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
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s response to restriction on November 3, 2025 with the election of the invention drawn to a removable denture device, Claims 1-18 and further electing the denture device of species A (Figures 1-3) and buffer element of subspecies a (Figure 4).
Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 3, 2025.
Additionally, the examiner withdraws the following claims as they do not read on the elected species: Claims 3, 9, 10, 15 and 17 are withdrawn. Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “gum-color base” is not directed to the elected species. Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the limitation requiring the cutting grooves to be a “rectangle, a parallelogram, or a trapezoid” is not directed to the elected species. Regarding Claim 15, the limitation requiring the “direction of said arc surface of each said positioning structure is the same” is not directed to the elected species. Regarding Claim 17, the limitation requiring “a direction of an opening depth of each of said cutting grooves is not parallel to a direction of said position structure of said buffer body” is not directed to the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 28, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The NPL reference cited on the above referenced information disclosure statement was not provided in English nor did it contain an explanation of relevance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 -8, 11-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said buffer bodies" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Antecedence is provided in the claim for “at least one buffer element, comprising a buffer body” which provides antecedence for a singular buffer body, but does not provide antecedence for multiple buffer bodies as recited in line 5. Throughout the claims, this same antecedence issue persists, in at least claims 2, 4-8, 11, 14, and 16. The applicant is encouraged to correct all claims for the lack of antecedence where multiple/plural elements are recited based on the initial recitation of a singular element. For the purpose of examination, these elements will be treated as singular elements, including where indicated by the “at least one” language.
Regarding Claims 12-14, the recitation of “positioning structures” lacks antecedence as Claim 11 recites a singular positioning structure. Claim 12 recites “said positioning structures” which lacks antecedence, and renders Claim 13 which recites that the positioning structures each have an arc surface that has different directions of orientation indefinite. As the multiple positioning structures lack antecedence, it is unclear how their arc surfaces could be oriented in different directions. Although Claim 14 recites three positioning structures, it is indefinite as it depends on Claim 12. For the purpose of examination, Claims 13 and 14 will be treated as having multiple positioning structures with different arc surface directions as the examiner believes was the intent of the applicant (see rejection below).
All claims specifically not addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baaske et al. (US 2022/0061968 A1, hereinafter “Baaske”).
Regarding Claim 1, Baaske discloses a removable dentures device (Figures 1-4, 10, as it is inserted, it can also be removed), comprising a denture base (12), a denture framework (16), provided on the denture base, at least one buffer element (22), comprising a buffer body (Figure 4, 38) and at least one cutting groove (groove as seen below in annotated Figure 2), where the buffer body is respectively provided on the denture framework (as seen in Figure 1), and the at least one cutting groove is respectively formed on a side surface of the buffer body (as seen in annotated Figure 2 below), and a denture crown assembly (14 and 16 taken together), comprising at least one accommodation groove (upside down “u” shape as described in [0095] forms the accommodation groove), with the buffer body provided inside the accommodation groove (as seen in Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses that the denture crown assembly comprises at least one denture crown body (14), and the at least one accommodation groove is formed on a bottom of the denture crown body (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses that the shape of the at least one accommodation groove matches a shape of the buffer body (as seen in Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses that the at least one cutting groove is a groove body from a side surface of the buffer body toward an inside of the buffer body (as seen in Figure 2 the groove is oriented from a side surface inward).
Regarding Claim 8, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses that the side surface shape of the at least one cutting groove is non-circular (as seen in Figure 2, as seen from a lateral view the cutting groove is non-circular).
Regarding Claim 11, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses that the buffer body comprises a positioning structure (as seen in Figure 4, the buffer body has a shape that would render it a positioning structure as described in [0100]).
Regarding Claim 12, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 11, and further discloses that the positioning structure is a combination of an arc surface and at least one plane (as seen in Figure 4, the positioning structure has an arc surface and occurs in at least one plane).
Regarding Claim 16, Baaske discloses the device according to claim 11, and further discloses that a direction of an opening depth of the at least one cutting groove is parallel to a direction of the positioning structure of the buffer body (as seen in Figure 3 the cutting groove side of the buffer body is parallel to the top of the positioning structure of the buffer body).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baaske in view of Kuang (CN 107260339).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Baaske discloses the device of Claim 1 substantially as claimed as described above, but does not specifically disclose a cutting groove with an opening height and opening depth.
In the same art of dental prosthesis, Kuang teaches a buffer body (Figure 4, 32) with a cutting groove (31) that has an opening with a height and a depth. As seen in Figure 4 the depth of groove 31 appears to be 60% to 90% of the depth of the body. Kuang does not specifically teach wherein the height is 0.05mm to 1 mm. However, the Examiner notes that the specific cutting groove height is a result effective variable dependent on the needs of the tooth prosthesis being implanted, and the present invention does not disclose criticality for this height. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Baaske with a buffer body with a cutting groove as taught by Kuang and with 60-90% of the depth of the body and of 0.05-1mm, in order to provide a buffer body with the ability to bend to reduce height and absorb impact during mastication, and as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baaske in view of ALSINA FONT (US 2023/0134818 A1).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Baaske discloses the device of Claim 12 substantially as claimed as described above, and discloses an arc surface on the positioning structure. However, Baaske does not specifically teach a different direction of the arc surface for each of three adjacent positioning structures.
In the same art of dental prosthesis, ALSINA FONT teaches a positioning structure (Figure 7, 5) where three adjacent positioning structures have an arc surface that is oriented in a different direction (see annotated Figure 7 below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to orient the arc surface of the positioning structures of Baaske in different directions as is taught by ALSINA FONT, as the curvature of the jaw lends adjacent tooth prosthesis to be oriented in different directions, thus requiring a different direction of orientation of the associated positioning structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baaske in view of Drapeau et al. (US 2012/0214127 A1, hereinafter “Drapeau”).
Regarding Claim 18, Baaske discloses the invention of Claim 1 substantially as described above, but does not teach that the buffer element is made of metal. In the same art of dental prosthesis, Drapeau teaches components that can be made of metal ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the buffer element of Baaske of metal as is taught by Drapeau, as metal is a material know to be suitable for medical applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772