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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to Claim Objections of claims 3 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 3 and 5 have been partially withdrawn. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to the rejection claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Remarks, pg. 5-6) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach a dental model with removable teeth. In response, it is pointed out that in the Non Final Office Action dated 3/24/2026, and as indicated below, Woidschutzke ‘993 is relied upon to disclose teeth being removably attachable to the insertion holes as claimed (0024-0028, Figure 1-2) , not Lee. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2012/0148993 A1 to Woidschutzke (hereinafter Woidschutzke) in view of US Publication 2007/0037130 A1 and Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Concerning claim 1,
Woidschutzke discloses a dental model comprising: a tooth base portion (element 6) (0021, Figure 1);
an alveolar bone portion (element 31) configured to be removably attachable (element 28) to the tooth base portion and provided with a plurality of insertion holes (element 32) (0029-0033, Figure 1);
a gum portion (element 2) configured to be removably attachable to the alveolar bone portion and provided with a plurality of insertion through-holes (element 3) at positions overlapping with openings of the insertion holes when the gum portion is attached to the alveolar bone portion (0019-0020, Figure 1); and
a plurality of model teeth (element 4) configured to be removably attachable to the insertion holes through the insertion through-holes in a state where the gum portion is attached to the alveolar bone portion and, when inserted into the insertion holes, the plurality of model teeth have crown portions exposed through the insertion holes and root portions inserted into the insertion holes (0024-0028, Figure 1-2),
Woidschutzke does not disclose the plurality of insertion holes includes a bifurcated insertion hole bifurcated into a plurality of branch holes, and
the model teeth include a bifurcated model tooth including a root portion that is bifurcated into a plurality of branch root portions to be inserted into the branch holes.
Lee teaches the plurality of insertion holes includes a bifurcated insertion hole bifurcated into a plurality of branch holes (element 262) (0101, Figure 10, Figure 13), and
the model teeth include a bifurcated model tooth (element 250) including a root portion that is bifurcated into a plurality of branch root portions to be inserted into the branch holes (0101, Figure 10, Figure 13).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the bifurcated tooth characteristics shown in Lee with the dental model shown in Woidschutzke as both pertain to dental training models. Implementing the bifurcated tooth characteristics from Lee would improve the physiological fidelity of the dental model from Woidschutzke.
Concerning claim 4,
Woidschutzke discloses the alveolar bone portion has an alveolar bone side attachment surface to be removably attached to the tooth base portion, the alveolar bone side attachment surface being provided with an alveolar bone side step portion, and
the tooth base portion has a tooth base side attachment surface to which the alveolar bone portion is to be removably attached, the tooth base side attachment surface being provided with a tooth base side step portion in which the alveolar bone side step portion is to be fitted (0021, 0029, Figure 1-2, see explanation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
92
208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The figure above shows the tooth base portion, shown in white, and the alveolar bone portion, shown in gray. The alveolar bone side attachment and tooth base side attachment are observed to be attached. There is also a step observed in both portions, shown to be a 90-degree shape, that is fitted when both portions are attached.
Concerning claim 5,
Woidschutzke discloses a depth of each insertion hole of the alveolar bone portion corresponds to a length of the root portion to be inserted thereinto (0029-0033, Figure 1, Corresponds and/or corresponding is a broad term. As broadly stated, any depth of an insertion hole could satisfy the limitation), and
the alveolar bone side step portion is provided corresponding to the depth of the each insertion hole (0029-0033, Figure 1, Corresponds and/or corresponding is a broad term. As broadly stated, any characteristic of the alveolar bone side step portion could satisfy the limitation).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2012/0148993 A1 to Woidschutzke in view of US Publication 2007/0037130 A1 and Lee et al. and further in view of US Publication 2014/0045160 A1 to Higashimura et al. (hereinafter Higashimura).
Concerning claim 2,
Woidschutzke discloses at least one of the branch holes in at least one of the insertion holes is a through-hole (0029-0033, Figure 1),
Woidschutzke does not disclose at least one of the branch root portions of the bifurcated model tooth, to be inserted into the through-hole is provided with a screw hole which extends from a tip end to a crown portion side,
a screw insertion through-hole is provided in the tooth base portion at a position corresponding to the through-hole, and
a screw is screwable into the screw hole from a back of the tooth base portion through the screw insertion through-hole.
Lee teaches the bifurcated model tooth (0101, Figure 10, Figure 13).
Higashimura teaches at least one of the branch root portions of the model tooth (element 20), to be inserted into the through-hole is provided with a screw hole (element 24) which extends from a tip end to a crown portion side (0085-0088, 0093, Figure 2-4, For the purposes of examination, the screw hole is considered to be any size. The screw hole is claimed to extend from the tip end to the crown portion side. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this is not an inclusive statement. The limitation is interpreted to mean the crown portion is not included in the length of the screw hole),
a screw insertion through-hole (element 13) is provided in the tooth base portion (element 11) at a position corresponding to the through-hole (0085-0088, 0093, Figure 2-4), and
a screw (element 30) is screwable into the screw hole from a back of the tooth base portion through the screw insertion through-hole (0085-0088, 0093, Figure 2-4).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fastening and screw configuration of Higashimura and the bifurcated tooth characteristics shown in Lee with the dental model shown in Woidschutzke as all pertain to dental training models. Implementing the bifurcated tooth characteristics from Lee would improve the physiological fidelity of the dental model from Woidschutzke. Incorporating the fastening and screw configuration of Higashimura would improve the stability of the dental model shown in Woidschutzke.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2012/0148993 A1 to Woidschutzke in view of US Publication 2007/0037130 A1 and Lee et al. and further in view of US Publication 2023/0011825 A1 to Remplbauer et al. (hereinafter Remplbauer).
Concerning claim 6,
Woidschutzke does not disclose each model tooth is configured such that the crown portion and the root portion differ in color from each other.
Remplbauer teaches each model tooth is configured such that the crown portion and the root portion differ in color from each other (0090, 0093).
It would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the color partitioning described in Remplbauer with the dental model shown in Woidschutzke as both pertain to dental training models. Implementing the color partitioning described from Remplbauer would improve the feedback a student would get practicing on the dental model from Woidschutzke.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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 ISHAYU SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3179. The examiner can normally be reached Flex.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/I.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights