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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 8/24/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
First, the Examiner notes that the machine translation of WO2012163466 (Schweiger) was provided on 6/9/26. It is listed in the IFW as “Non Patent Literature” with a date of 6/9/26.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to Schweiger, the Examiner notes that the interpretation below has been amended to address the newly added claim limitations. Nevertheless, as seen in Fig. 1 a protrusion (5) extends from an interior surface of a crown (interpreted as 4). In other words, Schweiger teaches a male protrusion within a localized area (e.g. the area of the inside of the wall of 4 corresponding to the location of the protrusion), and as clearly seen in Fig. 1, increases the crown thickness at said location (e.g. compared to a wall without the protrusion), and extends into the cavity in the interior of 4. See also Figs. 7 and 9.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments to the optimization of variables, duplication of parts and reversal of parts, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments but does not find such arguments persuasive at this time. Specifically the instant specification discloses the variables as merely preferable and not critical (see [0083]). Further, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the recited variables are result effective through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. Regarding the argument to the reversal of parts, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments explain the exact reversal of parts that the Examiner relies on. Further, the Examiner does not find such arguments against well established obvious parameters as persuasive. Finally, the Examiner notes that no specific evidence of criticality for any variable, the specific arrangement of the protrusion/recesses, or number of protrusions have been provided which would prove such modifications to be unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 39, 41-42 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.
Regarding claim 39, the claim limitation of the retention feature “comprises at least a portion of a natural basal ridge” is indefinite as it appears to contradict the structure required by claim 1 and the elected embodiment. Specifically, claim 1 and the elected embodiment require a protrusion which as stated in page 4, lines 20-22 extends beyond the natural basal ridge of the tooth. As such, it is unclear how the protrusion, which is the retention feature, can comprise at least a portion of a natural basal ridge. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 41, the term “tangentially stretch” is indefinite as it is unclear what tangential direction the term refers to; e.g. stretch tangential to what structure and/or direction. Clarification is required.
Claim 42 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 41.
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) 1-3 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schweiger et al (WO 2012/163466 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Schweiger et al discloses a dental crown (4, Fig. 1/7/9) comprising: an occlusion surface (top outer surface of 4) or an incisal surface; a tooth structure-facing surface opposite the occlusion surface or the incisal surface (top inner surface of 4); a crown wall surrounding the tooth structure-facing surface (sidewall of crown 4) and terminating at a circumferential rim (bottom rim of sidewall of crown); a recess defined at least by the tooth structure-facing surface and the crown wall (e.g. area inside of crown 4 where 3/2 are received), the recess configured to receive a tooth structure having a retention feature (configured to be used as such with an appropriately sized and shaped tooth structure, see Fig. 1); and at least one protrusion (5) extending from an interior surface of the crown wall toward a center of the recess (e.g. 5 extends inwards to cavity of 4), wherein the at least one protrusion is a physical feature (shown in Figs) within a localized area along an interior of the crown wall (e.g. localized area interpreted as area of wall where protrusion extends from) that increases a thickness of the crown wall in the localized area (see increased thickness of wall of (4) where protrusion (5) is located in Figs. 1, 7 and 9; see also Machine Translation page 5, par 2-3; page 6, par 1; page 8, par 1-2, 5; and claims 3, 5, 11-13, 15-17).
Schweiger et al further discloses wherein the crown is prepared from a material comprising ceramic (see claim 3; per claim 2); wherein the crown is prepared from a material comprising PEEK (see Machine translation, page 4, paragraph 4; PEEK can be used for either component; per claim 3); wherein the at least one protrusion (5) is configured to traverse the retention feature during seating of the dental crown onto the tooth structure (configured to be used as such with an appropriately sized and shaped tooth structure and/or retention feature; per claim 37); wherein the at least one protrusion (5) is configured to be positioned beneath the retention feature after seating of the dental crown onto the tooth structure (configured to be used as such with an appropriately sized and shaped tooth structure and/or retention feature; per claim 38); wherein the retention feature comprises at least a portion of a natural basal ridge of the tooth structure (as shown in Figs. 1, 7 and 9, protrusion 5 is located at the approximate location of a natural basal ridge of the tooth, thereby comprising at lest a portion of a natural basal ridge of the tooth structure, as best understood by the Examiner; per claim 39); and wherein the retention feature comprises an undercut prepared in the tooth structure by removing dental tissue from the tooth structure (claimed crown is configured to be used with an appropriately sized and shape tooth structure and/or retention feature; per claim 40).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 6-12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweiger et al.
Regarding claim 4, Schweiger discloses wherein the crown wall and rim have an average thickness (see Fig. 1), relative to an average oral-vestibular length of the crown (see Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the thickness is less than or equal to 1/20 of the length as required. However, the Examiner notes that the particular ratio of the thickness versus length is a result effective variable dependent on several factors including tooth type, the particular patient, the volume of the prepared tooth stump/amount of healthy tooth remaining, desired aesthetics, desired removability and/or material used. Additionally [0083] of the publication of the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the particular range and describes such value as merely preferable, including the terms “may” and including various values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schweiger et al to include a thickness to be less than or equal to 1/20 of the length, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, Schweiger et al discloses wherein the crown wall and rim have an average thickness (see Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the thickness is between 0.1-1.3 mm as required. However, the Examiner notes that the particular thickness is a result effective variable dependent on several factors including tooth type, the particular patient, the volume of the prepared tooth stump/amount of healthy tooth remaining, desired aesthetics, desired removability and/or material used. Additionally [0083] of the publication of the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the particular range and describes such value as merely preferable, including the terms “may” and including various values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schweiger et al to include a thickness to be 0.1-1.3 mm, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 14, Schweiger et al discloses that the specific size, shape and/or positioning of the protrusion is variable (see page 5, par. 1; page 8, par 1), but does not explicitly teach wherein the protrusion is positioned at a distance from the rim that is equivalent to about 0-35% of the height of the crown as required. However, the Examiner notes that the particular location of the protrusion relative to the height of the crown is a result effective variable dependent on several factors including tooth type, the particular patient, the volume of the prepared tooth stump/amount of healthy tooth remaining, desired aesthetics, desired anchorage forces, desired removability forces and/or material used. Additionally [0091] of the publication of the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the particular range and describes such value as merely preferable, including the terms “may”, stating as such, and including various values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schweiger et al to place the protrusion at a distance from the rim equivalent to 0-35% of the crown height, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 18, Schweiger et al does not explicitly teach that the crown characterized by one or more of: a reduction in seating force of greater than about 35% relative to the seating force of dental crown without protrusions, a reduction in pull-off force of greater than about 15% relative to the pull-off force of a dental crown without protrusions, and reduction in seated stress of greater than about 50% relative to the seated stress of a dental crown without protrusions as required. However, the Examiner notes that the particular reductions in seating force, pull off force or seated stress are result effective variables dependent on several factors including tooth type, the particular patient, the volume of the prepared tooth stump/amount of healthy tooth remaining, desired aesthetics, desired removability, desired anchorage forces, desired play in the crown and/or material used. Additionally [0085], [0087] and [0089] of the publication of the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the particular ranges and describes such values as merely preferable, including the terms “may” and including various values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schweiger et al to include a reduced seating force of greater than 35%, a reduced pull off force greater than about 15%, and/or a reduction in seated stress of greater than about 50% relative to the value of a crown without protrusions, as such modification would merely involve the optimization(s) of a result effective variable(s), which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claims 6-12, Schweiger et al, Fig. 1, discloses a single protrusion, but does not teach a plurality of solid spherical protrusions disposed as claimed as required.
Schweiger et al, however, teaches a second embodiment (Figs. 5-6) where two (per claims 6-7) solid spherical shaped (see page 5, par 2; claim 17; per claim 12) retention elements (6) are formed on a mating male component intended to be received by the crown, and wherein each protrusion is independently located along a buccal or a lingual surface thereof (see page 8, par 5-6; per claim 8); such that one protrusion is located along a buccal surface and one protrusion is located along a lingual surface (see citations above; per claim 9), and a mesial and distal surface are each free of the at least one protrusion (see citations above; per claim 11). Additionally Schweiger discloses embodiments where the protrusions may be alternately formed of continuous or discrete components (page 5, par 3; Figs. 1-2 vs 5-6) and may be alternatively be formed on the interior of the female crown (Fig. 1) or on the male portion received therein (Figs. 5-6; see also page 5, par 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the retention element of the embodiment of Schweiger Fig. 1, to include two solid spherical protrusions on the buccal and lingual surfaces as taught by Schweiger Figs. 5-6, as such modification would merely involve making a forming integral structure into separate components and/or a reversal of known parts of a device, both of which have been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) and MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)), both modifications contemplated by Schweiger (see above). The Examiner notes that should the retention element of Fig. 1 be modified with the teachings of Figs. 5-6, the ring shaped retention element in the recess of the crown would be replaced with two spherical shaped protrusions in the recess of the crown located only on the buccal and lingual surfaces (Fig. 5) of the recess, with the mesial and distal surface of the recess free of protrusions.
Regarding claim 10, Schweiger et al, as modified above, teaches wherein one protrusion is located within the recess along a buccal surface, and one protrusion is located within the recess along a lingual surface, but does not teach a third protrusion, providing a second protrusion on one of the buccal or lingual surface as required. However, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve a duplication of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Additionally, Applicant does not provide any criticality to the specific number of protrusions (see [0090] of the instant publication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schweiger, as combined above, to include a 2nd protrusion on either the buccal or lingual surface, providing a total of 3 protrusions, as such modification would merely involve a duplication of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim(s) 3 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweiger et al in view of Herrmann et al (US 2019/0021815 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 41-42, in an alternative interpretation, Schweiger does not teach wherein the crown is prepared from a material comprising polyacetal, polyacrylate, (meth)acrylate and urethane(meth)acrylate copolymers, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetherketone (PEK), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone (PSU), or a combination thereof; wherein the crown wall and the circumferential rim are configured to tangentially stretch toward the localized area of the crown wall during seating or removing of the dental crown; or wherein an area of the crown wall that is free of the at least one protrusion is configured to bend inward during seating or removing of the dental crown as required.
Herrmann et al, however, teaches the use of dental crowns formed of urethane methacrylates and methacrylates (see abstract), with a crown wall formed of a material having a flexible sidewall which allows the wall and circumferential rim thereof (bottom of wall) to be configured to tangentially stretch and or bend at least to some degree (see [0034], [0100], [0102], [0125], [0129]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Schweiger to include Herrmann’s crown material with flexibility as such modification would improve retention of the crown ad improve aesthetics of the margin fit (see Herrmann, citations above).
The Examiner notes that should the device of Schweiger be modified with the flexible material of Herrmann, as combined above, the crown wall and the circumferential rim would be configured to tangentially stretch toward the localized area of the crown wall during eating and removing of the crown (configured to be used as such, at least to some degree), and wherein an area of the crown wall that is free of the at least one protrusion would be configured to bend inward during seating or removing of the crown (configured to be used as such, at least to some degree) meeting the limitations of the claims.
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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
