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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 section of Remarks”, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment of claim 1 to incorporate new claim limitations than previously presented thus, changing the scope of the claim.
Furthermore, the applicant argued that using the information disclosed in Anahita to convert the W2/W1 ratio of Ai is nothing other than improper hindsight reconstruction. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertions. Anahita is a peer-reviewed research journal that teaches the ratio of a buccolingual diameter to the mesiodistal distance of a natural tooth. Ai teaches an analogous device wherein the ratio of the buccolingual diameter (w2) to the mesiodistal distance (W1) falls in the range of 55 to 95% of that of a normal tooth (natural tooth). Thus, it would have been obvious that an ordinary artisan would rely on or sought peer-reviewed research journals to ascertain the dimensions of a natural tooth. Therefore, the reliance on the empirical data of Anahita to get the dimensions of a normal tooth relative to the disclosure of Ai is not an improper hindsight reconstruction but rather an obvious combination or approach.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “slop” in line 22 of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gysi (US 1281352 A) in view of Lang et al. (US 4445863 A), Gerber (US 4208794 A), Ai et al. (GB 2196856 A) and further in view of Anahita et al. (“Impact of Scoring Single or Multiple Occlusal Lesions on Estimates of Diagnostic Accuracy of the Visual ICDAS-II System”).
Gysi discloses a group of artificial teeth (Figs. 1-8), comprising an upper jaw (Fig. 1), and a lower jaw (Fig. 2) (see Figs. 3-5 for an illustration of the upper jaw and the lower jaw in occlusion), wherein
the upper jaw includes a first base (2 Fig. 1) and a first group of artificial teeth fixed to the first base (see Fig. 1),
the lower jaw includes a second base (3 Fig. 2) and a second group of artificial teeth fixed to the second base (see Fig. 2),
each of the artificial teeth is a premolar (6/6a/7/7a Figs. 1 and 2) or a molar (4/4a/5/5a Figs. 1 and 2);
the first group and the second group of artificial teeth includes at least a first molar (4/4a Figs. 1 and 2 );
a lingual cusp (8, 9, 10 and 11 Fig. 1), a buccal cusp (12 and 13 Fig. 1), and a pit (16 Fig. 1) between the lingual cusp and the buccal cusp (Col.3 lines 30 - 35) are formed on an occlusal surface (see attached Fig. 1) of each of the artificial teeth,
occlusal facets (see attached Fig. 1) are provided on a slope between the lingual cusp and the pit, and on a slope between the buccal cusp and the pit (see attached Fig. 1), respectively,
in a lateral occlusal position of the upper jaw and the lower jaw (Fig. 6), on a working side (see attached Fig. 6), the buccal cusps of the artificial teeth (see attached Fig. 6) of the upper jaw and the lower jaw come into contact with each other (see attached Fig. 6), and the lingual cusps of the upper jaw and the lower jaw come into contact with each other (see attached Fig. 6), to form a space between the pits of the artificial teeth of the upper jaw and the lower jaw (see attached Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
614
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
396
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gysi is silent regarding a group of artificial teeth wherein in a centric occlusal position of the upper jaw and the lower jaw, the buccal cusp of the artificial teeth of the lower jaw is arranged to enter the pit of the artificial teeth of the upper jaw, so that the occlusal facets of the artificial teeth of the lower jaw and the occlusal facets of the artificial teeth of the upper jaw come into contact with each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
408
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lang et al. teaches an artificial posterior denture wherein in a centric occlusal position of the upper jaw (14 Fig. 1) and the lower jaws (18 Fig. 1) (Figs. 1 and 3; Col. 3 lines 16 - 26), the buccal cusp of the artificial teeth (see Fig. 1) of the lower jaw is arranged to enter the pit of the artificial teeth (see Fig. 1) of the upper jaw, so that the occlusal facets of the artificial teeth of the lower jaw and the occlusal facets of the artificial teeth of the upper jaw come into contact with each other (see annotated Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial teeth disclosed by Gysi be configured, wherein in a centric occlusal position wherein the buccal cusp of the artificial teeth of the lower jaw is arranged in the pit of the artificial teeth of the upper jaw, so that the occlusal facets come into contact with each other as taught by Lang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to inhibit deflective occlusal contacts and promote continuously balanced occlusion as suggested by Lang et al.
Furthermore, Gysi is silent regarding a group of artificial teeth wherein an angle formed by the slope between the lingual cusp and the pit and the slope between the buccal cusp and the pit is different between the premolars and the molars, wherein the angle increases in the order of first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars when the group of artificial teeth is formed to be an artificial dentition as dentures.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gerber teaches an analogous device (Fig. 1; [abstract]) wherein an angle (see annotated Fig. 1) formed by the slope between the lingual cusp and the pit and the slop between the buccal cusp and the pit is different between the premolars and the molars, wherein the angle increases in the order of first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars when the group of artificial teeth is formed to be an artificial dentition as dentures (Col. 3 lines 1-15: see that the angle of inclination (10) reduces from the first premolar to the second molar; it is the examiner’s interpretation that the decrease of the angle of inclination (10) would result in the increase of the angle between the slope of the lingual cusp to the pit and the slope of the buccal cusp to the pit thus, as the angle of inclination (10) reduces from the first premolar to the second molar, the angle formed between the slopes of the lingual and the buccal cusps to the pit increases from the first premolar to the second molar, and said angles are different between the premolars and the molars).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the artificial teeth disclosed by Gysi be configured with wherein an angle formed by the slope between the lingual cusp and the pit and the slope between the buccal cusp and the pit is different between the premolars and the molars, wherein the angle increases in the order of first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars when the group of artificial teeth is formed to be an artificial dentition as dentures, as taught by Gerber, in order to create an artificial teeth with improved comminution effect that enhances chewing or mastication efficiency.
Furthermore, Gysi is silent regarding a group of artificial teeth wherein a buccolingual diameter D of the occlusal surface of each first molar is larger with respect to a mesiodistal distance E of the occlusal surface, and a ratio of the buccolingual diameter D to the mesiodistal distance E is no less than 0.69.
Ai et al. teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1-4), wherein a buccolingual diameter D (W2 Fig. 2; Col. lines 110-116: W2 is the buccolingual length) of the occlusal surface (1d Fig. 2) of each first molar (1 Fig. 2) is larger with respect to a mesiodistal distance E (W1 Fig. 2; Col. lines 110-116: W1 is the mesiodistal length) of the occlusal surface (1d Fig. 2), and a ratio of the buccolingual diameter D to the mesiodistal distance E is no less than 0.69 (Col. lines 110-116: the ratio of W2 to W1 falls in the range of 55 to 95% of that of a normal tooth. The ratio of a buccolingual diameter to the mesiodistal distance of a natural tooth is approximately 0.87, as taught by Anahita et al. (Fig. 1). Therefore, 55 to 95% of the ratio of the buccolingual diameter to the mesiodistal distance of a natural tooth would be 0.48-0.82 which discloses the claimed ratio. W2 is larger with respect to the W1 given that the ratio of W2 to W1 is less than 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gysi to be configured the buccolingual diameter of the occlusal surface of each first molar is larger with respect to a mesiodistal distance E of the occlusal surface, as taught by Ai et al. and Anahita et al., in order to make a dental device provided with a substantial center for proper mastication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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.
/C.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
