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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on 5/19/2 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach a protrusion and as such the groups are not shown to lack unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner interprets the protrusion as the area between the grooves of the prior art. Accordingly, the protrusion as explained, therefore results in a thicker sidewall compared to areas of the grooves. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the special definition of the term and the claim language does not require a “positive” feature as argued; instead only requiring a thicker area relative t other locations. Further, the definition only requires an increased thickness in an area located relative to a particular area, and the definition or claim does not prohibit or otherwise define the particular area as argued.
Regarding Applicant’s traversal to the species, Applicant argues that there is no search burden between the species. However, the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive since the species have differing structures of the protrusion, which have different operation thereof, and additionally require a different field of search (for example searching multiple classes/subclasses and electronic resources or employing different search queries). Additionally, the species lack unity of invention as explained in the restriction requirement.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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) 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 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 the crown wall within the recess (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); and wherein the crown is prepared from a material comprising PMMA (at least in part; preparing crown encompassing seating it; see claim 5 and page 5, par 7); per claim 3).
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)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
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
Prosecution Insights