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 Objections
Claims 3, 12-13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 3 line 4 to “[[a]]the first interproximal surface of the first tooth”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 12 line 2 to “includes a third region”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 13 lines 1-2 to “the first interproximal portion of the first mold body” and claim 13 line 3 to “the first interproximal portion of the second mold body”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 18 line 6 to “[[the]]a second interproximal surface of the first tooth”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 6, 8, 14-15, 17-22, and 24 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 3 recites the limitations “a first surface of a second tooth” in lines 6-7 and “a first surface of a third tooth” in lines 10-11. These limitations are unclear as the limitations of a first surface of a second tooth and a first surface of a third tooth are present in claim 1 lines 7-8 and 10-11. It is unclear if the limitations of claim 3 are intended to refer to the limitations of claim 1 or are intended to refer to other surfaces of the second and third teeth. In light of the Figures and lines 3 and 4 of claim 3 reciting a second surface of the first tooth, Examiner will interpret claim 3 lines 6-7 and 10-11 as, “a second surface of a second tooth” and “a second surface of a third tooth” and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “such that no portion of the second regions of the first and second mold bodies are in contact with the first interproximal portion” in lines 6-7. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear if the limitation “the first interproximal portion” refers to the interproximal portion of the first or the second mold body, and further, claim 15 recites that second regions are “of the first interproximal portions” of the first and second mold bodies in lines 4-5. In light of Applicant’s figures, for purposes of examination Examiner will interpret the limitations of claim 15 lines 6-7 as “such that no portion of the second regions of the first and second mold bodies are in contact with the first interproximal portion of the opposite body”, and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “at least one of the first interproximal portions” in line 15 and “the first interproximal portions” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 18 only recites “a first interproximal portion” in lines 5-6 and does not recite multiple first interproximal portions. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 8 lines 15 and 20 as, “ portion” and “the first interproximal portion” and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the tooth” in line 4. It is unclear which tooth is being referred to as claim 20 recites the limitation “at least one tooth of the patient” in line 2 and claim 18 recites the limitations a first tooth in line 4, a second tooth in line 8, and a third tooth in lines 10-11. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 20 line 4 as referring to the at least one tooth of claim 20 line 2 and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a first thickness” in line 4 and “a first thickness” in line 6. These limitations are unclear as it is unclear if the limitation “a first thickness” of line 6 is referring to the limitation of line 4 or to a different first thickness. For purposes of examination, in light of claim 22, Examiner will interpret claim 21 line 6 as “a
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the first interproximal portions of the first mold body each include” in line 20 and “the first interproximal portions of the first mold body” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 23 only recites “a first interproximal portion” of the first mold body in line 6 and does not recite multiple first interproximal portions of the first mold body. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 23 line 20 as “the first interproximal portion includes” and line 24 as, “the first interproximal portion
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein the first interproximal portions of the second 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” in lines 7-9. It appears the claim limitation has been duplicated. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret as, and suggests amending to, “wherein the first interproximal portions of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region along the occlusal-gingival axis ” in claim 24 lines 7-9.
Claims 6, 8, 14, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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 1-3, 6, 9-13, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (WO 2016094272 A1, hereinafter “Hansen”) in view of Vuillemot (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0212420 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Hansen discloses a custom tool (Figs. 7-10) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient (Abstract), the custom tool comprising:
a first mold body (212 in Fig. 7) capable of a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient (Figs. 8-10, para. 0040), the first mold body comprising:
a first portion (1st portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a first tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044),
a first interproximal portion (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a second interproximal portion (2nd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a second portion (2nd portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a second tooth (Fig. 10, para. 0044),
a third interproximal portion (3rd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a fourth interproximal portion (4th interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a third portion (3rd portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a third tooth (Fig. 10, para. 0044),
a fifth interproximal portion (5th interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the third tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a sixth interproximal portion (6th interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the third tooth (Figs. 8-10); and
wherein at least one of the interproximal portions associated with respective tooth portions of the first mold body comprises a patient-specific digitally engineered interproximal geometry (para. 0031 and 0040),
wherein the first mold body is capable of combining with the three teeth of the patient to form a portion of a mold cavity encompassing a portion of missing tooth structure of the three teeth (Fig. 8, para. 0045), and wherein a portion of the missing tooth structure includes missing interproximal tooth structure corresponding to the first interproximal surface of the first tooth and the second interproximal surface of the first tooth (Fig. 8, para. 0040 and 0045, tooth 120 is ground down).
Hansen does not disclose wherein the patient-specific digitally engineered interproximal
Vuillemot teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-16) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient (Abstract, para. 0044) wherein a patient-specific digitally engineered geometry (paras. 0044, 0055, 0057 and 0064) is capable of achieving a clinical outcome of establishing alignment between adjacent teeth (para. 0046), and that is generated by digital modification rather than anatomical replication of the patient's existing tooth structure (para. 0056).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration molds. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patient-specific digitally engineered interproximal geometry of the tool of Hansen by specifying that the patient-specific digitally engineered geometry is capable of achieving a clinical outcome of establishing alignment between adjacent teeth, and that is generated by digital modification rather than anatomical replication of the patient's existing tooth structure as taught by Vuillemot in order to allow the tool to improve teeth symmetry and alignment and improve tooth conditions such as gaps and malpositions (Vuillemot para. 0046).
In regard to claim 2, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 1. Hansen further discloses wherein a first portion of the missing tooth structure includes missing interproximal tooth structure of the first interproximal surface and second interproximal surface of the second tooth (Fig. 8, para. 0040 and 0045, tooth 120 is ground down) and includes missing interproximal tooth structure of the first interproximal surface and a second interproximal surface of the third tooth (Figure 8, para. 0040 and 0045, portion of crown missing, mold is custom to restore teeth of patient and includes the structure of the surface of tooth 126; note that this is interpreted as a functional recitation).
PNG
media_image2.png
463
957
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 1. Hansen further discloses further comprising:
a second mold body (230 in Fig. 7, para. 0040) providing for a customized fit with the at least three teeth of the patient (Figs. 8-10, para. 0040), wherein the second mold body includes a first portion (portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044), and a first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10) and a second interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 2) corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10),
wherein the second mold body includes a second portion (portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second surface of a second tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044) and a first interproximal portion (portion 2 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10) and a second interproximal portion (portion 2 interproximal portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10),
wherein the second mold body includes a third portion (portion 3 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a second surface of a third tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044) and a first interproximal portion (portion 3 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the third tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044) and a second interproximal portion (portion 3 interproximal portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the third tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044);
wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body (see portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) each have a patient-specific customized fit and wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body (2nd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body (see portion 1 interproximal portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) each have a patient-specific customized fit (para. 0031 and 0040),
wherein the first mold body and second mold body are capable of combining with the three teeth of the patient to form a mold cavity encompassing a portion of missing tooth structure of the three teeth (Fig. 9, para. 0043), and wherein a first portion of the missing tooth structure includes missing interproximal tooth structure of the first interproximal surface of the first tooth and the second interproximal surface of the first tooth (Fig. 8, para. 0040, 0045, tooth 120 is ground down).
In regard to claim 6, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 3. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) are designed to fit together to provide a selected interproximal tooth structure (paras. 0040-0043, custom to patient), and wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body (2nd interproximal portion annotated Fig. 7) and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) are each designed to fit together to provide a selected interproximal tooth structure (paras. 0040-0043, custom to patient).
PNG
media_image3.png
476
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 9, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 1. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) includes a first region (region A1 in annotated Fig. 7) and a second region (region A2 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis (Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 10, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 9. Hansen further discloses wherein the first region (region A1 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the second region (region A2 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being less than the second thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
In regard to claim 11, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 10. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a first region (region C1 in annotated Fig. 7) and a second region (region C2 in annotated Fig. 7), 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 (annotated Fig. 7).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being less than the second thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
In regard to claim 12, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 11. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) further includes a third region (region A3 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis, wherein the third region includes a third thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second thickness is less than the third thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the second thickness being less than the third thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
In regard to claim 13, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 1. Hansen further discloses wherein both (a) the first interproximal portion of the first mold body (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (along region A1 in annotated Fig. 7), and the first interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (along region C2 in annotated Fig. 7); and (b) the second interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (along region D1 in annotated Fig. 7) and the second interproximal portion of the second mold body has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (along D2 in annotated Fig. 7).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein (a) the first thickness is less than the second thickness or (b) the first thickness is less than the second thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of (a) the first thickness is less than the second thickness or (b) the first thickness is less than the second thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
PNG
media_image4.png
552
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 17, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 3. The embodiment of Figs. 7-10 Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) of the first mold body includes a first region and a second region (regions A1 and A2 in annotated Fig. 7) and wherein the first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) of the second mold body includes a first region and a second region (regions C1 and C2 in annotated Fig. 7). The embodiment of Figs. 7-10 of Hansen does not disclose wherein the first regions of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a first depth measured along the facial-lingual axis, wherein the second regions of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a second depth measured along the facial-lingual axis, wherein the second depth is less than the first depth.
The embodiment of Figs. 15-18 of Hansen teaches a first mold body (412 in Fig. 15) comprising a first interproximal portion (portion J in annotated Fig. 15) including a first and a second region (regions J1 and J2 in annotated Fig. 15) and a second mold body (430 in Fig. 15) comprising a first interproximal portion (portion K in annotated Fig. 15) including a first and a second region (regions K1 and K2 in annotated Fig. 15) wherein the first regions of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a first depth measured along the facial-lingual axis (annotated Fig. 15), wherein the second regions of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a second depth measured along the facial-lingual axis (annotated Fig. 15).
The embodiment of Figs. 15-18 of Hanse does not explicitly disclose wherein the second depth is less than the first depth, but the embodiment of Figs. 15-18 of Hansen does disclose that the tool is customized to the patient and includes customized surfaces corresponding to the patient’s teeth (annotated Fig. 15, para. 0066-0067). The parameters of the second depth being less than the first depth are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first regions of the first interproximal portions of the first and second mold bodies of the embodiment of Figs. 7-10 of Hansen in view of Vuillemot to include a first depth along the facial-lingual axis and modified the second regions of the first interproximal portion of the first and second mold bodies of the embodiment of Figs. 7-10 of Hansen in view of Vuillemot to include a second depth measured along the facial-lingual axis, wherein the second depth is less than the first depth as taught by the embodiment of Figs. 15-18 of Hansen in order to allow for creation of an isolation matrix custom to the patient allowing for features that extend into the interproximal space to create a tight seal against the varying actual geometry of the patient’s dentition (Hansen paras. 0066-0067).
In regard to claim 18, Hansen discloses a custom tool (Figs. 7-10) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient (Abstract), the custom tool comprising:
a first mold body (212 in Fig. 7) capable of a customized fit with at least two teeth of the patient (Figs. 8-10, para. 0040), the first mold body comprising:
a first portion (1st portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a first tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044), a first interproximal portion (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10), a second interproximal portion (2nd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a second portion (2nd portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a second tooth (Fig. 10, para. 0044), a third interproximal portion (3rd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a fourth interproximal portion (4th interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10);
wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body comprises a patient-specific, digitally engineered interproximal geometry (para. 0031 and 0040),
wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region (region A1 in annotated Fig. 7) and a second region (region A2 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis (Fig. 7), and
wherein the first region has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and the second region has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the first thickness is different than the second thickness (annotated Fig. 7).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is different than the second thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being different than the second thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
Hansen does not disclose wherein the patient-specific, digitally engineered interproximal geometry is configured to achieve a clinical outcome selected from establishing contact tightness, flossibility, separation, or alignment between adjacent teeth, and is generated by digital selection or modification independent of direct anatomical replication of the patient's existing tooth structure.
Vuillemot teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-16) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient (Abstract, para. 0044) wherein a patient-specific digitally engineered geometry (paras. 0044, 0055, 0057 and 0064) is capable of achieving a clinical outcome of establishing alignment between adjacent teeth (para. 0046), and that is generated by digital modification rather than anatomical replication of the patient's existing tooth structure (para. 0056).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration molds. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patient-specific digitally engineered interproximal geometry of the tool of Hansen by specifying that the patient-specific digitally engineered geometry is capable of achieving a clinical outcome of establishing alignment between adjacent teeth, and that is generated by digital modification rather than anatomical replication of the patient's existing tooth structure as taught by Vuillemot in order to allow the tool to improve teeth symmetry and alignment and improve tooth conditions such as gaps and malpositions (Vuillemot para. 0046).
In regard to claim 19, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 18. Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being less than the second thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
In regard to claim 20, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 18. Hansen further discloses further including a second mold body (230 in Fig. 7) providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of the patient (Figs. 8-10, para. 0040), wherein the second mold body includes a portion (portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth (paras. 0041-0042) and a first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth (Figs. 8-10),
wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region and a second region (regions C1 and C2 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis, and
wherein the first region has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and second region has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being less than the second thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
In regard to claim 21, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 20. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) includes a third region (region A3 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis and wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a third region (region C3 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis, wherein the first regions (regions A1 and C1) of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7, para. 0040, custom to patient), wherein the second regions (regions A2 and C2 in annotated Fig. 7) of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7, para. 0040, custom to patient), wherein the third regions (regions A3 and C3 in annotated Fig. 7) of the first interproximal portions of both the first and second mold bodies includes a third thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7, para. 0040, custom to patient).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, and the second thickness is less than the third thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being less than the second thickness, and the second thickness being less than the third thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
In regard to claim 22, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 21, wherein the second interproximal portion of the first mold body (2nd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) includes a third region (region B3 in annotated Fig. 7) and wherein a second interproximal portion of the second mold body (portion 1 interproximal portion 2 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a third region (region D3 in annotated Fig. 7), wherein the first regions of the second interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies (regions B1 and D1 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7, para. 0040, custom to patient), wherein the second regions of the second interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies (regions B2 and D2 in annotated Fig. 7) includes a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7, para. 0040, custom to patient), wherein the third regions of the second interproximal portions of both the first and second mold bodies includes a third thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis (annotated Fig. 7, para. 0040, custom to patient).
Hansen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first thickness is less than the second thickness, and the second thickness is less than the third thickness, but Hansen does disclose that the tool is custom to the patient’s teeth and mouth (para. 0040). The parameters of the first thickness being less than the second thickness, and the second thickness being less than the third thickness are deemed matters of design choice, well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results in order to custom fit the tool to a patient.
Claims 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Vuillemot and Call (U.S. 2,462,356 A).
PNG
media_image5.png
190
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
424
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 3. Hansen does not disclose 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 the mesial-distal axis.
Call teaches an apparatus wherein a first interproximal portion (portion L in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) of a first mold body (1st body in annotated Fig. 4) and a first interproximal portion (portion R in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) of a second mold body (2nd body in annotated Fig. 5) are substantially offset from one another along the mesial-distal axis (Figs. 2-3, col. 2 lines 30-40, portions layered on top of one another).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first interproximal portions of the first and second bodies of Hansen in view of Vuillemot to be substantially offset from one another along the mesial-distal axis as taught by Call in order to allow for the portions to be removed without disturbing interproximal structure (Call col. 1 lines 28-36).
In regard to claim 14, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 3. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) of the first mold body includes a first region (region A1 in annotated Fig. 7), a second region (region A2 in annotated Fig. 7), and a third region (region A3 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Fig. 7) and wherein the first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) of the second mold body includes a first region (region C1 in annotated Fig. 7), a second region (region C2 in annotated Fig. 7), and a third region (region C3 in annotated Fig. 7). Hansen does not disclose 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.
Call teaches an apparatus wherein the first interproximal portion (portion L in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) of the first mold body (1st body in annotated Fig. 4) includes a first region (region L1 in annotated Fig. 4), a second region (region L2 in annotated Fig. 4), and a third region (region L3 in annotated Fig. 4) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Figs. 2 and 4) and wherein the first interproximal portion (portion R in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) of the second mold body (2nd body in annotated Fig. 5) includes a first region (region R1 in annotated Fig. 5), a second region (region R2 in annotated Fig. 5), and a third region (region R3 in annotated Fig. 5), wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40) and the second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second regions of the first interproximal portions of the first and second mold bodies of Hansen in view of Vuillemot to include a portion of an aperture so as taught by Call in order to allow a recess to be formed at a location where the tooth restoration material is desired to contact the adjacent tooth to fill the contact space between abutting teeth (Call col. 1 lines 19-28).
In regard to claim 15, Hansen in view of Vuillemot discloses the invention of claim 3. Hansen further discloses wherein the first interproximal portion (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) of the first mold body includes a first region (region A1 in annotated Fig. 7), a second region (region A2 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Fig. 7) and wherein the first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) of the second mold body includes a first region (region C1 in annotated Fig. 7), and a second region (region C2 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Fig. 7). Hansen does not disclose 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, such that no portion of the second regions of the first and second mold bodies are in contact within the first interproximal portion.
Call teaches an apparatus wherein the first interproximal portion (portion L in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) of the first mold body (1st body in annotated Fig. 4) includes a first region (region L1 in annotated Fig. 4), a second region (region L2 in annotated Fig. 4) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Figs. 2 and 4) and wherein the first interproximal portion (portion R in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) of the second mold body (2nd body in annotated Fig. 5) includes a first region (region R1 in annotated Fig. 5), and a second region (region R2 in annotated Fig. 5) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Figs. 2 and 4), and wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40) and the second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40), such that no portion of the second regions of the first and second mold bodies are in contact within the first interproximal portion of the opposite body (Fig. 6).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body of Hansen in view of Vuillemot to include a portion of an aperture and the second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body to include another portion of the aperture, such that no portion of the second regions of the first and second mold bodies are in contact within the first interproximal portion as taught by Call in order to allow a recess to be formed at a location where the tooth restoration material is desired to contact the adjacent tooth to fill the contact space between abutting teeth (Call col. 1 lines 19-28).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Call.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
463
957
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
476
879
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 23, Hansen discloses a custom tool (Figs. 7-10) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient (Abstract), the custom tool comprising:
a first mold body (212 in Fig. 7) capable of a customized fit with at least two teeth of the patient (Figs. 8-10, para. 0040), the first mold body comprising:
a first portion (1st portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a first tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044),
a first interproximal portion (1st interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a second interproximal portion (2nd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a second interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a second portion (2nd portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a first surface of a second tooth (Fig. 10, para. 0044), and a third interproximal portion (3rd interproximal portion in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the second tooth (Figs. 8-10),
a second mold body (230 in Fig. 7) comprising at least one portion (portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the first tooth, and a first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the first tooth (Fig. 7);
wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region (regions A1, A2 and A3 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Fig. 7):
wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region (regions C1, C2 and C3 in annotated Fig. 7), and
wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture.
Hansen does not disclose wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture.
Call teaches an apparatus wherein a first mold body (1st body in annotated Fig. 4) includes a first interproximal portion (portion L in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) and wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body include a first region, a second region, and a third region (regions L1, L2 and L3 in annotated Fig. 4) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Figs. 2 and 4) and wherein a first interproximal portion (portion R in annotated Fig. 6) of a second mold body (2nd body in annotated Fig. 5) includes a first region, a second region, and a third region (regions R1, R2 and R3 in annotated Fig. 5), wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body of Hansen in view of Vuillemot to include a portion of an aperture as taught by Call in order to allow a recess to be formed at a location where the tooth restoration material is desired to contact the adjacent tooth to fill the contact space between abutting teeth (Call col. 1 lines 19-28).
In regard to claim 24, Hansen in view of Vuillemot in view of Call discloses the invention of claim 23. Hansen further discloses further comprising the second mold body (230 in Fig. 7) providing for a customized fit with at least three teeth of the patient (Figs. 8-10, para. 0040), wherein the second mold body includes a portion (portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with at least a second surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10, para. 0044) and the first interproximal portion (portion 1 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the first tooth (Figs. 8-10), a first interproximal portion (portion 2 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the second tooth (annotated Fig. 7), a first interproximal portion (portion 3 interproximal portion 1 in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the third tooth (annotated Fig. 7), wherein the first interproximal portions of the second mold body includes a first region (regions C1, D1, E1 in annotated Fig. 7), a second region (regions C2, D2, E2 in annotated Fig. 7), and a third region (regions C3, D3, E3 in annotated Fig. 7) along the occlusal-gingival axis.
Hansen does not disclose wherein the second region of the first interproximal portions of the second mold body includes another portion of the aperture.
Call teaches an apparatus wherein a second mold body (2nd body in annotated Fig. 5) includes a first interproximal portion (portion R in annotated Fig. 6, Figs. 2 and 3, col. 2 lines 16-29) and wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body include a first region, a second region, and a third region (regions R1, R2 and R3 in annotated Fig. 5) along the occlusal-gingival axis (annotated Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes another portion of an aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental restoration devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second region of the first interproximal portions of the second mold body of Hansen in view of Vuillemot in view of Call to include another portion of an aperture as taught by Call in order to allow a recess to be formed at a location where the tooth restoration material is desired to contact the adjacent tooth to fill the contact space between abutting teeth (Call col. 1 lines 19-28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 January 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being anticipated by Hansen, and the rejection of claims 10-13 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hansen, Applicant argues that Hansen does not disclose the limitations of the amended independent claim 1 and amended independent claim 18.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Vuillemot. Vuillemot teaches an apparatus for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient (Abstract, para. 0044) wherein a patient-specific digitally engineered geometry (paras. 0044, 0055, 0057 and 0064) is capable of achieving a clinical outcome of establishing alignment between adjacent teeth (para. 0046), and that is generated by digital modification rather than anatomical replication of the patient's existing tooth structure (para. 0056). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Hansen by the teachings of Vuillemot in order to allow the tool to improve teeth symmetry and alignment and improve tooth conditions such as gaps and malpositions (Vuillemot para. 0046). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejection of claims 8, 14, 15, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Call, Applicant argues that Hansen and Call do not disclose the limitations of amended independent claim 23.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Vuillemot and Call, and claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Call. Examiner notes that in regard to claim 23, Hansen discloses wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body includes a first region, a second region, and a third region (regions C1, C2 and C3 in annotated Fig. 7), and wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture. Call teaches an apparatus wherein the second region of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body includes a portion of an aperture (Fig. 3, col. 2 lines 20-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Hansen by the teachings of Call in order to allow a recess to be formed at a location where the tooth restoration material is desired to contact the adjacent tooth to fill the contact space between abutting teeth (Call col. 1 lines 19-28). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights