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 .
This Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s argument and amendment received on 08/14/2026, in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 05/14/2026.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 27-30, and 34-37 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).
Regarding claim 1-2 and 27, 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. However, Kim fails to teach the circumferential wall being at least 5 mm high or at least 15 mm high; or wall thickness of at most 5mm. It is noted that since Kim 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 claims 3 and 28, 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.
As for claims 4 and 29, 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 is tubular (see [0041], page 10, lines 397-408; Fig. 1).
As for claims 5 and 30, 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), or the circumferential wall of 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 (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].
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).
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 (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.
As for claims 34-37, recites wherein the volume of the material of the circumferential wall is at most a third as large as the volume of the cavity; wherein the volume of the material of the circumferential wall is at most a fifth as large as the volume of the cavity; wherein the circumferential wall is bonded to the solid body circumferentially and over its entire surface; wherein the set 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 plastic material. The Examiner notes that claim pertaining to use of the device is given little weight as such material that is poured can change depending on the type or size of the article being formed within. Furthermore, a filling device as claimed for introducing material (plastic) would have been obvious subject matter and would have been within the level of one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 31 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) in further view of Sun et al. (US 2018/0055611 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 31, 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.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 32-33 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive: the closest prior art Kim et al. (KR 102011599, herein after “Kim”), Kim relates to jig in which a porous resin may be filled to produce a milling block. A compensation part 130 is used to manufacture a milling block having high accuracy for the size to be manufactured by compensating for errors caused by the volume shrinkage after polymerization of the resin filled during the milling block manufacturing (abstract of Kim), and Fig. 2 and related disclosure in Kim relates to the hardened resin 160 and might be used as milling block, whereas the jig according to Fig. 1 of Kim is not used as a milling block but as a jig to produce the milling block.
Examiner’s response: Claim 1 recites a “milling body” for producing a dental molding, and broadly the “jig” as the milling body can be used to produce dental molding as claimed. Kim teaches [0001] the invention relates to a jig device that can be used to manufacture a dental workpiece, and more particularly, to a jig device that can be used to manufacture a milling block used to manufacture an oral device or a dental prosthesis made of a resin material. Thus, the “jig” as provided in Kim includes all the structural elements, that includes a cavity for receiving a fluid polymerizable. Therefore, remaining arguments pertaining to Kim for claim 1 are not persuasive and therefore, rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0248493 A1; US 2022/0401194 A1; US 2022/0218450 A1; US 11,311, 358 B1; US 2018/0153663 A1; US 2018/0140387 A1; US 2018/0132986 A1.
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 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