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 .
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 “one or more exit holes” from claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference numeral 22 from paragraph [0018] of the instant specification is missing from the drawings.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Layzell et al and Frey et al fail to provide for the new limitations of the trays having exit holes, however Layzell is now longer relied upon in the following action and Frey is only relied upon for the teaching of dependent claim limitations in combination with the newly cited prior art of Katzman et al. (US 2018/0368954 A1) which does provide for the new limitation of claim 1. Further the prior art of Tchouangang et al. (US 2011/0183293 A1) is also cited as teaching the new claim 1 for compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 only recites intended use limitations for how some possible indentation that could be formed using the kit of claim 1 would be used but fails to recite any further structural limitation to the kit itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tchouangang et al. (US 2011/0183293 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 10, Tchouangang discloses a kit for obtaining a dental impression (title), the kit comprising:
a first material and a second material configured to be mixed into a third material for receiving a dental impression therein (paragraph [0027] disclosing a first and second material as a two-component material, paragraph [0081] lines 2-4 disclosing the kit uses a first/base material and a second/activator or hardener material that are to be mixed together thus forming a third material for taking the dental impression),
an upper and lower tray for forming an impression of both an upper and lower set of teeth respectively (Fig. 1 elements 5 and 6),
one or more exit holes formed in both the upper and the lower trays (Fig. 1 showing perforation in both trays 5 and 6) wherein the exit holes are configured such that when the third material is loaded into the upper tray and the lower tray, a portion of the third material would be extruded through the one or more exit holes to form a platform configured to receive indents of opposing teeth which could create a repetitive landing area for opposing teeth (paragraph [0009] lines 17-19 disclosing that the holes are configured to allow the third material to be extruded through them.
Regarding the intended use of the kit for forming indentations during a possible manner of using the kit, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katzman et al. (US 2018/0368954 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 10, Katzman discloses a kit for obtaining a dental impression (title), the kit comprising:
a first material and a second material configured to be mixed into a third material for receiving a dental impression therein ( Fig. 4 elements 60 and 62, paragraph [0072] all disclosing a first and second putties that are to be mixed together to form a third material for taking the dental impression),
an upper and lower tray for forming an impression of both an upper and lower set of teeth respectively (Fig. 4 elements 58 showing two impression trays, paragraph [0074] all disclosing multiple tray with some for upper and some for lower arches),
one or more exit holes formed in both the upper and the lower trays are configured such that when the third material is loaded into the upper tray and the lower tray, a portion of the third material would be extruded through the one or more exit holes to form a platform configured to receive indents of opposing teeth which could create a repetitive landing area for opposing teeth in an altered bite position (Fig. 5 and 7 showing multiple exit holes in both the upper and lower trays, further Fig. 35-37 showing the trays having multiple through holes, which by being such holes are configured to allow the third material to be extruded through them and by doing so would have the teeth be in an altered bite position both by such extruded material being present).
Regarding the intended use of the kit for forming indentations that would be in an altered bit position during a possible manner of using the kit, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Katzman further discloses where the first is a catalyst putty and second material is a base putty (paragraph [0020] all disclosing the one material is a base putty and the other material is a catalyst putty).
Regarding claim 5, Katzman further discloses where the kit includes a biohazard bag (paragraph [0087] lines 10-12 resealable bag for the impressions) and packaging materials (Fig. 39 element 500).
Regarding claim 8, Katzman further discloses where the first and second material are configured so that the third material would begin to harden within about 30 seconds after they are mixed together (paragraph [0091] lines 1-3 disclosing mixing for 20 seconds creates the hardening impression putty).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzman et al. (US 2018/0368954 A1) in view of Frey et al. (US 2015/0004555 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Katzman discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the kit further includes a spacer device and is configured to be placed on top edges of lower font two teeth and to cover the midline contacts of the lower front two teeth and a chart for the user to determine a Shimbashi number, wherein the spacer is employed to correct the user's mandible position to match the Shimbashi number from the chart.
However, Frey discloses a kit for obtaining a dental impression (Fig. 1 all), the kit comprising: a first material and a second material configured to be mixed into a third material for receiving a dental impression therein (Fig. 1 elements 34 and 36); an upper and lower tray for forming an impression of both an upper and lower set of teeth, respectively (Fig. 1 element 20/38/40, Fig. 10b showing the tray for forming both an impression of an upper and lower set of teeth respectively) and a chart for the user to determine a Shimbashi number, and a spacer is employed to correct the user's mandible position to match the Shimbashi number from the chart (Paragraphs [0099]- [0108] disclosing a chart is provided that would allow a user to find their "shimbashi number" also known as a vertical occlusion number) and the spacer being configured to be placed on and cover the midline contacts of the lower front two teeth at their top edges (Fig. 7/8 showing the spacer 48 able to be placed on top of the edges of the front two teeth while covering the midline contact such teeth).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spacer and chart as taught by Frey into the kit as taught by Katzman for the purpose of providing a dental patient with the tools needed to determine what their proper bite alignment would be as taught by Frey (paragraph [0098] disclosing that determine the patient’s number would relate their bite spacing to a metric for beauty and form).
Regarding claim 7, Katzman further discloses where the kit includes a biohazard bag (paragraph [0087] lines 10-12 resealable bag for the impressions) and packaging materials (Fig. 39 element 500).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 09/28/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
