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
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “a” is missing before the word “length” in line 15 of Claim 1, line 27 of Claim 10, and line 16 of Claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge” of Claim 19 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2-5, 10-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Clark (US 2008/0064012 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Clark discloses an improved dental matrix system for filling cavities located on a side portion of a tooth (abstract), comprising a dental matrix (Figure 1, 30) where the dental matrix has a curved cross-section (as seen in Figure 1) and where the dental matrix is adapted to be placed in between a tooth that has a cavity on a side thereof and an adjacent tooth, and pressed against said side of said tooth that has said cavity (as seen in Figure 1, the dental matrix is placed between two teeth with the cavity section described in [0163-0164]). Clark further discloses a dental spring ring (Figure 6, 78), where the dental spring ring is adapted to be placed around said adjacent tooth and contact said dental matrix on opposite side portions thereof to hold said dental matrix in place against said tooth that has said cavity (as seen in Figure 6). Clark further discloses an improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge (Figure 15E, 48e) comprising a tab end where said tab end has a width (width taken as dimension from the top to the bottom of annotated Figure 15E below) and a length (length taken as the dimension from left to right annotated Figure 15E below), and a wedge end including a wedge surface, where the wedge end has a width and a length (see annotated Figure 15E below). Clark further discloses a center portion including a first section where the first section is connected to the wedge end, where the first section has a width and a length, and where the width of the first section is less than the width of the wedge end (see annotated Figure 15E below), and a second section where the second section is connected to said tab end (second section is connected to the tab end via elements 61e and 62e), and the second section has a width and length, where the width of the second section is less than said width of said first section (see annotated Figure 15E below). Clark further discloses a wedge section including a wedge surface, where the wedge section has a width and a length, and the wedge section is connected in between said first section and said second section (see annotated Figure 15E below). Clark further discloses that the width of first section of the center section is less than the width of the wedge end, and the width of second section of said center section is less than the width of the first section of the center section (see annotated Figure 15E below).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clark discloses that the dental wedge is formed from an elastomeric material ([0025]). Clark is capable of being used such that the dental matrix is placed adjacent said side of said tooth that has said cavity, then the dental wedge is placed between said dental matrix and the adjacent tooth, then the dental spring ring is placed around the adjacent tooth and contacts the dental matrix on opposite side portions thereof to hold it in place against the tooth that has the cavity (as seen in Figures 1-6), such that when pulling on the tab end of said dental wedge, and subsequently the wedge end, the dental wedge would become elongated (as it is elastomeric) and pull the center portion further between the adjacent tooth and the dental matrix thereby wedging and pushing the dental matrix toward and holding tightly against the tooth that has the cavity, such that the cavity can be filled. Please note: aside from the limitation that the dental wedge be elastomeric, these limitations are functional and therefore as the structure of the device as claimed is met by the prior art, the device of Clark would be capable of use in the manner described.
Regarding Claim 2, Clark discloses the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge of claim 1, and further discloses that the width of the tab end is larger than said width of the first section of the center portion (see annotated Figure 15E above).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Clark discloses the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge of Claims 1 and 10, and discloses that the tab end is formed having a circular shape ([0197] described tab 51e as disc shaped, which would be a circular shape).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Clark discloses the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses that the width of the wedge end is larger than the width of the first section of the center portion (see annotated Figure 15E above).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Clark discloses the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses that the wedge surface of the wedge end and said wedge surface of the wedge section of the center portion are located on the same side of said improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge (see annotated Figure 15E above). Both wedge surfaces would be capable of contacting and pushing the dental matrix toward and holding tightly against a tooth having a cavity on a side portion thereof (Please note: as this is a functional limitation, as Clark contains the same structure as claimed, it is capable of functioning in the manner as claimed).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Clark discloses the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses that the width of first section of the center section is less than the width of the wedge end, and the width of second section of said center section is less than the width of the first section of the center section (see annotated Figure 15E above).
Regarding Claim 18, Clark discloses the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge of claim 10, and further discloses that the curved cross-section of the dental matrix forms a concave surface and a convex surface, wherein the concave surface is adapted to contact said tooth that has the cavity (see Figures 1-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7, 9, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark.
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 14-15, Clark discloses the invention of Claims 1 and 10 substantially as claimed as described above, but does not specifically disclose that the wedge surface of the wedge end and the wedge surface of the wedge section of said center portion are formed at an angle with respect to the respective lengths between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, or 45 degrees. However, the examiner notes that the applicant does not provide any criticality for the specific angulations and instead describes that “other angles may be preferred in particular instances” (specification, [0021] lines, lines 6-7 on page 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the surface angulations of Clark to an angulation of between 30 and 60 degrees or 45 degrees, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, Clark discloses the invention of Claims 1 and 10 substantially as claimed as described above, but does not specifically disclose that the wedge end has a side portion formed in the shape of a triangle adapted to be grabbed and pulled by a dental tool. However, the examiner notes that the applicant does not provide any criticality for the shape of the wedge end and instead describes that “other shapes that make grabbing with a dental tool easier may be incorporated instead” (specification, [0021] lines 4-5 on page 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of Clark to a triangle shape, as such modification is recognized as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Regarding Claim 19, Clark discloses the improved dental matrix system of claim 10 substantially as described above, but does not disclose a second improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge with the same claimed limitations as the first (see Claim 10 rejection above and annotated Figure 15E above). However, the examiner notes that the applicant does not provide any criticality for having a second improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge in the specification nor is it shown in the figures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a second improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge as needed in cases determined by the practitioner at the time of use, as a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 20, Clark discloses the improved dental matrix system of claim 19, and discloses that the wedge surface of the wedge end and the wedge surface of the wedge section of the center portion are located on the same side of the improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge (see annotated Figure 15E above), and both wedge surfaces are capable of contacting and pushing the dental matrix toward and holding tightly against a tooth having a cavity on a side portion thereof. Clark does not specifically disclose that the wedge surface of the wedge end and the wedge surface of the wedge section of said center portion are formed at an angle with respect to the respective lengths between 30 degrees and 60 degrees. However, the examiner notes that the applicant does not provide any criticality for the specific angulations and instead describes that “other angles may be preferred in particular instances” (specification, [0021] lines, lines 6-7 on page 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the surface angulations of Clark to an angulation of between 30 and 60 degrees, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routing experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection to Claim 19 is maintained. It is the examiner’s understanding that element 100 as seen in the Figures is the wedge end as recited in independent Claims 1 and 10, and therefore cannot also be the second wedge as claimed in Claim 19. Therefore, the examiner does not see support for a second improved inter-proximal elastomeric dental wedge (with a differing reference number) in the Figures.
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner maintains the rejection of independent Claim 1 (including recitation of claimed elements previously cited in canceled claim 8) in view of Clark as described above. The applicant fails to claim any parameters associated with the “wedge end” other than a surface, a width, and a length. As seen in the annotated figure above, the wedge end of Clark has a surface, a width, and a length and therefore meets the limitations as claimed. The applicant argues that the end portion of Clark would not suffice for “wedging” only for holding and/or pulling. The examiner disagrees, and finds that the structure as claimed is met by Clark. Please note: a difference in functionality is not recited or required by the claim, however, Clark is capable of wedging (i.e. as a block would be capable of wedging open a door) although this function is not recited and therefore not necessitated by the claims. The applicant argues that there is also structural difference between the end of Clark and that of the present invention, however, that is not claimed in a way to preclude interpretation of Clark to meet the claimed limitations. As for the addition of the limitations of previous Claim 8 to Claim 1, and previous Claim 16 to Claim 10, the examiner maintains that the limitations of the Claims 1 and 10 are still met by Clark as described and annotated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772