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 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 1-4,7 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.
In claim 1, lines 13-18 render the claim indefinite. Specifically, the recitation in lines 15-16 of the thickness being “larger than a thickness of a corresponding tooth” is indefinite because there is no specificity as to exactly what the thickness of a corresponding tooth is. Teeth come in various sizes, dependent on many factors, including age of the patient, and since this claim does not positively recite an actual tooth (nor could it), there is no way to determine what the claimed thickness is being compared to. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not be able to determine the scope of this claim. The same indefiniteness applies to the recitation in lines 17-18, “equal to a width of the tooth”.
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.
Claims 1-4,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klingenburg et al 20140317930.
With regard to claim 1, Klingenburg et al discloses a mill blank for dentures (see fig. 1 and 2) comprising a denture plate cutting part 3 made of a denture plate material; cut members 5 for front teeth each having a structure in which an artificial teeth cutting part (the occlusal part) made of an artificial tooth material (see paragraph 23) and a fixing part (the lower/root part) for fixing the artificial teeth cutting part to the denture plate cutting part 3 are connected (the occlusal part of the tooth is connected to the lower/root part); and molar members 5 (see molars) each having a structure in which an exposed part (the occlusal part) made of an artificial tooth material (see paragraph 23), having a standard molar shape, and requiring substantially no cutting (does not have to be cut, if desired so, see paragraph 18) and a fixing part (the lower part of each molar) for fixing the exposed part to the denture plate cutting part 3 are connected (the occlusal part of each molar is connected to the lower/root part), the cut members for front teeth 5 and the molar members 5 being fixed to the denture plate cutting part 3 while arranged to form standard arrangement patterns of respective corresponding teeth (see arrangement/pattern in figs 1 and 2), , and wherein the fixing parts (lower/root portion of each tooth) in the cut members for front teeth 5 are each connected to the cut member for front teeth so as not to be exposed to a surface (see paragraph 27 which discloses how the teeth 5 are “inserted” into the cutting part 3), when the artificial teeth cutting part in the cut member for front teeth 5 and the denture plate cutting part 3 are cut (milled). This occurs by virtue of the lower/root portions of the teeth being embedded in the denture plate cutting part 3 (“inserted”, paragraph 27). Since they are embedded in the denture plate cutting part 3, they are not exposed.
Klingenburg et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the artificial teeth cutting parts in the cut members for front teeth 5 each have a shape such that a thickness defined as a distance between a labial surface and a lingual surface of the artificial teeth cutting part is larger than a thickness of a corresponding front tooth, and a width defined as a distance between a mesial surface and a distal surface of the artificial teeth cutting part 5 is equal to a width of the tooth.
However, in paragraph 22, Klingenburg et al discloses that the teeth 5 may be of “different sizes and have different factors”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled the art to form the artificial teeth cutting parts (occlusal part) in the cut members for front teeth 5 to have a thickness between the labial and lingual surfaces to be larger than a thickness of a corresponding front tooth, if one wished for the teeth to correspond to a particular patient that also has front teeth that are thicker than standard teeth, since Klingenburg et al recognizes that the teeth 5 may be of “different sizes and have different factors”. Similarly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the artificial teeth cutting part to have a width between a mesial and distal surface that is equal to a width of a tooth, if one wished for the teeth to correspond to a particular patient that also has front teeth that have a width substantially equal to a width of a tooth, since Klingenburg et al recognizes that the teeth 5 may be of “different sizes and have different factors”.
With regard to claim 2, note that the mill blank is a mill blank for maxillary or mandibular dentures in which the cut members 5 for front teeth respectively correspond to left and right central incisors, lateral incisors, and cuspids and the molar members 5 respectively correspond to left and right first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars (see fig. 1) and are fixed to the denture plate cutting part 3 while arranged to form a standard arrangement pattern of maxillary or mandibular teeth. See paragraph 16, last four lines.
With regard to claim 3, note that in the denture plate cutting part 3, areas of cervical parts in alveolar parts in which the molar members are fixed require substantially no cutting, and in the denture plate cutting part, interdental papillae are formed in alveolar parts in which the cut members for front teeth are fixed.
[AltContent: textbox (Interdental papillae)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cervical part of molar located in the alveolar part of the jaw does not require cutting.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
347
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, note that the denture plate cutting part 3 has a substantial disk shape having a recessed part or a lacking part for cutting amount reduction. See annotated figure below.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recessed part)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Substantial disk part)]
PNG
media_image2.png
352
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, note that Klingenburg et al discloses a production method for dentures, the production method for dentures being a method of cutting a mill blank for a denture plate by a CAD/CAM technique (see paragraph 11) using three-dimensional shape data of an original denture whose shape is adjusted to fit a patient (see paragraph 11, “CAD/CAM data on the oral cavity of a patient”), to produce a denture having an identical or substantially identical shape with the shape of the original denture, wherein the mill blank for dentures according to claim 1 (as modified above, see above rejection of claim 1) is used as the mill blank for denture plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be based on the asserted “differences” outlined on page 7 of the response. Applicant first argues that in the present invention, the member that becomes the artificial teeth is divided into a “cut member for front teeth” and a “molar member”, as opposed to what is disclosed by Klingenburg, where the member that becomes the artificial teeth is made in one piece. This is not found persuasive because it is unclear as to how the method of forming the artificial teeth of Klingenburg (one piece) is relevant to what applicant claims in instant claim 1.
Applicant also argues that in the present invention, the “cut member for front teeth” has an “artificial teeth cutting part” to be cut, while in Klingenburg, the “full set of teeth” is not cut. Again, it is unclear as to how this is relevant to what is actually claimed by applicant.
In summary, applicant has not demonstrated how the instant claim language differentiates structurally, from what is disclosed by Klingenburg. Therefore, the above arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights