DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “portion of second mold body” (line 8) which should be “portion of the second mold body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 8 and 19-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the first region of the first interproximal portion” (lines 1-2) which is indefinite because the base claim 1 defines a first region of the first interproximal portion in both first mold body and second mold body. It is unclear whether this first region in claim 8 belong to the first mold body or the second mold body.
Claim 19 recites “the first region of the second interproximal portion” (lines 3-5, twice, for the first and second mold bodies), and “the second region of the second interproximal portion” (lines 6-8, twice, for the first and second mold bodies). The claims lack antecedent for such first regions and second regions of the second interproximal portion.
Note that claims 1 and 3 only recite first and second regions for the first interproximal region. The second interproximal region has a third portion (claim 3), but no first and second regions.
Claim 19 recites “the mesial-distal axis” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 20 recites “the tooth” (line 5) which lacks antecedent basis. Note that claim 20 defines antecedent basis “at least one tooth” (line 3).
All dependent claims are rejected herein based on dependency of the indefinite base claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-10 and 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. (US 2018/0021113).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen et al. discloses a custom tool (Fig. 2) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient, the custom tool comprising:
a first mold body (lingual portion 30) providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of the patient, wherein the first mold body 30 includes a portion 32 corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth (paragraph [0024] “lingual portion 30 forms customized lingual surface 32 of the tooth”), and a first/mesial interproximal portion 20b/22b/38 corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second/distal interproximal portion 18b/22b/38 corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the tooth (Figs. 2, 6; paragraphs [0022]-[0026]; [0039]);
a second mold body 12 providing for a customized fit with the at least one tooth of the patient, wherein the second mold body 12 includes a portion 14 corresponding with a second surface of the tooth (paragraph 0024] “facial portion 12 forms customized facial surface 14 of the tooth”), and a first interproximal portion 20a/22a/24 corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth and a second interproximal portion 18a/22a/24 corresponding with the second interproximal surface of the tooth (Figs, 2, 6).
The first/mesial interproximal portion 20b/22b/38 of the first/lingual mold body 30 includes a first region (recess 38) and a second region (middle thin portion 20b) along the occlusal-gingival axis; and wherein the first interproximal portion 20a/22a/24 of the second/facial mold body 12 includes a first region (protrusion 24) and a second region (middle thin portion 20a) along the occlusal-gingival axis; and
wherein the first region 38 of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body 30 is designed to correspond with the first region 24 of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12; and
wherein the second region 20b of the first interproximal portion 30 of the first mold body is designed to correspond with the second region 20a of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12 (Figs. 2, 6; paragraphs [0022]-[0026]; [0039]).
Regarding the newly added limitation(s) in claims 14 and 20, Hansen discloses the mold structure is engineered (CAD model, and digitally customized) different from the pre-restoration interproximal structure, configured to form a space between two teeth.
See Hansen [0073] “Custom tool 410 was designed to fit over teeth 100, 101 (adjacent first and second molars) and a portion of the neighboring teeth 106, 108. In contrast to custom tool 310, the CAD model of the scan for custom tool 410 was digitally segmented at the proximal planes to be restored and the resulting segments were each translated 100 microns to produce a gap between contacts of teeth 100, 101, 106 and 108”.
See Hansen [0074] “the interproximal “wedge” portions of lingual portion 412 and facial portion 430 were digitally extended to create an interference of 500 micron”.
That is, device 410 is engineered to be translated 100 microns to produce a gap, and correspond to the tooth at interproximal wedge with an interference. Such 100 microns translation and the interference of 500 microns from the current teeth indicate a structure different from current teeth for form a space/gap between contacts of teeth after restoration.
As to claim 2, Hansen discloses the first region/recess 38 of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body 30 is designed to mate with the first region/protrusion 24 of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12; and wherein the second region 20b of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body is designed to mate with the second region 20a of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12 (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0023] “recesses 38 configured to receive protrusions 24”; [0024] “customized mesial surfaces 20a and 20b… corresponding to mesial surfaces”).
As to claims 3-4, the first interproximal portion 20b/22b/38 of the first mold body 30 further includes a third region (gingival portion 22b) along the occlusal-gingival axis and wherein the second interproximal portion 18b/22b/38 of the first mold body 30 includes a third region 22b along the occlusal-gingival axis (Fig. 2);
wherein the first interproximal portion 20a/22a/24 of the second mold body 12 includes a third region 22a along the occlusal-gingival axis; wherein the second interproximal portion 18a/22a/24 of the second mold body includes a third region 22a along the occlusal-gingival axis;
wherein the third region 22b of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body 30 is designed to correspond with the third region 22a of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body; and
wherein the third region 22a of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body is designed to mate with the third region 22b of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body (Fig. 2; paragraph [0024] “gingival surfaces 22a and 22b, respectively, which seal against the corresponding gingival surfaces”). That is, regions 22a and 22b mate to form a sealing surface corresponding to the surface of the tooth.
As to claim 5, the first regions 38, 24, of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, wherein the second regions 20b, 20a, of the first interproximal portion of both the first and second mold bodies includes a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, wherein the third regions 22b, 22a, of the first interproximal portions of both the first and second mold bodies includes a third thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis, wherein the second thickness 20b, 20a, is less than the first thickness 38, 24, and less than the third thickness 22b, 22a (Fig. 2). That is, the middle thin portions 20b/20a has a thickness less than that of first portions 38/24 and less than that of third portions 22b/22a (Fig. 2).
As to claims 6-7, the first interproximal portion of the first mold body 30 includes a portion 32 of an aperture (receptacle 14/32) and the second region 20a of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12 includes another portion 14 of the aperture (receptacle 14/32). Note that Fig. 15 shows the middle thin second regions 422a is concave forming an aperture such that no portion of the second region 422a are in contact; only the protruding gingival third portions are in contact wedging between the teeth (see Fig. 15).
As to claims 8-9, Fig. 15 shows an interproximal portion 422a/424 which can be the first or the second interproximal portion having the first region 422a having a thickness that is less than a thickness of the second region 424 (Fig. 15).
As to claim 10, Fig. 15 shows an interproximal region 422a may be having a first region being the protruding gingival portion 422a, and a middle thin second portion that is concave. Due to the concavity, the middle thin second portion has a second depth/width that is less than the protruding first depth/width of the gingival first region 422a (Fig. 15).
As to claim 19, Fig. 6 shows an interproximal region 22a having a first thickness (at the middle thin portion) less than a second thickness (at the gingival portion) which is less than a third thickness (at the occlusal portion 14/38). Note that the base claim 1 does not distinguish between the first, second, or third regions; therefore the first, second, and third regions can be re-designated by their other limitations relative to each other in the dependent claims, e.g. by their thicknesses according to claim 19.
Regarding claims 14-18 and 20-23, Hansen et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1-10 and 19.
Particularly to claim 14, Hansen et al. discloses a custom tool (Fig. 2) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient, the custom tool comprising: a first mold body 30 providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of the patient, wherein the first mold body 30 includes a portion 32 corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth and a first interproximal portion 22b/20b/38 corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth, wherein the first interproximal portion 22b/20b/38 of the first mold body includes a first region 22b and a second region along the occlusal-gingival axis, and wherein the first region (middle thin region 20b) has a first thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and second region (gingival region 22b) has a second thickness measured along the mesial-distal axis and wherein the first thickness 20b is different than the second thickness 22b (Figs. 2 and 6).
Particularly to claim 20, Hansen et al. discloses a custom tool (Fig. 2) for forming a dental restoration in a mouth of a patient, the custom tool comprising:
a first mold body 30 providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of the patient, wherein the first mold body includes a portion 32 corresponding with at least a first surface of the tooth and a first interproximal portion 22b corresponding with a first interproximal surface of the tooth;
a second mold body 12 providing for a customized fit with at least one tooth of the patient, wherein the second mold body 12 includes a portion corresponding with at least a second surface of the tooth and a first interproximal portion 22a corresponding with the first interproximal surface of the tooth;
wherein the first interproximal portion of the first mold body 30 includes a first region 38, a second region 20b, and a third region 22b along the occlusal-gingival axis and wherein the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12 includes a first region 24, a second region 20a, and a third region 22a and wherein the second region 20b of the first interproximal portion of the first mold body 30 includes a portion 32 of an aperture (receptacle 14/32) and the second region 20a of the first interproximal portion of the second mold body 12 includes another portion 14 of the aperture, i.e. receptacle 14/32 (Fig. 2).
Regarding the newly added limitation(s) in claims 14 and 20, Hansen discloses the mold structure is engineered (CAD model, and digitally customized) different from the pre-restoration interproximal structure, configured to form a space between two teeth.
See Hansen [0073] “Custom tool 410 was designed to fit over teeth 100, 101 (adjacent first and second molars) and a portion of the neighboring teeth 106, 108. In contrast to custom tool 310, the CAD model of the scan for custom tool 410 was digitally segmented at the proximal planes to be restored and the resulting segments were each translated 100 microns to produce a gap between contacts of teeth 100, 101, 106 and 108”.
See Hansen [0074] “the interproximal “wedge” portions of lingual portion 412 and facial portion 430 were digitally extended to create an interference of 500 micron”.
That is, device 410 is engineered to be translated 100 microns to produce a gap, and correspond to the tooth at interproximal wedge with an interference. Such 100 microns translation and the interference of 500 microns from the current teeth indicate a structure different from current teeth for form a space/gap between contacts of teeth after restoration.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments regarding the newly added limitations in the amended claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as having overcome Hansen et al.
Regarding the newly added limitation(s) that at least one region of first interproximal portion is engineered to have a structure that is different … and that is configured to form an engineered space between the two teeth after the dental restoration, Hansen discloses a structure different from the pre-restoration interproximal structure, configured to form a space between two teeth.
See Hansen [0073] “Custom tool 410 was designed to fit over teeth 100, 101 (adjacent first and second molars) and a portion of the neighboring teeth 106, 108. In contrast to custom tool 310, the CAD model of the scan for custom tool 410 was digitally segmented at the proximal planes to be restored and the resulting segments were each translated 100 microns to produce a gap between contacts of teeth 100, 101, 106 and 108”.
See Hansen [0074] “the interproximal “wedge” portions of lingual portion 412 and facial portion 430 were digitally extended to create an interference of 500 micron”.
That is, device 410 is engineered (i.e. CAD and digitally modified) to be translated 100 microns to produce a gap, and correspond to the tooth at interproximal wedge with an interference. Such 100 microns translation and the interference of 500 micron from the current teeth indicate a structure different from current teeth (i.e. prior to restoration) for forming a space after restoration.
Conclusion
8. 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 Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights