Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 10/3/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claim 12 is withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-13 remain pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11 and 13) in the reply filed on 10/3/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is not found persuasive because as required, the Examiner identified shared technical features of Group I (claim 1) and Group II (claim 12) and further, the Examiner showed that the prior art of LEE discloses these shared technical features and therefore they are not special technical features (see restriction requirement of 8/6/2025). The Applicant needs to point out potential errors in identifying shared feature and/or why LEE does not disclose these features. The Applicant has not done so. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7: replace “a denture base” with “the denture base”. This limitation is already recited in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 7, line 2: replace “a denture base” with “the denture base”. This limitation is already recited in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 8, line 2: replace “a prosthetic tooth” with “the prosthetic tooth”. This limitation is already recited in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 9, lines 2 and 4 (two occurrences): replace “a denture base” with “the denture base”. This limitation is already recited in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 10, lines 3 and 4 (two occurrences): replace “a prosthetic tooth” with “the prosthetic tooth”. This limitation is already recited in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 11, line 8: replace “a denture base” with “the denture base”. This limitation is already recited in line 2 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN (US-2019/0053883), hereinafter SUN, in view of LEE (US-2018/0049954), hereinafter LEE. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, SUN discloses A plate denture production kit for stereolithography {[abstract] note that rapid prototyping is stereolithography, note the printable polymerizable material constitute the kit} comprising
a curable composition for a denture base (I) containing a (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (A) containing a (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) as a major monomer, and a photopolymerization initiator {[0012] note denture bases are methacrylate-based, [0095] note the monomer m, note “their combination” that constitute component A, [0099] note the light polymerization initiators thus curable, [0098] note denture base and artificial tooth as two separate compositions, [0102]/[0105] note fillers and pigment that belong to curable composition}, and
a composition for a prosthetic tooth (II) containing a (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (B) containing the same (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) as contained in the curable composition for a denture base (I) {[0098] note denture base and artificial tooth as two separate compositions, [0102]/[0105] note fillers and pigment that belong to the composition, [0012] note denture tooth or prosthetic tooth are methacrylate-based, [0095] note the monomer m, note “their combination” that constitute component B}.
SUN, however, is silent on the content of monomer m in the component B.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to stereo lithographical compositions for denture and prosthetic tooth, LEE discloses having a content of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) of 20% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component(B) {[0018] note second composition is 50-75 wt%}.
More importantly, LEE discloses that viscosity of the composition (important for 3D printing) can be adjusted by controlling the ratio of one of the monomers {[0017]}. Additionally, LEE discloses that the ratio of each component in the composition can be adjusted to obtain a desirable composition for manufacturing or 3D printing {[0027]}. Therefore, LEE recognizes the fraction or the content of monomer m as a result-effective variable.
It is well established that determination of optimum values of result-effective variables (in this case the content of monomer m on appropriate 3D printing manufacturing) is within the skill of one practicing in the art {see MPEP 2144.05 (ll)(B)}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the result-effective teachings of LEE in the composition of SUN and have optimized the monomer m content which is a result-effective variable through routine experimentation to have determined the appropriate monomer content that produces an optimum manufacturing conditions. In certain cases, such content would be similar to the claimed ratios.
Regarding claim 2, SUN discloses wherein the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) is a polyfunctional (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (a-1) {[0095] note di or poly}.
Regarding claim 3, SUN discloses wherein the polyfunctional (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (a-1) is at least one kind selected from a urethanated (meth)acrylate ester compound and an aromatic compound based (meth)acrylate ester compound having no urethane bond {[0095] note poly-urethane dimethyacrylate, also note phenyl phenol that is aromatic}.
Regarding claim 4, SUN discloses wherein the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (A) contains a monofunctional (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (a-2) {[0095] note mono}.
Regarding claim 5, SUN discloses wherein the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (B) contains a monofunctional (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (a-2) {[0095] note mono}.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, SUN discloses wherein the monofunctional (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (a-2) is a (meth)acrylate ester based polymerizable monomer having an aromatic ring {[0095] note phenyl phenol that is aromatic}.
Regarding claim 7 limitation of “wherein the curable composition for a denture base (I) has a content of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) of 50% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (A)”, see the result-effective discussion under claim 1 and based on the combination of SUN and LEE.
Regarding claim 8 limitation of “wherein the composition for a prosthetic tooth (II) has a content of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) of 50% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (B)”, see the result-effective discussion under claim 1 and based on the combination of SUN and LEE.
Regarding claim 9 limitation of “wherein the curable composition for a denture base (I) contains the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (A) in an amount of 40% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of the curable composition for a denture base (I)”, see the result-effective discussion under claim 1 and based on the combination of SUN and LEE.
Regarding claim 10 limitation of “wherein the composition for a prosthetic tooth (II) contains the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (B) in an amount of 40% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of the composition for a prosthetic tooth (II)”, see the result-effective discussion under claim 1 and based on the combination of SUN and LEE.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of SUN and LEE as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OKUMURA (US-2019/0388198), hereinafter OKUMURA.
Regarding claim 1, combination of SUN and LEE discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on an adhesive composition.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to compositions for denture base and artificial tooth, OKUMURA discloses further comprising an adhesive composition containing a composition (III) containing a (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (C) containing the same (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) as contained in the curable composition for a denture base (I) {[0125] note the adhesive for adhering the artificial teeth to the denture base, [0126], [0127] note methyl methacrylate that is the same polymerizable monomer}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of OKUMURA in the combination composition of SUN and LEE and have used the adhesive of OKUMURA to attach the prosthetic tooth of the combination above to its denture base.
As disclosed by OKUMURA, this adhering step is needed to attach the artificial tooth to the denture base {[0125]} and therefore, it is also needed for the combination composition of SUN and LEE, since this combination similarly produces a prosthetic tooth and a dentures base that eventually have to be attached together.
Regarding the last limitation of claim 11 reciting “having a content of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer (m) of 20% by mass or more based on 100% by mass of the (meth)acrylic based polymerizable monomer component (C)”, see the result-effective discussion under claim 1 and based on the combination of SUN and LEE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748