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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on July 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 20 and 29 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.
With respect to claim 20, the limitation of “a first tooth, a second tooth, and a third tooth” are unclear in view of the claimed “at least one tooth” of the independent claim. Such that is it unclear if the first, second and third tooth are in addition to the at least one tooth or if that at least one tooth is one of the first, second, or third tooth. It is noted that for examination purposes, the at least one tooth is being interpreted as the claimed first tooth. Therefore, the limitation of the second mold body having “a second surface of the first tooth” is being interpreted as the claimed second surface in the independent claim, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
With respect to claim 29, the limitation of “a third surface of a third tooth” is unclear. It is noted that the applicant has claimed a first tooth, but not a second tooth, therefore, the limitation of a third tooth is indefinite as it is unclear how there can be a third tooth if there is not a second tooth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 20, 23-25 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. (2018/0021113).
With respect to claim 8, Hansen discloses a method of forming a dental restoration (par. 89), the method comprising: positioning a first mold body 212 providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of a patient (see figs. 7-9, 23, par. 42), wherein the first mold body includes a portion 214 corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth and a first interproximal portion corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the tooth (see figs. 7-8, par. 42, specifically the facial surface includes “customized proximal surfaces, corresponding to proximal surface of the tooth”, such that the proximal surface are the interproximal surface, figs. 7-8 clearly show the mold having customized surfaces on either side of the tooth, such that there are two customized interproximal surfaces, further pars. 43 and 45 teaching the mold creating a cavity encompassing the tooth and further a second cavity that is separate from the first, therefore the mold has the claimed interproximal surfaces as claimed such that the cavity includes the lingual and facial surfaces along with the two proximal surfaces/interproximal surfaces to form the cavity surrounding the tooth); and positioning a second mold body 230 providing for a customized fit with the at least one tooth of the patient (par. 42, figs., 7-9, 23), wherein the second mold body includes a portion 232 corresponding with a second surface of the tooth, and a first interproximal portion corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the tooth (see figs. 7-8, par. 42, specifically the lingual surface includes “customized proximal surfaces, corresponding to proximal surface of the tooth”, such that the proximal surface are the interproximal surface, figs. 7-8 clearly show the mold having customized surfaces on either side of the tooth, such that there are two customized interproximal surfaces, further pars. 43 and 45 teaching the mold creating a cavity encompassing the tooth and further a second cavity that is separate from the first, therefore the mold has the claimed interproximal surfaces as claimed such that the cavity includes the lingual and facial surfaces along with the two proximal surfaces/interproximal surfaces to form the cavity surrounding the tooth), wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body each have a patient-specific customized fit (pars.40, 42, figs. 7-8)), and wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body each have a patient-specific customized fit (pars. 40, 42, figs. 7-8), wherein the first mold body and second mold body combine with the tooth of the patient to form a mold cavity encompassing a portion of missing tooth structure of the tooth (par. 43), and wherein a first portion of the missing tooth structure includes missing interproximal tooth structure (see fig.8, par. 40, such that the portion of the tooth remaining is 120 which is missing the interproximal portions on both sides which is clearly shown by the restoration material complete surrounding the remaining tooth portion 120), and wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body are each engineered to have a structure that is configured to fit together to form an engineered space in an interproximal space between the at least one tooth and an adjacent tooth after the dental restoration (pars. 40, 42, 45, such that the interproximal portions on each mold body engage with each other to form the cavity which has the customized interproximal portions), the engineered space having a specific, selected interproximal geometry that differs from an interproximal structure present in scan data of a mouth of the patient before restoration (see par. 40, such that in the teaching that the portion of the tooth has already been removed before scanning, the interproximal portion of the mold is different than the remaining interproximal portion of the tooth); introducing restorative material into the mold cavity; curing the restorative material; and removing the first mold body and second mold body from the at least one tooth (pars. 43, 89, fig. 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body are designed to fit together to provide a selected interproximal tooth structure and wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body are each designed to fit together to provide a selected interproximal tooth structure, wherein the selected interproximal tooth structure allows a dentist to separate the interproximal tooth structure formed between adjacent teeth (pars. 43, 45, such that the interproximal portions, i.e. the portions of the mold that extend on the sides of the teeth are formed to engage with each other in order to form the cavity surrounding the tooth, further par. 40 teaches the mold bodies “snap-fit together and combine to define the surfaces of the desired tooth restoration”).
With respect to claim 10, Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body are substantially offset from one another along a mesial-distal axis (see annotated figure below, such that a portion of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body is substantially offset from a portion of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body due to the natural curve of the tooth, this can be seen more clearly in the cross sectional view of the mold cavity in fig. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
224
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20, Hansen further discloses wherein the second mold body provides for a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient (see figs. 7-8), par. 40, teeth 120/126/128), including a first tooth 120, a second tooth 128, and a third tooth 126, and wherein the second mold body includes a portion 232/240b/242b corresponding with a second surface of the first tooth, a second surface of the second tooth, and a third surface of the third tooth, wherein the first tooth corresponds to the at least one tooth (see figs. 7-8, par. 44).
With respect to claim 23, Hansen further discloses wherein a first region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and a first region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body each includes a first depth measured along a facial-lingual axis, wherein a second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body and a second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body each includes a second depth measured along the facial-lingual axis, wherein the second depth is less than the first depth (see annotated figure below. Such that due to the natural shape of the tooth, the first portion at the incisal edge is going to have a greater depth in the facial-lingual direction due to the tooth being thinner in that region, see annotated figure below that shows the longer/deeper first portion).
PNG
media_image3.png
224
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 24, Hansen further discloses wherein the second interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or the second mold body is selected or synthesized from geometric data not affiliated with the patient (see par. 40, such that it can be designed based on a commercially available crown design).
With respect to claim 25, Hansen further discloses the second interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or the second mold body is based on anatomical averages and algorithms (see par. 40, such that an anatomical average of the contralateral tooth is used, such that it is mirrored and therefore uses an algorithm, further pars. 52 and 67 teach using anatomical averages in designing portions extending into the interproximal spaces).
With respect to claim 27, Hansen further discloses the first interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or the second mold body is engineered based on existing contact from a patient scan, a contact in a digital wax up, a contact below a lengthened contact in a wax up, a contact based on doctor preference, or an open contact (par. 40, such that it is engineered based on the portion of the tooth before it was removed or a contralateral tooth of the patient, therefore, it is based on an existing contact from a patient scan).
With respect to claim 28, Hansen further discloses the second interproximal portion of the second mold body is engineered based on existing contact from a patient scan, a contact in a digital wax up, a contact below a lengthened contact in a wax up, a contact based on doctor preference, or an open contact (par. 40, such that it is engineered based on the portion of the tooth before it was removed or a contralateral tooth of the patient, therefore, it is based on an existing contact from a patient scan).
With respect to claim 29, Hansen further discloses wherein the first mold body has a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient (see par. 40, figs. 7-8, teeth 120/126/128), wherein the at least one tooth is a first tooth 120, wherein the first mold body further includes a portion 240a corresponding to a thread surface of a thread tooth 126, wherein the first mold body further includes a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion and the second interproximal portion of the third tooth each have a patient specific customized fit, and wherein the second mold body further includes a first interproximal portion and a second interproximal portion of the third tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion and the second interproximal portion of the third tooth each has a patient specific customized fit (see figs. 7-9, pars. 40, 44-45, such that the interproximal portions of the third tooth are the interproximal surfaces of the mold creating the second mold cavity surrounding the third tooth.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (2018/0280116).
With respect to claims 11-16, Hansen further teaches wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region and a second region along an occlusal-gingival axis (claim 11), wherein the first region includes a first thickness measured along a mesial-distal axis and wherein the second region includes a second thickness measured along the occlusal-gingival axis, and wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness (claim 12), wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region and a second region, wherein the first region includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the second region includes a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness (claim 13), wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body further includes a third region along the occlusal-gingival axis, wherein the third region includes a third thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and wherein the second thickness is less than the third thickness (claim 14), wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body has a first thickness measured along a mesial-distal axis, and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, and the first thickness is less than the second thickness (claim 15), wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness (claim 16, see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment of figures 7-9 to include the claimed thicknesses of the interproximal portions as taught by the embodiment of fig. 2 to provide the desired customized shape. Such that depending on the they type of tooth being treated, the desired customized shape, and the patient’s individual anatomy, the thicknesses of the interproximal portions will vary in order to provide the desired final customized shape.
PNG
media_image4.png
517
1043
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (2018/0021113) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Grove et al. (2014/0172375).
Hansen teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including using a commercially available crown design software, however, does not specifically teach, however, does not specifically teach the second interproximal portion of at least one of the first mold body or the second mold body is based on anatomical averages and algorithms and digitally stored images in a library.
Grove teaches a method for creating an interproximal portion between two adjacent teeth, wherein the interproximal portion includes a first surface (the surface of on tooth at the interproximal portion) and a second surface (the surface of the second tooth at the interproximal portion) (abstract, pars. 26, 31, 41, 63, 65).
With respect to claim 26, Grove further teaches the interproximal portion is based on digitally stored images in a library of 2 or 3-dimensional images (see par. 65, such that a database of teeth contours is a library and they are 3D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Hansen with the library taught by Groove in order to use well known interproximal shapes in order to create a natural tooth using the mold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach with respect to claim 17, wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region along the occlusal- gingival axis and wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region, and wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture and the second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture in combination with the other claimed limitations.
The prior art fails to teach with respect to claim 18, wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region, a second region and a third region along the occlusal-gingival axis and wherein the second interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region along the occlusal-gingival axis, and wherein the second region of the second interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture and the second region of the second interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Claim 30 is allowed over the prior art but objected to for a minor issue as highlighted above.
With respect to claim 30, the prior art fails to teach the claimed method wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture, and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Dimelow was cited to show that a cavity to create a tooth includes interproximal surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 9/25/2026
