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 amendments filed 6/12/26.
All previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112, F is maintained herein (“positioning elements” now in claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/26 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.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the claim interpretation of the term “positioning elements” under 35 USC 112, F in claim 1, the Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive. Specifically, in claim 1, while a location and orientation of the positioning elements is described, there is no structure recited regarding the actual positioning elements (e.g. what they are). Such structure is not recited until claim 5, which recites that the positioning elements are pins. While the specification does make clear that the positioning elements correspond to the pins, and hence the term is not indefinite under 35 USC 112, B, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claims. Therefore, the term continues to be interpreted under 35 USC 112, F, and the Examiner suggests adding the term pins to claim 1 in order to remove the term from interpretation thereunder.
Regarding the prior art rejections in view of Sagolla, Applicant argues that Sagolla does not teach the limitations now listed in claim 1. First, regarding the term “oral backwall”, Applicant argues that the positioning elements of Sagolla are not positioned on an “oral backwall” as required. However, Applicant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s interpretation of the term as previously relied on and explained below. Additionally, the term is not limited by a special definition or other art accepted definition that would exclude the Examiner’s interpretation and require that which is argued. Specifically, the Examiner maintains that as the reception is located in a back of the mouth, the structure identified below can be interpreted as an oral backwall. Second, Applicant argues that the positioning elements are not “facing in the vestibular direction” as now required. However, the Examiner notes that the term is met by the Sagolla positioning elements in multiple ways. First, the positioning elements have a width, the direction of which faces the vestibular direction. Second, the positioning elements have a sidewall, which also faces the vestibular direction. Third, as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the positioning elements extend obliquely to the vertical direction, and as such, face the vestibular direction at least in part, at an angle thereto. Finally, the Examiner notes that positioning elements are facing in the vestibular direction as they are facing the vestibule of the jaw opposite to that which they are located (e.g. lower jaw positioning elements face the vestibule in the upper jaw). Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that such limitations are met by the prior art, and that further specification of the particular orientation and/or structure of the positioning elements is required to overcome the prior art of Sagolla. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments to the structure required by the claim language is not commensurate with the actual scope of the claims. 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 § 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, 5-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sagolla et al (US 2017/0367798 A1).
Regarding the above claims, Sagolla et al discloses a try-in denture base (1; see [0046]) comprising one or more receptions (2) for receiving basal sections of artificial teeth of a plurality of artificial teeth (4), a first reception (A, below) of the one or more receptions being configured to receive two or more basal sections of two or more artificial teeth of the plurality of artificial teeth, a reception volume provided by the first reception being larger than a combination of basal volumes of the two or more basal sections of the two or more artificial teeth to be received by the first reception (e.g. each tooth receiving area is larger than said tooth, see [0025], [0052]), the first reception forming a continuous open space configured to enable a relative movement of the two or more basal sections of the two or more artificial teeth within the first reception towards and away from each other (e.g. each tooth can be moved toward or away from each other; continuous open space formed between two areas of A as shown below; note: any continuous open space is not required to have the same depth across its entire expanse), the first reception comprising a plurality of first positioning elements (B) arranged at an oral backwall of the first reception (at C, wall is located in the back of the mouth and as such is interpreted as an oral backwall of the first reception) facing in the vestibular direction (any of a) the positioning elements have a width, the direction of which faces the vestibular direction; b) the positioning elements have a sidewall, which also faces the vestibular direction; c) as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the positioning elements extend obliquely to the vertical direction, and as such, face the vestibular direction at least in part, at an angle thereto; or d)positioning elements are facing in the vestibular direction as they are facing the vestibule of the jaw opposite to that which they are located (e.g. lower jaw positioning elements face the vestibule in the upper jaw)) and configured to position the two or more basal sections of the two or more artificial teeth at pre-defined positions within the first reception (see Figs and citations above).
Sagolla et al additionally discloses wherein the first positioning elements being provided in form of pins extending from the oral backwall (see below) of the first reception in vestibular direction (see explanation above; per claim 5); wherein the first positioning elements comprising pre-determined breaking sections (at D) configured to enable the adjusting of the positions of the two or more artificial teeth starting from the pre-defined positions by a breaking of the first positioning elements at the pre-determined breaking sections (e.g. elements can be broken by cutting, chiseling or scraping at junction D where they meet the denture base, or at any other point, thereby enabling additional adjustments of the positions, if so desired; capable of being used as such; per claim 6); wherein the try-in denture base further comprising in addition to the first reception, one or more second receptions (E) configured to receive single basal sections of single artificial teeth of the plurality of artificial teeth, the one or more second receptions comprising openings configured to receive the single basal sections with cross-sections matching cross-sections of the single basal sections to be received (the cross sections match the cross sections of the teeth as they “resemble [one] another in some respect” (see broadest reasonable interpretation of “match”, dictionary.com, meeting the limitations of the claims; per claim 7); wherein the try-in denture base comprising a plurality of first receptions configured to receive two or more basal sections of two or more artificial teeth of the plurality of artificial teeth (see reception F, which per claim 8 is interpreted as an additional first reception); wherein the try-in denture base comprising a single first reception configured to receive two or more basal sections of two or more artificial teeth of the plurality of artificial teeth (e.g. according to alternate interpretation where reception F is interpreted as a third or additional reception; the Examiner notes that claims do not exclude such alternative interpretation; per claim 9); and wherein the try-in denture base being made from plastic (see [0069], per claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Sagolla et al discloses a try-in denture assembly (see Figs. 1-3) comprising the try-in denture base of claim 1 (see above), the try-in denture assembly further comprising the plurality of artificial teeth (4). Sagolla et al further discloses wherein the artificial teeth of the plurality of teeth being arranged in the one or more receptions of the try-in denture base (see Figs. 2-3; per claim 17); and wherein the try-in denture base further comprising wax (8) being arranged in the first reception around the two or more basal sections of the two or more artificial teeth received by the first reception (see [0022] disclosing the use of a “wax type” material which would encompass wax or any suitable wax containing material, which read on the claimed “wax”; per claim 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagolla et al.
Regarding claim 2, Sagolla discloses that the reception volume is larger than the combination of basal volumes of the tow or more basal sections of the two or more teeth in the first reception (in order to allow the movement as described above), but does not explicitly disclose the volume being at least 10% and at most 30% larger as required. However, the Examiner notes that the instant range is a result effective variable dependent on the desired degree of customization desired vs the amount of work required to set up the teeth. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the instant range is described as merely preferable in the instant disclosure and lacks any specific criticality (see [0019]-[0020] of instant disclosure). 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 Sagolla to specifically include a reception volume at least 10% and at most 30% larger than the volume of the teeth, 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 (II)(A)).
Claim(s) 18 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagolla et al in view of Savic et al (US 2018/0042709 A1).
Regarding claim 18, in an alternative interpretation, Sagolla does not teach wherein the try-in denture base further comprising wax being arranged in the first reception around the two or more basal sections of the two or more artificial teeth received by the first reception as required.
However, Savic et al, however, teaches a similar denture base which may be formed alternatively of wax or plastic (see abstract). 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 Sagolla to include Savic’s use of wax for the base, as such modification would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2143). The Examiner notes that should the base of Sagolla be modified with Savic’s wax, as combined above, both the reception and the positioning elements (Sagolla) would be formed of the wax (Savic), and as such the wax would be arranged in (and around) the first reception and around the two or more basal sections of the teeth received therein.
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
Prosecution Insights