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 .
Preliminary Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment received on 06/17/2024. Claims 1-5, 7, 11, and 13-24 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 13-17, and 19-22 have been amended. Claims 6, 8-10, and 12 have been canceled. Claims 23-24 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zilberman (US 2010/0297587).
Regarding Claim 1, Zilberman teaches a dental crown (10) configured as an integral structure (¶ 0031) comprising:
a top portion (top surface 12) and a side portion (side surfaces 14)
said integral structure being manufactured by one of the following processes: injection molding, compression molding, stamp forming, vacuum forming, thermoforming, transfer molding composite flow molding, machining (¶ 0021; claims 7-11); wherein
the top portion is made of a first material composition, and the side portion is made of a second material composition, said first and second material compositions of the top and side portions comprising at least one common basic material of the crown comprising one of the following: polymer material, plastic material, and thermoplastic material (¶ 19-20 teach the crown being fabricated from thermoplastic materials with the possible addition of “fibers, fillers, pigments and reinforcements” therefore teaches the crown, and thus its top and side portions, being made of material compositions comprising at least one common thermoplastic material; though Zilberman does not explicitly teach the top and sides of the crown being different compositions but they are in different locations (top and sides) therefore are the first and second material compositions recited);
at least the first material composition of the top portion contains predetermined particles (¶ 20 teaches the material comprising fibers, fillers, or reinforcements of conventional of nano size) dispersed in said at least one common basic material of the crown (¶ 20; claim 4), such that the top portion is relatively rigid as compared to the side portion of the crown to withstand mechanical forces applied to said top portion during chewing process (¶ 32 teaches the necessity for the top portion to be stiff in order to withstand chewing and also teaches the top portion being thicker than the sides which will contribute to it being more rigid than the sides, such that it is thicker at the top and therefore more rigid then the thinner sides) and providing that the side portion is relatively flexible as compared to the top portion allowing assembling of the crown on a respective tooth (¶s 13, 15, 32 and others describe the side portions of the crown as being flexibly and elastic in order to allow for installation of the crown).
Regarding Claim 7, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), wherein said side portion extends from a circumference of the top portion (Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), wherein said at least one basic material comprises the thermoplastic material comprising acetal (¶ 19; claim 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above),wherein said at least one basic material comprises the at least one thermoplastic material comprising Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) material (¶ 19; claim 2). .
Regarding Claim 14, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), wherein the common basic material comprises one of the following materials: polyacetal, polyacrylate, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyamide, polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetherketone (PEK), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone (PSU), and mixtures thereof (¶ 19; claim 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), wherein the top and side portions are of different thicknesses (¶ 32).
Regarding Claim 22, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), being manufactured by injection molding, utilizing a multi-part mold defining said top and side portions of the crown (¶ 22-25).
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 2-4 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman (US 2010/0297587) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chavez et al. (US 2022/0110719, effectively filed 10/09/2020).
Regarding Claim 2, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), comprising an intermediate portion forming an interface region between the top and side portions (the portion if the crown that connects the top and side portions, for example see annotated Figure 2 below), said intermediate portion enhancing physical coupling between the top and side portions of the integral structure of the crown (the intermediate portion couples the top and side portions so the entire crown forms an integral structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Zilberman (US 2010/0297587)
Zilberman does not explicitly teach said intermediate portion being configured as a material transition portion of gradual transition of a material composition.
However, Chavez, in the related field of endeavor of dental apparatuses with regions having different rigidities (abstract; ¶s 6, 12), teaches a device (palatal expander 1300) comprising an intermediate portion (transition regions 1316, 1316’) forming an interface region (¶ 90; Figure 13) between two portions with a first and second material formulation (palatal region 1302 made of a first material and tooth engagement regions 1304, 1304’ made of a second material that is different from the first material; ¶ 90, 93; ¶ 16 also teaches that the regions are different polymer formulations, including fillers, in order to have different rigidities), said intermediate portion being configured as a material transition portion of gradual transition of a material composition from said first material composition to said second material composition (¶s16, 90; Figure 13), said intermediate portion enhancing physical coupling between the two portions with different material formulations of the integral structure (¶ 16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental crown as taught by Zilberman to have a gradual material transition from the first material composition to the second material composition, where the two material compositions have different rigidities, as taught by Chavez. Zilberman teaches that the top of the crown must be more rigid to withstand chewing forces ((¶ 32) and the sides of the crown must be more flexible to allow installation (¶s 13, 15, 32); and Chavez teaches that polymer-based dental devices can be made of different materials to provide different rigidities in different areas (¶ 16) and then have a gradual material transition to provide physical coupling between the areas (¶s 16, 90, 93). Therefore it would have been obvious to achieve the different rigidities needed in the crown of Zilberman by using different materials and to have the transition between those materials be gradual, as Chavez teaches a variety of ways to couple two regions of different materials (¶s 10-19) so a gradual transition would have been obvious to try.
Regarding Claim 3, Zilberman and Chavez teach the dental crown of claim 2 (as presented above). Chavez further teaches wherein the gradual transition of the material composition along the intermediate portion is such that a concentration of the first material composition and the concentration of the second material composition are respectively gradually decreased and increased in a direction from the top portion towards the side portion (¶ 93 teaches a gradual transition of a first material to a second material where the concentration of the first decreases as the concentration of the second increases).
Regarding Claims 4 and 23, Zilberman and Chavez teach the dental crown of claims 2 and 3 (as presented above). Zilberman does not explicitly teach the intermediate portion having a thickness that gradually decrease from the top portion towards the side portion. However, Zilberman does teach that the thickness is an important consideration in the structure of the crown and that the top portion should be thicker than the side portion (¶ 32). The transition between the thicker top portion and the thinner side portion can either be abrupt or gradual, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try making the transition between the thicker top portion and the thinner side portion, which occurs in the intermediate portion, be a gradual decrease of the thickness. In addition to being obvious to try because the transition could be gradual or abrupt, it would be expected that a gradual transition would be stronger than an abrupt transition because abrupt changes in thickness of a material can introduce potential break points.
Claims 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman (US 2010/0297587) and Chavez et al. (US 2022/0110719) as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (WO 2018/105443).
Regarding Claims 5 and 24, Zilberman and Chavez teach the dental crown of claims 2 and 3 (as presented above). Chavez teaches that the intermediate portion comprises a gradually transition from the first to second material (¶ 90, 93) and that the materials may include fillers or just one of the materials may include fillers (¶ 16), but does not explicitly teach a gradual changing concentration and/or density of predetermined particles.
However, Shimizu, in the related field of endeavor of resin materials for dental use (abstract), teaches that the amount of inorganic filler particles, such as nano-sized silica particles, affects the strength of a material for dental applications (translation bottom of page 6 to top of page 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental crown as taught by Zilberman to have more particles in the top portion than the side portion to achieve the different desired mechanical properties of those areas, as Shimizu teaches that increasing the amount of particles increases the strength of an area and Zilberman teaches that increased strength is desired in the top portion. Then in combination with the teaching of Chavez to have a gradual transition of from one material to the other, the amount of particles in the material would gradually decrease in a direction from the top portion to the side portion.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman (US 2010/0297587) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 104367384).
Regarding Claim 15, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above). Zilberman teaches the material compositions including predetermined particles which could be conventional or nano sized particles, but it does not explicitly teach any additional details of the particles.
However, Liu, in the same field of endeavor of dental crowns (abstract), teaches dental crowns containing nanodiamond particles (claim 1; ¶ 6 of translation). Liu teaches the inclusion of nanodiamonds in a dental crown because they improve the hardness and abrasion resistance of the material and also provide a glittering effect (¶ 6), which may be desirable to some users.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material composition of Zilberman to have the nanoparticles in the composition be nanodiamonds as taught by Liu, in order to include a nanoparticle that will increase the hardness of the dental crown.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman (US 2010/0297587) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (WO 2018/105443).
Regarding Claim 16, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above). Zilberman teaches the material compositions including predetermined particles which could be nanoparticles, but it does not explicitly teach any additional details of the nanoparticles.
However, Shimizu, in the related field of endeavor of resin materials for dental use (abstract), teaches polyaryl ether ketone, including polyether ether ketone, (translation bottom of page 3 to top of page 4) for dental applications containing silica particles, including of nanosize (translation bottom of page 6 to top of page 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material composition of Zilberman to have the nanoparticles be the nanosilica particles as taught by Shimizu. Zilberman teaches the material including nanoparticles, but does not provide additional details therefore it would be obvious to use the known type of nanoparticles taught by Shimizu for dental applications including crowns. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 17, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above), wherein the first material composition comprises Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) material (¶ 19; claim 2) containing nano particles dispersed therein (¶ 20; claim 4), and the second material composition is composed of PEEK (¶ 19; claim 2).
Zilberman does not explicitly teach the nanoparticles being any particular material.
However, Shimizu, in the related field of endeavor of resin materials for dental use (abstract), teaches polyaryl ether ketone, including polyether ether ketone, (translation bottom of page 3 to top of page 4) for dental applications containing silica particles, including of nanosize (translation bottom of page 6 to top of page 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material composition of Zilberman to have the nanoparticles be the nanosilica particles as taught by Shimizu. Zilberman teaches the material including nanoparticles, but does not provide additional details therefore it would be obvious to use the known type of nanoparticles taught by Shimizu for dental applications including crowns.
Regarding Claim 18, Zilberman and Shimizu teach the dental crown of claim 16 (as presented above). Zilberman and Shimizu both further teach the composition comprising PEEK material (Zilberman: ¶ 19 and claim 2; Shimizu: translation bottom of page 3 to top of page 4). Shimizu further teaches the composition containing at least 1% of said dispersed nano-silica particles (translation bottom of page 6 to top of page 7; teaches inorganic filler being 10-70 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of resin material).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman (US 2010/0297587) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2007/0196792).
Regarding Claim 20, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above). Zilberman further teaches that the thickness of the crown at different areas can be different, but does not explicitly teach the thickness of the side portion gradually decreasing from a region of interface with the top portion towards a bottom of the crown.
However, Johnson, in the same field of endeavor of dental crowns (abstract), teaches a dental crown (crown 10) wherein the side portion has a thickness gradually decreasing from a region of interface with the top portion towards the bottom of the crown (Figure 1; ¶ 25) in order to have a narrow bottom of the crown where it meets the gum-line (¶ 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental crown as taught by Zilberman to have the thickness gradually decrease from the interface with the top portion towards the bottom of the crown as taught by Johnson in order to have a narrow bottom of the crown where the crown meets the gum-line.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilberman (US 2010/0297587) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (WO 2018/105443) and Chavez et al. (US 2022/0110719).
Regarding Claim 21, Zilberman teaches the dental crown of claim 1 (as presented above). The top of the side portion where it interfaces with the top portion is the interface region, which is the same as the intermediate portion shown in annotated Figure 2 above. The first and second material compositions of the dental crown as taught by Zilberman are not explicitly different formulations of components, therefor the interface region as taught by Zilberman does not explicitly have a change in concentration or density of the particles.
However, Shimizu, in the related field of endeavor of resin materials for dental use (abstract), teaches that the amount of inorganic filler particles, such as nano-sized silica particles, affects the strength of a material for dental applications (translation bottom of page 6 to top of page 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental crown as taught by Zilberman to have more particles in the top portion than the side portion to achieve the different desired mechanical properties of those areas, as Shimizu teaches that increasing the amount of particles increases the strength of an area and Zilberman teaches that increased strength is desired in the top portion.
The interface between the two materials is not explicitly taught by Shimizu and Zilberman.
However, Chavez, in the related field of endeavor of dental apparatuses with regions having different rigidities (abstract; ¶s 6, 12), teaches a device (palatal expander 1300) comprising an interface region (transition regions 1316, 1316’; ¶ 90; Figure 13) between two portions with a first and second material formulation (palatal region 1302 made of a first material and tooth engagement regions 1304, 1304’ made of a second material that is different from the first material; ¶ 90, 93; ¶ 16 also teaches that the regions are different polymer formulations, including fillers, in order to have different rigidities), wherein the material composition within the interface region comprises a gradual change from one material to the other (¶s16, 90; Figure 13). Chavez teaches a variety of ways to couple two regions of different materials (¶s 10-19) so a gradual transition would have been obvious to try.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dental crown as taught by Zilberman with the higher amount of particles in the top portion than in the side portion in order to increase the strength of the top portion relative to the side portion as taught by Shimizu to have a gradual transition between materials at the interface region as taught by Chavez. Given the higher amount of particles in the top portion than the side portion, the gradual transition in the material taught by Chavez results in a gradual decrease in concentration and/or density of the particles in a direction away from the top portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 3 pm ET.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
2/11/2026