DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 6,386865).
Suh shows a system comprising: a patient-specific modified dental model (“second impression” formed in the same manner as “first impression”, but with modified/reduced teeth is used to create a patient-specific modified dental model as described in col. 12, lines 32-60 for instance; it is also noted that since this is an apparatus claim, only a dental model is required as the end result of any product-by-process limitations), comprising at least one digitally redesigned ideal tooth form (that the ideal tooth form was arrived at with digital means is product-by-process where only the resulting tooth is at issue; teeth that are reduced to an ideal form are replicated in the model); and a dental stent (best seen in Fig. 5 for instance) comprising a stent base (50, 52) and a set of separators (single 44; however, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; as Suh discloses a separator and that separators are used between “any two adjacent teeth that are to be fitted with dental restoratives require the placement of an interproximal separator 44 between each other to avoid a subsequent fusion of the crowns at adjacent interproximal contours during final composite curing” [col. 11, lines 24-40]; as more than one tooth of the mouth can be restored with the splint as disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suh, by requiring a set/plurality of separators, for the purpose of avoiding subsequent fusion of crowns at adjacent interproximal contours of multiple teeth; See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)); wherein the stent base comprises an outer shell (50), and an inner bed (52) comprising a contoured cavity comprising a plurality of tooth cavities (as seen in Fig. 1, 5 for instance), wherein the contoured cavity corresponds to the patient-specific modified dental model and includes at least one tooth form which corresponds to the at least one redesigned tooth form of the patient-specific modified dental model (since the inner bed is used to create the dental model, it will correspond thereto); and wherein the set of separators comprises a plurality of separator strips each of which is partially embedded into the inner bed (see above and also Fig. 1, 5 shows it embedded therein). With respect to claim 2, wherein the contoured cavity corresponds to the patient-specific modified dental model further comprising at least one natural tooth form (such as T1 that is not being modified; it is again noted that this is considered product-by-process where only the resulting structure of a dental model is at issue). With respect to claim 3, wherein the patient-specific modified dental model comprises a base (such as at 74, 72 in Fig. 3), wherein the at least one redesigned tooth form is removable from the base (may be removed by means such as cutting); and at least one natural tooth form which is integral to the base (Fig. 3 shows the model in integral form). With respect to claim 4, wherein the contoured cavity corresponds to the patient-specific modified dental model (since the inner bed is used to create the dental model, it will correspond thereto), and wherein the patient-specific modified dental model is of a patient’s upper or lower set of teeth (Fig. 3 for instance shows the upper set of teeth, however models for both are envisioned by Suh). With respect to claim 5, wherein the outer shell and the inner bed are each formed of a clear or transparent material (col. 5 line 60- col. 6, line 3, “clear polyvinyl silicone matrix material (i.e. inner bed 52) bound to a clear tray (i.e. outer shell 50)”). With respect to claim 6, wherein the outer shell and the inner bed are formed of different materials (Fig. 1, impression material and tray materials differ). With respect to claim 8, wherein the separator strips are formed of a metal matrix strip (col. 11, lines 25-35).
Kit claims 9-10 are rejected similarly to the above and also inclusion of a composite resin material and a heater or light cure unit (col. 4, lines 15-45).
System claim 11 is rejected similarly to the above, where additionally the tooth form is removable from a base (tooth form is of a material that may be removed from the base in Suh by mechanical means such as sawing or drilling).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh in view of Hammesfahr (US 4,867,682).
Suh discloses the device as previously described above and the silicone inner bed material as addressed above, but fails to show the outer shell is acrylic.
Hammesfahr discloses an impression tray which is made of a transparent/clear acrylic (Col. 5, lines 5-20, “Especially preferred are the acrylic”... “completely transparent areas”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suh, by requiring the outer shell to be made of acrylic, as taught by Hammesfahr, for the purpose of using a suitable material to transmit light therethrough.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to be arguing the process by which the tooth form of the model is created. Whether or not the tooth form was designed digitally before manufacture, or as an impression, the resulting structure is a tooth form on a dental model. With regards to “ideal tooth form”, Suh removes the sharp edges and such of a tooth to reach an ideal form for its intended purpose. “Ideal” is a broad term since it is relative to a purpose (for instance) and if applicant is intending “ideal” to mean something more specific structurally, it is suggested to include that language in the claims.
With regard to the newly amended claim, it is suggested to be more specific with regards to the form being “removable”, such as including “from a corresponding socket” language from the specification.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights