and is adapted to receive the dentition, wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side 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, the first side extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition, as taught by Slocum JR. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device where the dentition portion is effectively embedded within the base of the dental prosthetic, as suggested by Slocum JR. et al.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Morales et al. (US 20160331494 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al. is silent regarding claim 2 wherein the first material of the base has a flexural strength of at least 800 megapascals.
Morales et al. teaches an analogous device (300 Fig. 3A) comprising a base (see annotated Fig. 3A; a monolithic support structure; paragraph 0041) and a dentition (see annotated Fig. 3A). Regarding claim 2, Morales et al. further teaches an analogous device wherein the first material (paragraph 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; paragraph 0041) has a flexural strength of at least 800 megapascals (paragraph 0047; In one embodiment, the monolithic support structure comprises a ceramic material having
PNG
media_image6.png
547
774
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Waizenegger et al. (US 20110244429 A1).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger further discloses that the first material of the base (20 Fig. 1A) can be made from non-metallic material such as zirconium (page 10 line 30 – page 11 line 3). However, Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 3, wherein the first material of the base contains at least 90% by weight zirconia dioxide.
Waizenegger et al. teaches a dental restoration method/system (Figs. 6 – 8) wherein the first material (ceramic material of the frame, paragraph 0045) of the base (19 Fig. 7) contains at least 90% by weight zirconia dioxide (paragraph 0045; A frame or frame precursor may be made of a ceramic material. For example, one comprising between 90% and 99% by weight zirconium oxide, and preferably between 91% and 97.25% by weight zirconium oxide. The claim limitation is directed to the material composition of the first material and not the structure of the base thus, the material composition of the frame which serves as the base for the restoration system of Waizenegger et al. clearly teaches a material containing 90% by weight zirconia dioxide used in the base).
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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. to be configured with a first material containing at least 90% by weight zirconia dioxide, as taught by Waizenegger et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order make a durable and inexpensive dental restoration, as suggested by Waizenegger et al.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Silva et al. (WO 2019008368 A1).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 4 wherein 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_image7.png
222
500
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Loshe et al. (WO 2011083121 A2).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 5 wherein the 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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. 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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger further discloses the analogous device (10 Fig. 5C) further comprising an implant housing (25/27 Figs. 4A-B and 5C) for receiving an implant (26 Fig. 5C) (Fig. 5C; see that the top portion of the implant (26) is received into the element 27 of the implant housing (25/27)). However, Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 6, 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 (494 Fig. 15A) and a dentition (490 Fig. 15A). Regarding claim 6, 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_image8.png
608
1159
media_image8.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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. 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.
PNG
media_image9.png
766
476
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Stobbe et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 6 above. Regarding claim 7, Berger further teaches an 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)). However, Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 7 wherein 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.
PNG
media_image10.png
608
1159
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Stobbe et al. teaches an analogous dental device (abstract) comprising a base (494 Fig. 15A) and a dentition (490 Fig. 15A). Regarding claim 7, 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).
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 Berger/Slocum JR. 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Boehm et al. (US 10258441 B2).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 9 further comprising a first dentition indent defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel wherein the portion of the first side has a first radiused surface and the portion of the second side has a second radiused surface that opposes the first radiused surface so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel, 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.
Boehm et al. teaches an analogous dental device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a base (1 Fig. 1) and a dentition (4 Fig. 2). Regarding claim 9, Boehm et al. further teaches the analogous device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) further comprising a first dentition indent (see annotated Fig.1) 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. 1) wherein the portion of the first side has a first radiused surface (see annotated Fig. 1) and the portion of the second side has a second radiused surface that opposes the first radiused surface (see annotated Fig. 1) so that when the dentition (4 Fig. 2) is received by the dentition channel (2 Fig. 1), 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
PNG
media_image11.png
641
723
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
761
862
media_image12.png
Greyscale
surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 1; Col. 7 lines 25 – 40).
It would been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Berger/Slocum JR. et al. to be configured with a a first dentition indent defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel wherein the portion of the first side has a first radiused surface and the portion of the second side has a second radiused surface that opposes the first radiused surface so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel, 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, as taught by Boehm et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a base with a receiving channel for the dentition that efficiently holds the dentition one specific orientation, as suggested by Boehm et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Andrews (US 4741698 A).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding claim 10 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.
Andrews teaches an analogous dental device (Fig. 15) comprising a base (66 Fig. 15) and a dentition (68 Fig. 15). Regarding claim 10, Andrews further teaches the analogous dental device (Fig. 15) further comprising a post (70a-d Fig. 15) disposed on the lower surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 15) and a post receiving opening (72a-d Fig. 15) defined in the distal surface of the base (see annotated Fig. 15) and adapted to removably secure the dentition to the base (Col. 5 lines 45 – 55; the implant readily converts for accommodating fixed bridge 68 which bears attachment members 70a-70d. These attachment members fit into sleeves 72a-72d, respectively. The noted sleeves have holes which penetrate therethrough (shown in the front, but may be as readily sited on the back side of such sleeves) which accommodate screws 74a-74d for securing fixed bridge 68 (dentition) with frame 66 (base)).
PNG
media_image15.png
405
588
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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. be configured to comprise 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 Andrews. 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 easily snap-fixed to the base component by means of specialized attachment members, as suggested by Andrews.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Boehm et al. (US 10258441 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Berger discloses an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
A base (20 Fig. 1A) comprising a first material (page 10 lines 30 – page 11 line; the base can be made from any rigid, metallic or non-metallic material including, but not limited to, gold, titanium, chrome-cobalt, different forms of zirconium, porcelain, plastic, acrylic, or polymeric materials, composite materials, and combinations thereof, glass, carbon, materials reinforced with glass and/or carbon fibers, natural stone, silicates, silicon, etc.), the base having a proximal surface (39 Fig. 1A) that is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw (page 11 lines 19 -22) and a distal surface (36 Fig. 1A) that is adapted to receive a dentition (page 12 lines 2 – 8);
A dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B) defining a plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig. 3A) comprising a second material (page 13 lines 3 - 27), the dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B) having a lower surface (52 Figs. 1A-B) that is adapted to be removably secured to the distal surface (36 Fig.1A) said base (20 Fig. 1A) (page 11 lines 23 – 30; The removable superstructure 40 has a labial face 41, a lingual face 43 and a proximal face 45. The proximal face 45 is formed with a proximally-facing bar-receiving groove 48 being generally arced and designed (e.g., having a shape and size) so as to snugly fit, at high precision, over at least a portion of the corresponding support bar 20), an upper surface (44 Fig. 1B) defining a chewing surface for the plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig. 3A), an inner surface forming a lingual surface for the plurality of teeth and an outer surface defining a buccal surface for the plurality of teeth (see annotated Fig. 3A);
[AltContent: connector]A dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 4A) that is disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface (36 Fig. 4A) of the base (20 Figs. 1A and 4A), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition (see annotated Fig. 4A).
Berger is silent regarding claim 11 wherein a dentition channel that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base is adapted to receive the dentition, wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side 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, the first side extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition.
Slocum JR. et al. teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a base (121/122 Fig. 1A) and a dentition (131/132 Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 11, Slocum JR. et al. further teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a dentition channel (see annotated Figs. 1A-B) that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface (see annotated Figs. 1A-B) of the base (121/122 Figs. 1A-B) and is adapted to receive the dentition (see Figs. 1A and 9; note that Fig. 9 is a schematic of the base of Figs. 1A-B and will be referenced for clarity and illustration of the engagement between the dentition and the base elements (paragraph 0019)), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side (see annotated Figs. 1A-B and 9) so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel is adjacent to the lower surface (910 Fig. 9) of the dentition (900 Fig. 9), the first side extends along a portion (Dt Fig. 9) of the outer surface (901 Fig. 9) of the dentition (900 Fig. 9) towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image20.png
674
659
media_image20.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 Berger to be configured with a dentition channel that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base and is adapted to receive the dentition, wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side 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, the first side extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition, as taught by Slocum JR. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device where the dentition portion is effectively embedded within the base of the dental prosthetic, as suggested by Slocum JR. et al.
Furthermore, Berger is silent regarding claim 11 further comprising:
a first dentition indent defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface corresponding 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, 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.
Boehm et al. teaches an analogous dental device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a base (1 Fig. 1) and a dentition (4 Fig. 2). Regarding claim 11, Boehm et al. further teaches the analogous device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) further comprising a first dentition indent (see annotated Fig.1) 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. 1) wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface (see annotated Fig. 1) corresponding to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth defined by the dentition (see annotated Figs. 1 and 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 Figs. 1 and 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. 1; Col. 7 lines 25 – 40; element 4 can only be inserted into element 2 in a specific orientation and when inserted, 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_image21.png
532
680
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
761
1187
media_image22.png
Greyscale
It would been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Berger/Slocum JR. et al. to be configured with a first dentition indent defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface corresponding 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, 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, as taught by Boehm et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a base with a receiving channel for the dentition that efficiently holds the dentition one specific orientation, as suggested by Boehm et al.
Regarding claim 14, Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al. are silent regarding the device of claim 11 further comprising a second dentition indent that is adjacent to the first dentition indent so that the first side of the dentition channel includes a second radiused surface that is adjacent to the first radiused surface, so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel, the first radiused surface engages the buccal surface of the first tooth and the second radiused surface engages the buccal surface of a second tooth.
Boehm et al. teaches an analogous dental device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a base (1 Fig. 1) and a dentition (4 Fig. 2). Regarding claim 11, Boehm et al. further teaches the analogous device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) further comprising a second dentition indent that is adjacent to the first dentition indent (see annotated Fig. 1) so that the first side of the dentition channel includes a second radiused surface that is adjacent to the first radiused surface (see annotated Fig. 1), so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel, the first radiused surface engages the buccal surface of the first tooth and the second radiused surface engages the buccal surface of a second tooth (see annotated Fig. 1; Col. 7 lines 25 – 40; Though not shown, it would be obvious that when the bottom portion (8 Fig. 2) of the dentition 4 engages the dentition channel (2 Fig. 1) (Col. 7 lines 25 – 40), the annotated first radius surface would engage the buccal surface of the first tooth and the annotated second radius surface would engage the buccal surface of the second tooth given that element 4 can only be inserted into element 2
PNG
media_image25.png
701
674
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image26.png
761
1014
media_image26.png
Greyscale
in one specific orientation).
It would been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Berger/Slocum JR. et al. to be configured with a second dentition indent that is adjacent to the first dentition indent so that the first side of the dentition channel includes a second radiused surface that is adjacent to the first radiused surface, so that when the dentition is received by the dentition channel, the first radiused surface engages the buccal surface of the first tooth and the second radiused surface engages the buccal surface of a second tooth, as taught by Boehm et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a base with a receiving channel for the dentition that efficiently holds the dentition one specific orientation, as suggested by Boehm et al
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and Boehm et al. (US 10258441 B2), and further in view of Jahns et al. (US 20110236860 A1).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. are 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) 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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. 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 skill 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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. in order to create a base with high durability and stability, as suggested by Jahns et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and Boehm et al. (US 10258441 B2), and further in view of Silva et al. (WO 2019008368 A1).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11 above. Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. are 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.
PNG
media_image29.png
222
498
media_image29.png
Greyscale
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 13, 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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. 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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and Boehm et al. (US 10258441 B2), and further in view of Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1) and Sillard (US 4931016 A).
Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 11 above. Berger further discloses the analogous device (10 Fig. 5C) further comprising an implant housing (25/27 Figs. 4A-B and 5C) for receiving an implant (26 Fig. 5C) (Fig. 5C; see that the top portion of the implant (26) is received into the element 27 of the implant housing (25/27)). However, Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. are silent regarding claim 15 wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel.
PNG
media_image30.png
503
959
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Stobbe et al. teaches an analogous dental device (abstract) comprising a base (494 Fig. 15A) and a dentition (490 Fig. 15A). Regarding claim 15, 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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. 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 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.
Furthermore, Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. are silent regarding the dental prosthetic appliance of claim 15 further comprising 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_image31.png
675
825
media_image31.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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al./Boehm et al. 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum, JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Andrews (US 4741698 A).
Berger discloses an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising:
A base (20 Fig. 1A) comprising a first material (page 10 lines 30 – page 11 line; the base can be made from any rigid, metallic or non-metallic material including, but not limited to, gold, titanium, chrome-cobalt, different forms of zirconium, porcelain, plastic, acrylic, or polymeric materials, composite materials, and combinations thereof, glass, carbon, materials reinforced with glass and/or carbon fibers, natural stone, silicates, silicon, etc.), said base having a proximal surface (39 Fig. 1A) that is adapted to be secured to an implant disposed in a patient's jaw (page 11 lines 19 -22) and a distal surface (36 Fig. 1A) that is adapted to receive a dentition (page 12 lines 2 – 8);
A dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B) comprising a second material (page 13 lines 3 - 27), said dentition (40 Figs. 1A-B) having a lower surface (52 Figs. 1A-B) that is adapted to be removably secured to said distal surface (36 Fig.1A) said base (20 Fig. 1A) (page 11 lines 23 – 30; The removable superstructure 40 has a labial face 41, a lingual face 43 and a proximal face 45. The proximal face 45 is formed with a proximally-facing bar-receiving groove 48 being generally arced and designed (e.g., having a shape and size) so as to snugly fit, at high precision, over at least a portion of the corresponding support bar 20), an upper surface (44 Fig. 1B), an inner surface (48 Fig. 1A) and an outer surface (50 Figs. 1A-B);
PNG
media_image17.png
246
548
media_image17.png
Greyscale
A dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 4A) that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface (36 Fig. 4A) of the base (20 Figs. 1A and 4A), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition (see annotated Fig. 4A).
Berger is silent regarding claim 16 wherein the dentition channel disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base is adapted to receive the dentition, wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel contacts the lower surface of the dentition, the first side extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition.
Slocum JR. et al. teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a base (121/122 Fig. 1A) and a dentition (131/132 Fig. 1A). Regarding claim 16, Slocum JR. et al. further teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1A-B) comprising a dentition channel (see annotated Figs. 1A-B) that disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface (see annotated Figs. 1A-B) of the base (121/122 Figs. 1A-B) and is adapted to receive the dentition (see Figs. 1A and 9; note that Fig. 9 is a schematic of the base of Figs. 1A-B and will be referenced for clarity and illustration of the engagement between the dentition and the base elements (paragraph 0019)), wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side (see annotated Figs. 1A-B and 9) so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel contacts the lower surface (910 Fig. 9) of the dentition (900 Fig. 9), the first side extends along a portion (Dt Fig. 9) of the outer surface (901 Fig. 9) of the dentition (900 Fig. 9) towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image20.png
674
659
media_image20.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 Berger to be configured such that a dentition channel disposed in at least a portion of the distal surface of the base is adapted to receive the dentition, wherein the dentition channel includes a bottom surface, a first side and a second side so that when the dentition channel receives the dentition, the bottom surface of the dentition channel contacts the lower surface of the dentition, the first side extends along a portion of the outer surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition and the second side extends along a portion of the inner surface of the dentition towards the upper surface of the dentition, as taught by Slocum JR. et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device where the dentition portion is effectively embedded within the base of the dental prosthetic, as suggested by Slocum JR. et al.
Furthermore, Berger is silent regarding the device of claim 16 further comprising a plurality securing posts of disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and a plurality of corresponding post receiving openings defined in the distal surface of the base and adapted receive the plurality of securing posts to removably secure the dentition to the base.
Andrews teaches an analogous dental device (Fig. 15) comprising a base (66 Fig. 15) and a dentition (68 Fig. 15). Regarding claim 16, Andrews further teaches the analogous dental device (Fig. 15) further comprising a plurality securing posts (70a-d Fig. 15) of disposed on the lower surface of the dentition (see annotated Fig. 15) and a plurality of corresponding post receiving openings (72a-d Fig. 15) defined in the distal surface of the base (see annotated Fig. 15) and adapted receive the plurality of securing posts to removably secure the dentition to the base (Col. 5 lines 45 – 55; the implant readily converts for accommodating fixed bridge 68 which bears attachment members 70a-70d. These attachment members fit into sleeves 72a-72d, respectively. The noted sleeves have holes which penetrate therethrough (shown in the front, but may be as readily sited on the back side of such sleeves) which accommodate screws 74a-74d for securing fixed bridge 68 (dentition) with frame 66 (base)).
PNG
media_image32.png
262
380
media_image32.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 Berger be configured to comprise a plurality securing posts of disposed on the lower surface of the dentition and a plurality of corresponding post receiving openings defined in the distal surface of the base and adapted receive the plurality of securing posts to removably secure the dentition to the base, as taught Andrews. 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 easily snap-fixed to the base component by means of specialized attachment members, as suggested by Andrews.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum, JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and Andrews (US 4741698 A) and further in view of Hammer (US 20210298881 A1).
Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 16 above. Regarding claim 17, Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews are silent regarding the appliance of claim 17 further comprising a dentition arch formed in a portion of the first side of the dentition channel, the arch including two papilla that 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.
PNG
media_image33.png
734
993
media_image33.png
Greyscale
Hammer teaches an analogous device (Fig. 1) comprising a base (see annotated Fig. 1) and a dentition (see annotated Fig. 1). Regarding claim 17, Hammer further teaches the analogous device further comprising a dentition arch formed in a portion of the first side of the dentition channel (see annotated Fig. 1), the arch including two papilla (see annotated Fig. 1) that 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. 1; see that the annotated 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 of the dentition channel).
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 Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews to be configured to comprise a dentition arch formed in a portion of the first side of the dentition channel, the arch including two papilla that 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, as taught by Hammer, in order to create a dental prosthetic device with improved aesthetics that allows the user to easily remove and reinsert the dental prosthetic device, as suggested by Hammer.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum, JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1) and further in view of Andrews (US 4741698 A).
Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 16 above. Berger/Slocum, JR. et al. are silent regarding the device of claim 18 further comprising a 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.
Andrews teaches an analogous dental device (Fig. 15) comprising a base (66 Fig. 15) and a dentition (68 Fig. 15). Regarding claim 18, Andrews further teaches the analogous dental device (Fig. 15) further comprising a protuberance (see annotated Fig.15; see that the protuberance is located at the distal end of the dentition before the terminal end that characterizes the securing post (70a-d)) disposed on the lower surface of the dentition wherein the protuberance carries the plurality of securing posts (70a-d Fig. 15) and is adapted to be received by the dentition channel so that the securing posts are received by the securing post receiving openings (Col. 5 lines 45 – 55; the implant readily converts for accommodating fixed bridge 68 which bears attachment members 70a-70d. These attachment members fit into sleeves 72a-72d, respectively. The noted sleeves have holes which penetrate therethrough (shown in the front, but may be as readily sited on the back side of such sleeves) which accommodate screws 74a-74d for securing fixed bridge 68 (dentition) with
PNG
media_image34.png
421
588
media_image34.png
Greyscale
frame 66 (base)).
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 Berger/Slocum JR. et al. be configured to comprise a 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 Andrews. 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 easily snap-fixed to the base component by means of specialized attachment members, as suggested by Andrews.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum, JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1)/Andrews (US 4741698 A) and further in view of Stobbe et al. (WO 2016161436 A1) and Sillard (US 4931016 A).
Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 18 above. Regarding claim 19, Berger further discloses the analogous device (10 Fig. 5C) further comprising an implant housing (25/27 Figs. 4A-B and 5C) for receiving an implant (26 Fig. 5C) (Fig. 5C; see that the top portion of the implant (26) is received into the element 27 of the implant housing (25/27)). However, Berger/ Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews are silent regarding claim 19 wherein the implant housing extends upwardly from the bottom surface of the dentition channel.
PNG
media_image35.png
608
1159
media_image35.png
Greyscale
Stobbe et al. teaches an analogous dental device (abstract) comprising a base (494 Fig. 15A) and a dentition (490 Fig. 15A). Regarding claim 15, 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 Berger/ Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews 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 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.
Furthermore, Berger/ Slocum, JR. et al./Andrew are silent regarding the dental prosthetic appliance of claim 19 further comprising 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.
Sillard teaches an analogous device (Figs. 2 and 3) comprising a dentition (26 Fig. 2) and a base (16 Fig. 2). Regarding claim 19, 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).
PNG
media_image36.png
675
825
media_image36.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 Berger/ Slocum, JR. et al./Andrew be configured to comprise 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, 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger (WO 2016113737 A1) in view of Slocum, JR. et al. (US 20210205055 A1)/Andrews (US 4741698 A) and further in view of Boehm et al. (US 10258441 B2).
Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 16 above. Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews are silent regarding the dental device of claim 20 further comprising a first dentition indent defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface corresponding to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth defined by the dentition 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, 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.
Boehm et al. teaches an analogous dental device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a base (1 Fig. 1) and a dentition (4 Fig. 2). Regarding claim 20, Boehm et al. further teaches the analogous device (1/4 Figs. 1 and 2) further comprising a first dentition indent (see annotated Fig.1) 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. 1) wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface (see annotated Fig. 1) corresponding to the radius of the buccal surface of a first tooth defined by the dentition (see annotated Figs. 1 and 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 Figs. 1 and 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. 1; Col. 7 lines 25 – 40; element 4 can only be inserted into element 2 in a specific orientation and when inserted, 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_image21.png
532
680
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
761
1187
media_image22.png
Greyscale
It would been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Berger/Slocum, JR. et al./Andrews to be configured with a first dentition indent defined by a portion of the first side and a portion of the second side of the dentition channel wherein the portion of the first side has a first horizontally radiused surface corresponding 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, 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, as taught by Boehm et al. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a base with a receiving channel for the dentition that efficiently holds the dentition one specific orientation, as suggested by Boehm et al.
Conclusion
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