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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). In claim 1, the applicant claims “the second portions extending to a length over a respective tooth adjacent to the space” which improperly claims the human anatomy. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to be functional, such as ‘configured to extend- in order to overcome the rejection.
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 and 13-14 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 3, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to further limit the claimed light translucent material of claim 2 to be UV light translucent or if the applicant is trying to claim a different material. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as further limiting the light translucent material to be UV light translucent, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the buccal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 13, the applicant has claimed “causing the hardenable material to harden”, however, the applicant has claimed that the hardened material is a light curable material, therefore, it is unclear what material the applicant is trying to claim. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the light curable material, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
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) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jedynakiewicz (GB 2,151,141).
With respect to claim 1, Jedynakiewicz discloses a dental matrix comprising a first portion corresponding to the shape of a tooth (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the first portion is the hollow pontic not including the outlets/abutting portions), and for seating in a space in the oral denticia (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); a second portion, disposed on each lateral side of the first portion (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the second portion being the outlets extending beyond the hollow pontic portion to contact adjacent teeth, see for example figure 2 which shows the second portion being elements 21, it is noted that figure 2 is a different embodiment of the hollow embodiment being used, but is being used to show the outlets/abutting members), and each of the second portions extending to a length over a respective tooth adjacent to the space (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); an interior cavity formed by the first and second portions (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that it is hollow including the extinctions/outlets), the interior cavity of each of the second portions including an open side for communication with the respective tooth adjacent to the space (see for example figure 2 which shows the second body portions with the openings that communication with the adjacent teeth, abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); and, at least one aperture on any of the first or second portions for receiving curable material (see for example figure 2 which shows a different embodiment with the aperture 22, abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, i.e. the inlet being the aperture which is on the first portion). It is noted that the inlet is capable of receiving a curable material, therefore, the claimed limitations are met.
With respect to claim 4, Jedynakiewicz further discloses wherein the first and second portions are integral (abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, specifically the hollow mold, including the second portions is split with a scalpel after use, therefore, the portions are integral).
With respect to claim 5, Jedynakiewicz further discloses wherein the open side is configured to facing the respective adjacent tooth (abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, for example see figure 2 in which the openings would face the adjacent teeth when in use, also the teaching out the outlets abutting against adjacent teeth).
With respect to claim 7, Jedynakiewicz further discloses wherein the at least one apertures extends through the first portion into the interior cavity (see for example figure 2 which shows a different embodiment with the aperture 22, abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, i.e. the inlet being the aperture).
With respect to claim 8, Jedynakiewicz further discloses wherein at least the first portion is separatable into at least two sections (abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the hollow body is removed by splitting it, therefore it is separable into at least two sections).
With respect to claim 10, Jedynakiewicz discloses a method for forming and placing a prosthetic tooth in the oral denticia, the method comprising obtaining a dental matrix (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the matrix is the hollow body) comprising a first portion corresponding to the shape of a tooth (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the first portion is the hollow pontic not including the outlets/abutting portions), and for seating in a space in the oral denticia (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); a second portion, disposed on each lateral side of the first portion (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the second portion being the outlets extending beyond the hollow pontic portion to contact adjacent teeth, see for example figure 2 which shows the second portion being elements 21, it is noted that figure 2 is a different embodiment of the hollow embodiment being used, but is being used to show the outlets/abutting members), and each of the second portions extending to a length over a respective tooth adjacent to the space (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); an interior cavity formed by the first and second portions (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the mold is a hollow structure including the pontic portion and the outlets/extensions), the interior cavity of each of the second portions including an open side for communication with the respective tooth adjacent to the space (see for example figure 2 which shows the second body portions with the openings that communication with the adjacent teeth, abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); and, at least one aperture on any of the first or second portions for receiving curable material (see for example figure 2 which shows a different embodiment with the aperture 22, abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, i.e. the inlet being the aperture which is on the first portion), placing the dental matrix into the oral denticia such that the first portion seats in a space between adjacent teeth and the open sides of the second portion are in communication with the respective teeth, adjacent to the space (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); filling the internal cavity with a hardenable material (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17); and causing the hardenable material to harden, such that the material which filled the cavity in the second portions has adhered to the respective adjacent tooth (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17).
With respect to claim 11, Jedynakiewicz further discloses wherein the filling the internal cavity includes injecting the hardenable material into the interior cavity through an aperture in first portion (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17, such that the inlet is the aperture which is on the first portion).
With respect to claim 15, Jedynakiewicz further discloses additionally comprising: removing the matrix after the material has hardened (see abstract, pg. 2, ll. 17-36, claim 17).
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) 2-3 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jedynakiewicz (GB 2,151,141) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Mishaeloff (2019/0201165).
Jedynakiewicz teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the first and second portions are of a light translucent material, the first and second portions are of an ultraviolet light translucent material, wherein the hardenable material includes a light curable material, the hardenable material to harden includes applying light to the light curable material in the interior cavity and wherein the light curable material includes ultraviolet light curable material and the applying the light includes applying ultraviolet light.
Mishaeloff teaches a dental matrix comprising a first portion 10 corresponding to the shape of a tooth and at least one aperture 28 on the first portion for receiving curable material (par. 50). Mishaeloff further teaches with respect to claim 2, wherein the first portion is a light translucent material and further with respect to claim 3, wherein the first portion is an ultraviolet light translucent material (par. 54).
Mishaeloff further teaches a method for forming and placing a prosthetic tooth, the method comprising obtaining a dental matrix 10 comprising a first portion, an interior cavity 54 and an aperture 28 on the first portion for receiving curable material (par. 50), placing the dental matrix in the oral denticia (see fig. 4), filling the internal cavity with a hardenable material and causing the hardenable material to harden, such that the material which filled the cavity is adhered to the tooth (par. 59). With respect to claim 12, Mishaeloff further teaches wherein the hardenable material is a light curable material (par. 59). Further with respect to claim 13, Mishaeloff further teaches wherein the hardenable material to harden includes applying light to the light curable material of the interior cavity (par. 61). Further with respect to claim 14, Mishaeloff further teaches wherein the light curable material includes ultraviolet light curable material, and the applying the light includes applying ultraviolet light (pars. 59, 61).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the matrix of Jedynakiewicz to be of a UV light translucent material and the method to include using a UV light curing material and curing the material with a UV light to ensure that the material is not hardened before desired. Such that by using the UV light curable material, the user is able to control with the material is hardened and it will not be hardened before the user cures it with the light.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jedynakiewicz (GB 2,151,141) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salvo (4,360,342).
Jedynakiewicz teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including with respect to claim 9 the second portions are coaxial with each other (see for example figure 2 which shows the second portions in a different embodiment, it is noted that all the embodiment show the second portions in the same position), however, does not specifically teach the open side includes the buccal side and the second portions are substantially rectangular.
Salvo teaches a dental bridge, which is the final prosthesis made form the dental matrix of Jedynakiewicz, including a first portion (the prosthesis) and a second portion 40 that when placed in the mouth is on the lingual side. It is noted the openings of the mold of Jedynakiewicz would be on the buccal side, such that when placed on the teeth the opening is on lingual surface but open to the buccal side. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the opening of Jedynakiewicz to be open to the buccal side in order to place the second portions on the lingual surfaces such that the cured material will be on the lingual side in order to provide an esthetic prosthetic. Such that the connection is on the lingual side of the teeth.
Salvo further teaches with respect to claim 9, wherein the second portions are substantially rectangular in shape and coaxial with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second portions taught by Jedynakiewicz with the shape taught by Salvo in order to provide a thin connection between the prosthetic and teeth in order to provide a comfortable restoration to the patient. Such that the connection does not irritate the user’s mouth.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jedynakiewicz (GB 2,151,141) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Daskalon et al. (2003/0183964).
Jedynakiewicz teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach providing a reinforcing structure into the interior cavity between the interior cavities of the of the respective second portions prior to causing the hardenable material to harden and the reinforcing structure includes one or more of rods, fibers, and/or splints.
Daskalon teaches a method including a matrix/mold for forming a prosthetic tooth including a first portion (the middle portions 160) and a second portion (the outer portions 160) and an interior cavity. Daskalon further teaches with respect to claim 16, providing reinforcing structure 164 into the interior cavity between the interior cavity of the respective section potion prior to causing the hardenable material to harden (see fig. 16, par. 52). Daskalon further teaches with respect to claim 17, wherein the reinforcing structure includes rods (par. 31, 52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Jedynakiewicz in include placing a reinforcing rod within the mold before hardening of the material in order to provide a high strength to the restoration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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, 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 10/3/2025