DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 were elected without traverse in the February 9, 2025 response. Claims 5-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
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 1-4 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.
As to claim 1, “according to a standard procedure in the software” renders the claim indefinite. First, the “standard procedure” and the particular software used are not stated or described in the specification. Second, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. How is one to determine whether the software includes a standard procedure or non-standard procedure in the software? Would Applicant permit potential infringers to practice the claimed process with software procedures that could be characterized as “non-standard”? It should also be noted that the claim would read substantially the same way if “according to a standard procedure in the software” were deleted.
S4 states “after the lining manufactured in S3 is cured”. There is no curable material in S3 and no step of curing in step S3. If the soft flowable material is curable and there is a step of curing, it should be recited as a part of S3 rather than requiring one to infer these features from subsequent step S4.
Other claims are rejected by dependence.
Examiner Comments
S24 refers to “a designed guide plate shell”. The Examiner understands this “designed” guide plate shell is the one resulting from S23, but the claim would be more clear if S23 actually stated that it produces a “designed guide plate shell”.
S3 injects a soft flowable material. The claim should recite that this injection occurs through the injection channel (see S23) since presumably that is the reason the injection channel was provided.
It is noted that the instant Inventors are affiliated with a university. It is recommended that Applicant’s counsel consider whether any additional conference presentations, dissertations, or other journal articles should be submitted on an Information Disclosure Statement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 is interpreted to require an actual physical wax pattern model since this claimed feature is formed by “manufacturing” and is different from the claimed “virtual wax pattern”.
Yu 2021 (CN213641303U) is the best available prior art. The original document with a translation of the Abstract is already of record, and a full machine translation is included with this action. Yu 2021 provides a guide plate (1) with an injection channel (3) for resin injection with an overflow hole (5), although providing a plurality of overflow holes distributed on a surface of the guide plate would have likely been obvious. Yu 2021 forms a digital wax pattern (Step B), digitally designs a guide plate (Step C), and subsequently 3D prints the guide plate (Step D). As best the Examiner understands the reference, the following differences exist between the instant claims and Yu 2021: (1) Yu 2021 does not provide a step of manufacturing a physical wax pattern model and virtual wax pattern as claimed in the instant application; (2) Yu 2021 does not appear to provide a termination point located at a tooth position in a “non-injection area” covered by the guide plate shell and a “bottom of the termination point” ending at a surface of a non-injection tooth position of the virtual wax pattern; (3) Yu 2021 does not appear to correct an edge of the guide plate shell to remove excess soft flowable (resin) material; (4) Yu 2021 does not appear to clean the soft flowable material in the injection channel on the guide plate shell. No other prior art was located that would show these features in a manner combinable with Yu 2021.
Yu 2019 (International Journal of Oral Science, Vol. 11, Issue 31 (2019), 11 pages) is also close prior art by at least one of the instant inventors. Yu 2019 3d prints a TRS guide plate that seems similar to the claimed guide plate shell. On page 5, Yu 2019 describes a digital esthetic diagnostic wax model, but it does not appear that Yu 2019 manufactures an actual physical wax pattern model. Yu 2019 teaches a guide plate shell (Fig. 5d) with holes that could be considered overflow holes, but does not appear to teach the reserving a gap and providing an injection channel in the guide plate shell. Additionally, while curing is mentioned on page 8, there does not appear to be any disclosure of correcting an edge of the guide plate shell to remove excess soft flowable material after the lining is cured or cleaning the soft flowable material in the injection channel on the guide plate shell.
Gao (J. Esthet. Restor. Dent., vol. 32 (2020), pp. 763-769) is another article by at least one of the instant inventors. Gao provides a stereolithographic template for tooth preparation used with a virtual diagnostic wax up, but does not have any step of injecting a material (soft or otherwise) into an inner side of a rigid guide plate shell. The template in Gao appears to be intended as a template for drilling (see Fig. 6) and is not as pertinent as .
Tucker (EP 1029514) is representative of the state of the art in impression trays generally existing at the time of the invention. Tucker provides a dental impression tray with holes (27) which permit mechanical interlock with the impression material (see Fig. 5), and is similar in some ways to the claimed guide plate shell. However, there is no injection of a soft material or any 3D design software aspects as claimed. Since the Tucker tray is for establishing an impression, there is no reason to manufacture a rigid guide plate shell from a virtual wax pattern since the Tucker tray would be used to establishing a wax pattern. Clark (US 2,727,307), Mayo (US 6,302,689), and Darnell (US 20110129787) represent other examples of the state of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742