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 were received on 11/19/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 13-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20040067463) in view of Philip et al. (US 20220361984, hereinafter Philip).
Regarding Claim 13, Rosenberg discloses a dental prosthesis support device (figures 1-15) comprising: a support strip (12; figures 1-15) secured to a dental component (the teeth shown in figures 1-5); connectors (1, 2, 3; figure 1) configured to be attached to teeth of a patient (figure 1), the support strip being detachably engageable engages (paragraph [0024] discloses replacing the arches (12) by removing them and placing the next iterative component on); the support strip being profiled to cover only lingual surfaces of said teeth (figure 6) while leaving other surfaces of said teeth free (figures 1-15); the connectors being configured to be attached to the lingual surfaces of said teeth (figure 1); and the support strip comprising pockets (10; figure 5) into which the connectors fit elastically (paragraph [0024]).
Rosenberg does not disclose a support strip secured to a dental prosthesis, and connectors configured to be attached to teeth of a patient, that flank a dental free space, and the support strip being detachably engageable with the connectors such that, when engaged, the dental prosthesis occupies the dental free space, wherein, in the engaged state the support strip is passive with respect to the flanking teeth and is configured to exert substantially no displacement-inducing forces on the flanking teeth.
Philip discloses a dental prosthesis support device (figures 4a-4c) comprising: a support strip (400; figures 4a-4c) secured to a dental prosthesis (420; figures 4a-4c); connectors (413; figure 4b) configured to be attached to the teeth of a patient (figure 4b; paragraph [0128]), that flank a dental free space (before the dental implant/prosthesis is placed, there is a free space between the teeth where the prosthesis 420 is located once it is placed on the teeth; figures 4a-4c; paragraph [0127]; the Examiner notes that that “flank” is defined by dictionary.com as “the side of anything, as of a building” and is being interpreted as next to/adjacent to. Here, the space that 420 is placed on 413-422 as the dental prothesis flanks/is adjacent to/is next to a free space when the other prothesis 420 are not yet placed), and the support strip being detachably engageable (figures 4a-4c) with the connectors such that (figures 4a-4c), when engaged, the dental prosthesis occupies the dental free space (figure 4a), wherein, in the engaged state the support strip is passive with respect to the flanking teeth and is configured to exert substantially no displacement-inducing forces on the flanking teeth (paragraph [0127] discloses that the structure/system 401 is bonded to the teeth and the only force is upon teeth 407-412, not the other prosthetic teeth/flanking teeth of 413-422; also note that the amount of force applied to the teeth is dependent on the positions of those teeth and serves as an intended use recitation).
onto which the support strip detachably engages such that the dental prosthesis fills said space (figures 4a-4c); the support strip is profiled to cover only the lingual surface of said teeth (figure 4a-4c) while leaving the other surfaces of said teeth free (figures 4a-4c); the connectors are configured to be attached to the lingual surface of said teeth (figure 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dental component of Rosenberg to include a support strip secured to a dental prosthesis, and connectors configured to be attached to teeth of a patient, that flank a dental free space, and the support strip being detachably engageable with the connectors such that, when engaged, the dental prosthesis occupies the dental free space, wherein, in the engaged state the support strip is passive with respect to the flanking teeth and is configured to exert substantially no displacement-inducing forces on the flanking teeth as taught by Philip in order to have a dental prothesis that resembles natural teeth, such that the prosthesis occupies most of the space of the missing tooth (paragraph [0128]) to provide an esthetic look for the patient, while the forces implied on the surrounding teeth move them into the correct and desired orientation.
Regarding Claim 14, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Philip further teaches that the prosthesis is attached to the support strip (see figs. 4a-4c) but is silent as to the method of attaching it. The claimed phrase “is attached to the support strip by one of bonding, welding, or fitting” is being treated as a product by process limitation, that is, that the prosthesis is attached to the support strip by one the claimed methods. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Philip is silent as to the process of affixing the prosthesis to the support strip, it appears that the product Philip would be the same or similar as that claimed especially since the prosthesis is attached to the support strip to form one single element.
Regarding Claim 15, Rosenberg as modified by Phan discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Philip further teaches that the prosthesis is attached to the support strip (see figs. 4a-4c) but is silent as to the method of attaching it. The claimed phrase “is bonded to the support strip” is being treated as a product by process limitation, that is, that the prosthesis is attached to the support strip by bonding. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Philip is silent as to the process of affixing the prosthesis to the support strip, it appears that the product Philip would be the same or similar as that claimed especially since a lingual surface of the prosthesis is attached to the support strip to form one single element.
Regarding Claim 16, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg does not disclose the dental prosthesis and the support strip are a single molded, machined, or 3D-printed unitary piece.
Philip discloses the dental prosthesis and the support strip is 3D-printed (paragraph [0042] discloses the arch support (400) is 3D printed) unitary piece (figure 4b depicts the prosthesis 420 as unitary with the arch support; the Examiner notes that this is being interpreted as product-by-process and only the end result will be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the formation of the device of Rosenberg to be machined as taught by Philip so that the dental prosthesis and support strip fit perfectly to the teeth to enact the desired torque upon the tooth.
Regarding Claim 18, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg discloses each connector (figure 1) includes: a base (1; figure 1) having an attachment surface (figure 1) configured to be attached against the lingual surface of a tooth (Figure 1); and a connection head in line with the base (3; figure 1)and into which one of the pockets of the support strip fits (figures 1-7).
Regarding Claim 19, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 18. Rosenberg discloses the connection head is distant from the base (figure 1), and a flange (2; figure 1) connects said base from said head (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg discloses each connector (figure 1) includes: a connection head (3; figure 1) into which one of the pockets of the support strip fits (figure 5), an attachment surface (1; figure 1) configured to be attached against the lingual surface of a tooth (figure 1), and the attachment surface has a flat section arranged on the connection head (figures 1-5).
Regarding Claim 22, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg discloses the support strip is flexible (paragraph [0026] discloses 6 is semi-flexible; The Examiner notes that flexible is a relative terms as the support strip is being claimed and not a portion of the support strip).
Regarding Claim 23, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg discloses the support strip is rigid (paragraph [0026] discloses 6 is rigid; ; The Examiner notes that rigid is a relative terms as the support strip is being claimed and not a portion of the support strip).
Regarding Claim 24, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg discloses the support strip has portions or areas having distinct moduli of elasticity (paragraph [0026] discloses 6 can be semi-flexible or ridged material with varying thickness, shape, and material resulting in different elasticity).
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenberg (US 20040067463) in view of Philip et al. (US 20220361984, hereinafter Philip), further in view of Chun et al. (US 20170105817, hereinafter Chun).
Regarding Claim 17, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg does not disclose each connection head includes a connection head of spherical shape.
Chun discloses a dental prosthesis support device (figure 6a) comprising: a support strip (101; figure 6a) secured to a dental component (the teeth shown in figure 6a); connectors (102; figure 6a) configured to be attached to the teeth of a patient (figure 6a) each connection head includes a connection head of spherical shape (102c; figure 6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the connector of Rosenberg with the shape of the spherical head of Chun as it well known and common in the art to change the shape of a connector in order to fit more securely within the receptacle.
Regarding Claim 21, Rosenberg as modified by Philip discloses the device as claimed in Claim 13. Rosenberg does not disclose wherein the connection head has the shape of cube
Chun discloses a dental prosthesis support device (figure 4a) comprising: a support strip (101; figure 4a) secured to a dental component (the teeth shown in figure 4a); connectors (102; figure 4a) configured to be attached to the teeth of a patient (figure 6a), the connection head has the shape of a cube (102c; figure 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the shape of the connector of Rosenberg with the shape of the spherical head of Chun as it well known and common in the art to change the shape of a connector in order to fit more securely within the receptacle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawings, the Examiner notes that the drawings are no longer objected to.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(b) rejections, the Examiner notes that claim 13 is no longer rejected under 112(b).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Rosenberg does not teach the elements of Claim 1 and that Rosenberg does not carry or seat a pontic across an edentulous gap as claimed and maintain other tooth surfaces free as claimed, the Examiner notes neither carrying or seating a pontic across an edentulous gap as claimed and maintaining other tooth surfaces free is expressly claimed in Claim 1. With respect to the application of orthodontic forces, the Examiner notes that Philip is used to teach such limitation.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Philip does not discloses a separate support strip secured to a prosthesis, detachably engaging mechanical connectors on the two flanking teeth, leaving other tooth surfaces free or a passive strip, the Examiner notes that a separate support strip secured to a prosthesis, detachably engaging mechanical connectors on the two flanking teeth, leaving other tooth surfaces free is not claimed. The Examiner suggests incorporating such language into the claim limitations. With respect to the passive strip, the Examiner notes that the only corrective forces are applied to teeth 4078-412 but not to 413-422 which are being identified in the above rejection.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Phan, the Examiner notes that Phan is no longer being used.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Chun, the Examiner notes that Chun is not being used to teach a passive strip, Chun is being used to teach the shape of the connection only.
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 Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772