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 .
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 1-2 and 4-7 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 1, the claim is indefinite for several reasons. First, the preamble of the claim is indefinite; as best understood the claim is directed to a system of splints, used to form veneers directly on the teeth of a patient. However, it is unclear that the claim is directed to a system, instead reciting “splints”. Further, the claim then recites the term “which are designed”, which is unclear as to what the term refers to, the splints or the veneers. Further, the term “performed by injection molding” is similarly indefinite as it is unclear what term the language refers too. The term “through holes” is indefinite as it is unclear if the term is intended to be positively recited or merely recited functionally as currently written. As best understood the term is a structural limitation of the splints. Next, the term “dried” is indefinite as it is unclear how a photocurable material is dried. As best understood the term should read “cured”. The term “made for each patient and arch is indefinite as it is unclear if two splints are made per patient, or for each arch. As best understood two splints are made per arch, per patient. The term “a void” is indefinite and appears to be a translated term; as best understood the term should read “vacuum”. Additionally, it is unclear how the fluid resin is injected into the first splint and second splint if the injection holes are not positively recited as part of the splints. Clarification is required.
Finally, the Examiner notes the claim is generally narrative in form and it is unclear specifically what the splints comprise (see examples above). The claim is generally unclear as to the specific structure required for each of the splints. The claims appear to be a translation and do not conform with current US form. In order to move the application forward, the Examiner suggests amendment or rewriting the claims to match US claim form (see attached US references as examples). For example, as best understood the claim is directed to a splint system, comprising a first splint and a second splint, the first splint having a plurality of tooth receiving areas, a first plurality of the areas corresponding to a desired configuration of alternate teeth, and a second plurality of the areas corresponding to plurality of remaining teeth that are not repaired with the first splint, the second plurality of areas defining a series of outwardly bulging windows, or the like. Similar language may be used to describe the second splint, and additional function language may be added or included using “wherein” clauses. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-7, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as explained above; specifically the narrative form of the claim, which makes the specific structure and/or functional limitations difficult to distinguish.
Additionally in claim 2, the term “the design of the dentition” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear whether “the design” corresponds to the recited “desired configuration”. Still further, the term “ejection” is indefinite as it is unclear; as best understood the term should read “removal”, as no ejection mechanism is described.
Regarding claim 5, the term “the injection holes” lack antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear whether or not the term refers back to the previously recited “holes” or another structure. Additionally, the term “are made digitally at the time of printing” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the holes are physical or digital structures. As best understood the holes are digitally planned, and formed during the time of printing and will be interpreted as such. The term “with a thickness of needles of composite syringes to increase control over a favorable location point for the injection of the fluid composite resin for the first splint and the second splint, and to avoid over injection which results in consequent loss of material and excess thickness of the teeth” is indefinite for several reasons. First, it is unclear what the term describes; as best understood the holes are designed and formed based on a thickness of a needle used with the splint, however it is unclear how control is increased over a favorable location point. Additionally, the term “favorable” is indefinite as it is unclear what would or would not be considered “favorable”. Finally, it is unclear what “excess thickness of the teeth: corresponds too; it is unclear if the thickness refers to the restored teeth of the first splint, the teeth in or formed by the second splint, or the material thereof. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the term “during the 3D printing process” is indefinite as it is unclear whether the term refers to a physical or digital structure, and/or if the term is intended to recite a product by process limitation or a structure of the splints. As best understood by the Examiner, the splints comprise patient identification which is formed by or during the 3D printing process, or the like. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either alone or in proper combination, fails to teach a splint system, for forming an injected veneer on an arch of a patient, the splint system comprising a first splint having a mold surface depicting a desired configuration of alternating teeth, and a mold surface correspond to remaining teeth which are not repaired with the first splint, the mold surface corresponding to the remaining teeth defining a series of outwardly bulging windows that form air retaining spaces, that allow the vacuum between the teeth and the first splint to be broken, and a second splint, having a mold surface that depicts a final desired configuration of all teeth of the arch, including the alternate and remaining teeth, and the second splint having a series of outwardly bulging windows as required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights