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 Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant argued that D1 (WO 2020178195) reference do not teach milling body including circumferential wall being annular. The Examiner notes that the applied n reference, Kim et al. (KR 102011599 B1, the Examiner uses the translation provided by the Applicant’s IDS) teach a milling body for producing a dental molding (“jig device which can be used to manufacture an intraoral device” see abstract), the cavity having a bottom and, starting from the edge of the bottom, the cavity being laterally delimited by a circumferential wall (110-wall; [0039]-[0062]), the circumferential wall being annular (Fig.1, item 110-annular), and the first material forming the bottom and the solid body (120-base portion) extending as far as a lower side of the milling body, which lower side is arranged to be opposite the upper side of the milling body. Since Kim et al. teach the common technical feature, as written above, therefore, this common technical feature cannot be specifical technical feature, and therefore there is no unity in the claimed invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2 -11 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.
Regarding claim 2 the phrase "preferably of at most 10 mm" “preferable at least 15 mm high” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3 the phrase "the marker preferably comprising" “particularly preferably a length scale for” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4 the phrase "preferably being tubular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5 the phrase "preferably consisting of the first material and the tube piece” “the circumferential wall preferably being formed in one piece” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6 the phrase " the first plastics material preferably being finally cured, and/or the first material is a layered first plastics material having a plurality of layers of different colors” “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7 the phrase " a CAM device preferably being arranged on the outer side of the cylindrical outer circumference, the holder particularly preferably being a protruding ring extending circumferentially around the cylindrical outer circumference” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8 the phrase "the at least one position marker preferably being arranged in the region of at least one edge of the milling body which is visible from the direction of the upper side and/or the lower side of the milling body, at least two position markers particularly preferably being provided which are visible both from the upper side and from the lower side of the milling body” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 102011599 B1, the Examiner uses the translation provided by the Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches: a milling body for producing a dental molding (“jig device which can be used to manufacture an intraoral device” see abstract), the milling body comprising a solid body made of a first material, the first material being biocompatible (see Figs 1-4 item 100 – jig device; [0012]-[0062]; the device is biocompatible as it is similarly used to process plastic material as in applicant’s instant specification, [0040]-[0042]), wherein a cavity (111; “forming space”) for receiving a fluid polymerizable plastics material is arranged on an upper side of the milling body ([0039]-[0062]), the cavity having a bottom and, starting from the edge of the bottom, the cavity being laterally delimited by a circumferential wall (110-wall; [0039]-[0062]),
the circumferential wall being annular (Fig.1, item 110-annular), and the first material forming the bottom and the solid body (120-base portion) extending as far as a lower side of the milling body, which lower side is arranged to be opposite the upper side of the milling body.
As for claim 4, Kim further discloses wherein the bottom of the cavity is flat and/or the circumferential wall has a cylindrical surface toward the interior of the cavity, the circumferential wall preferably being tubular (see [0041], page 10, lines 397-408).
As for claim 5, Kim further discloses wherein the circumferential wall of the milling body is formed by a tube piece or an annular body which is fixed to the solid body (Figs 1, item 110), the milling body preferably consisting of the first material and the tube piece or the annular body (Fig 1), or the circumferential wall of the milling body consists of the first material, the solid body and the circumferential wall preferably being formed in one piece, such that the milling body consists of the first material (Fig, 1 item 110).
As for claim 7, Kim further discloses wherein the milling body is a blank having a cylindrical outer circumference, the circumferential wall (110) forming a part section of the cylindrical outer circumference, a holder (140) for fixing the blank to a CAM device preferably being arranged on the outer side of the cylindrical outer circumference, the holder particularly preferably being a protruding ring extending circumferentially around the cylindrical outer circumference (Fig 1 item 140-gripping part; [0044], page 11 lines 447 – 466).
As for claim 8, Kim further discloses wherein the milling body comprises at least one position marker on a surface outside the cavity ([0052] discloses including a mark on the inner or outer surface of the jig device), which position marker is visible from the outside and allows the location and orientation of the milling body in the CAM device to be determined ([0052]. It is noted that limitation pertaining to “ the at least one position marker preferably being arranged in the region of at least one edge of the milling body which is visible from the direction of the upper side and/or the lower side of the milling body, at least two position markers particularly preferably being provided which are visible both from the upper side and from the lower side of the milling body” is not required as part of the claim as applicant uses “preferable” or “and/or limitation.
As for claim 9, Kim further discloses wherein the volume of the material of the circumferential wall is at most half as large as the volume of the cavity (Fig. 1 shows the circumferential wall is on the peripheral edge, thus the volume of the material of the circumferential wall is at most half as large as the volume of the cavity). It is noted that limitation pertaining to the volume of the material of the circumferential wall is preferably at most a third as large as the volume of the cavity, the volume of the material of the circumferential wall is particularly preferably at most a fifth as large as the volume of the cavity” appears to be optional language and are not required as part of the claim and is similarly rejected.
As for claim 10, Kim further discloses wherein the solid body comprises a circumferential shoulder (Fig 1; [0050]-[0051]), onto which the circumferential wall (110) is placed, such that the circumferential wall fits flush with the solid body by an inner side, the circumferential wall preferably being bonded to the solid body circumferentially and over its entire surface (Fig 1).
As for claim 11, Kim further discloses at least one fluid polymerizable plastics material and/or parent components for producing at least one fluid polymerizable plastics material, wherein the set preferably additionally comprises a device for introducing the at least one fluid polymerizable plastics material and/or for producing and mixing the at least one fluid polymerizable plastics material ([0052]-0055] discloses filling plastic material, thus for such filling at least a device is used).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 102011599 B1, the Examiner uses the translation provided by the Applicant’s IDS) in further view of Sun et al. (US 2018/0055611 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach specifically wherein the first material is a first plastics material, the first plastics material preferably being finally cured, and/or the first material is a layered first plastics material having a plurality of layers of different colors, with layer planes of the layers preferably being arranged in parallel with the bottom of the cavity or being arranged in parallel with a plane that is arranged to be perpendicular to the circumferential wall, in particular in parallel with a base surface of a cylindrical inner wall of the circumferential wall.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to dental milling blank, Sun et al. teach method of buildings multiple layers (two layers or more) of millable dental blocks or disks for milling of various dental devices, specifically denture base blocks or disks of denture base material, where milled teeth cavities to receive artificial denture tooth materials to form final dental devices, such as partial and full dentures (see abstract; [0002]-[0003]). Sun further discloses the cured multilayered (three-layered) disk having a first colored top layer, a second colored middle layer, and a third colored bottom layer, the flexural strength of the top layer being higher than the flexural strength of the middle layer and the flexural strength of the middle layer being higher than the flexural strength of the bottom layer (see [0061]-[0062], Fig. 3 -4).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to have modified that solid block as taught by Kim et al. with having multicolored structured, made of plastic, with plurality of colored layer structured dental base, as taught by Sun et al. for the benefit of using for efficiently producing intraoral structure (see [0003] of Sun et al.).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 102011599 B1, the Examiner uses the translation provided by the Applicant’s IDS).
As for claim 2, Kim fails to explicitly teach thickness of the circumferential wall as being at least 5 mm, or 10 mm, or 20 mm as claimed, however, further suggest optimizing the thickness of the base with respect to thickness of the circumferential wall (see [0041], [0044] – discloses wide wall portion can be formed to a have a thickness equal to that of the base portion (120) added to the length of 2a), therefore, based on the structure being formed, it would have been obvious to scale the wall to desired thickness, thereby efficiently producing a intraoral device. Additionally see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As for claim 3, Kim teaches a marker arranged on at least one inner side of the circumferential wall delimiting the cavity (see [0052]) which indicates direction of the jig device at a predetermined position of the side wall, however, the position of the marker is not limited and provide visual information to the user regarding position (see [0053]). However, though Kim fails to teach marker indicating fill level, it would have been within the level of one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to further use the marker (scale) within the cavity on the surface of the wall to indicate fill level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,206,764 B2 – system and method for manufacturing layered dentures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights