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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 7/2/2026, wherein claims 1 and 15 were amended and claim 16 was added. Claim 15 remains withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanco (US 5,839,575) in view of Tabuchi et al. (US 5,330,053).
Regarding claim 1, Blanco discloses a receptacle (at 10 in Fig. 2) capable of holding a dental blank, comprising: a recess (recess at 26 in Fig. 2) capable of inserting the blank; and two flexible projecting clamping lugs (See “First lugs” labeled in Fig. 2 below – the lugs project from the side of the recess and are inherently flexible to a degree due to the PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene material they are made from – See column 3, lines 52-55) arranged on one side of the recess and two flexible projecting clamping lugs (See “Second lugs” labeled in Fig. 2 below – the lugs project from the side of the recess and are inherently flexible to a degree due to the PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene material they are made from – See column 3, lines 52-55) arranged on an opposite side of the recess, wherein the four flexible projecting clamping lugs protrude into the recess (as shown in Fig. 2) so as to abut sides of a blank for clamping a blank solely laterally (the recess is capable of holding a blank therein, wherein the blank is just wider than the space between elements 32A/B and 32C/D in Fig. 3, which would result in the four lugs clamping the blank solely in the lateral direction); wherein the recess comprises a portion (e.g. top-right corner of recess 26 in Fig. 2) capable of inserting a retaining portion of a blank; and wherein the four clamping lugs are located in an area where a dental blank has a block-shaped body (depending on the specific type/shape/size of dental blank inserted therein); and the recess is formed in one plane of the receptacle and a bottom (bottom-most wall in Fig. 3) is formed in another plane of the receptacle.
PNG
media_image1.png
812
1196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blanco discloses the claimed invention except for the intermediate layer located between the two planes. However, Tabuchi teaches a receptacle (at 1 – See Figs. 1-2) comprising a recess (cavity in 1 that accommodates object 10/11), wherein the recess is provided with an intermediate layer (at 41 in Fig. 2) between the recess and a bottom wall of the receptacle, for the purpose of protecting the objects stored therein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the receptacle of Blanco with an intermediate layer on top of the bottom as taught by Tabuchi in order to better protect the contents from damage.
Regarding claim 5, Blanco discloses the recess has a rectangular cross-section (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Blanco discloses the recess comprises a resilient bottom (the bottom of 26 is inherently resilient to a degree due to the PVC, polypropylene or polyethylene material it is made from – See column 3, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 7, Blanco discloses the receptacle comprises a removable lid (See Fig. 2 labeled above, wherein the lid is considered removable since the open position as shown in Figs. 2-3 can be considered the removed position since the lid is removed from atop the remaining portion of the receptacle).
Regarding claim 8, Blanco discloses the clamping lugs are formed by rounded projections (See Fig. 3 at 32A,B and 32C,D).
Regarding claim 16, Blanco-Tabuchi discloses the intermediate layer forms a support surface capable of supporting the dental blank.
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanco (US 5,839,575) in view of Tabuchi et al. (US 5,330,053) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Adair et al. (US 2011/0132797). As described above, Blanco-Tabuchi discloses the claimed invention except for the specific material of the receptacle. However, Adair teaches it is well known in the art for a receptacle (at 101 in Fig. 3) comprising recesses (at 103) for holding items to be formed from plastic material or cardboard material ([0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the receptacle of Blanco-Tabuchi to be formed from a suitable packaging material such as cardboard in order to form the device from a recycled material. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further regarding claims 13-14, the clamping lugs and bottom of Blanco will be formed from cardboard material since the entire receptacle is formed from a cardboard material, as taught by Adair.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanco (US 5,839,575) in view of Tabuchi et al. (US 5,330,053) and Adair et al. (US 2011/0132797) as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Stumpff et al. (US 5,267,647). As described above, Blanco-Tabuchi-Adair discloses the recess portion being formed integrally with the receptacle. Blanco-Adair does not disclose the recess portion being insertable into the receptacle. However, Stumpff teaches a receptacle (at 32/52 in Fig. 1) comprising a recess portion (at 24 in Fig. 1) for containing an item (at 13) therein, wherein the recess portion is insertable into and removable from the receptacle, having spacer portions (at 86/88), for the purpose of allowing promotional material to be placed under the recess portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recess portion of Blanco-Tabuchi-Adair to be insertable/removable from the receptacle as taught by Stumpff in order to allow for the items to be placed between the recess portion and the receptacle, if desired. Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPO 177, 179.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights