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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, filed 06/24/26.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claim, filed 06/24/26. However, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been maintained.
With respect to claim 4, Applicant argues that the model calculus includes large model calculi 13B and small model calculi 13S, and this configuration is shown in at least Fig. 3 (Remarks, filed 06/24/26, p. 4). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fig. 3 depicts a “model calculus group 40” which is an aggregate of the model calculi 13 (including 13B (large model calculi) and 13C (depicted as small model calculi) (Specification, [0028]; see further Specification, [0036], “the model calculi 13 form the model calculus groups 40 each of which is an aggregate of the plurality of model calculi”). The Specification further discloses wherein the large model calculus 13B illustrated in Fig. 4, and small model calculi 13Sa and 13Sb illustrated in Figs. 5A-5B, respectively, are separate components that in combination form the model “calculi” 13 (Specification, Figs. 4-5B; [0023], “FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating a large model calculus”; [0024], “FIGS. 5A and 5B are diagrams illustrating small model calculi 13S[.] The small model calculi 13S include a small model calculus 13Sa illustrated in FIG. 5A and a small model calculus 13Sb illustrated in FIG. 5B.”; [0027], “the small model calculus 13Sb, which is one of the model calculi 13”.
Accordingly, claim 4 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as presented below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that if the tooth model of Iwaki were modified to include a “large model calculus … having a boundary width (W2) satisfying W2 < W1, the boundary width (W2) being a width at a boundary with the side surface of the model tooth body and in a same direction as a direction of the maximum width (W1)” as in claim 1, the protrusion would get caught in the miniature dent of the molding die at the time of extraction, making it impossible to extract the tooth model of Iwaki from the molding die (Remarks, filed 06/24/26, p. 5). Applicant therefore argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not have achieved the configuration of claim 1 of the present application based on the disclosure of Iwaki (Remarks, filed 06/24/26, p. 6). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Iwaki discloses wherein the size of the raised portion/protrusion (calculus) is not particularly limited (p. 4, ln. 5-11), and rather where the size should mimic the feeling of removal similar to the removal of an actual calculus (p. 4, ln. 12-21). Iwaki further discloses wherein the mold is an “elastically deformable molding” that is made of elastic material (p. 6, ln. 5-10; see further Iwaki, p. 6, ln. 15-23, disclosing elastically deforming the forming die 50 to remove the model including the protrusion). Accordingly, the argued issue above is moot/non-existent. It is further noted that the discussed advantage in Iwaki of the protrusion 13 avoiding getting caught in the small dent 531 is due to the shape (i.e., a partial shape of an arc or an elliptical arc (rounded edge) having no acute angle in a cross section perpendicular to the tooth axis), as opposed to the size (Iwaki, p. 5, ln. 23-29).
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as presented below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “13C”, “13Ca”, and “13Cb” (see Fig. 3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a/the plurality of model calculi” recited in claim 5, ln. 2-3 & 4 and claim 6, ln. 2” should likely read “
“the model calculus” recited in claim 7, ln. 2 should likely read “the large model calculus” for clarity purposes and to avoid claim ambiguity (see Specification, [0040]).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites in part “wherein the model calculus includes a small model calculus”. However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites wherein the model calculus includes a large model calculus. Accordingly, it is indefinite as to whether the model calculus, a singular deposit, is a large model calculus or a small model calculus.
A suggested amendment to the claims to overcome the above rejection is as follows:
Claim 1: “A tooth model comprising: a model tooth body; and [[a ]]model calculi provided on the side surface of the model tooth body, wherein the model calculi include[[s]] […]”.
Claim 4: “The tooth model according to claim 1, wherein the model calculi include[[s]] […]”.
Claim 5: “The tooth model according to claim 1, wherein the
Claim 6: “The tooth model according to claim 5, further comprising: another aggregate of
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki et al. (WO2012077780 A1) (hereinafter “Iwaki”) in view of Hauptman (U.S. Pub. 2023/0081497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwaki discloses a tooth model (Figs. 1-2; p. 2, ln. 10-13 & 23-25; p. 3, ln. 25-32) comprising:
a model tooth body (Figs. 1-2; p. 3, ln. 29-32, tooth model 10); and
a model calculus provided on the side surface of the model tooth body (Fig. 2; p. 3, ln. 33-p. 4, ln. 2, raised portion 13 corresponding to a dental calculus).
Iwaki may not further explicitly disclose wherein the model calculus includes a large model calculus having a maximum width (W1) satisfying 0.7 mm ≤ W1 ≤ 1.5 mm in a planar view seen from a side of the side surface, and having a boundary width (W2) satisfying W2 < W1, the boundary width (W2) being a width at a boundary with the side surface of the model tooth body and in a same direction as a direction of the maximum width (W1). However, Iwaki further discloses wherein the size of the raised portion (calculus) is not particularly limited (p. 4, ln. 5-11), but rather wherein the size should mimic the feeling of removal similar to the removal of an actual calculus (p. 4, ln. 12-21). Additionally, Iwaki discloses wherein the calculus may be a sphere (p. 4, ln. 5-11). Examiner takes official notice that a sphere generally has a smaller boundary width than maximum width. Moreover, Hauptman teaches wherein calculus width may be of a larger size than that disclosed in Iwaki, such as 1.5 mm ([0214]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a calculus having a maximum width (W1) satisfying 0.7 mm ≤ W1 ≤ 1.5 mm in a planar view seen from a side of the side surface, and having a boundary width (W2) satisfying W2 < W1, the boundary width (W2) being a width at a boundary with the side surface of the model tooth body and in a same direction as a direction of the maximum width (W1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Iwaki further discloses wherein the large model calculus has a spherical segment shape (Figs. 2-5; p. 4, ln. 5-11).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected for similar reasoning as presented in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Iwaki further discloses wherein the model calculus includes a small model calculus having a maximum width (W1) satisfying 0.3 mm ≤ W1 ≤ 0.7 mm (p. 4, ln. 12-30). Additionally, Iwaki discloses wherein the calculus may be a sphere (p. 4, ln. 5-11). Examiner takes official notice that a sphere generally has a smaller boundary width than maximum width. Accordingly, while Iwaki may not explicitly disclose wherein the small model calculus has a boundary width (W2) satisfying W2 ≤ W1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the small calculus to have a boundary width (W2) satisfying W2 ≤ W1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Iwaki further discloses wherein in a case where the model calculus has a thin and long shape, the maximum width (W1) is a maximum width in a minor axis direction (Fig. 3; p. 4, ln. 5-11; p. 5, ln. 3-22).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwaki in view of Hauptman, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Choi, S.H., et al. “Cone-beam computed tomography for the assessment of root-crown ratios of the maxillary and mandibular incisors in a Korean population”, The Korean Journal of Orthodontics, pp. 39-49 (June 10, 2016) (hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 5, Iwaki further discloses wherein the model calculus provided on the side surface of the model tooth body comprises a plurality of calculi, and the plurality of model calculi form an aggregate of the plurality of model calculi (Fig. 2; p. 4, ln. 5-11, wherein the number of raised portions may be plural, and wherein the raised portions may be present in multiple portions of the tooth body (e.g., in the crown portion and root portion)). Iwaki may not further explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of model calculi form an aggregate of the plurality of model calculi arranged at intervals of equal to or less than 0.5 mm from each other. However, Iwaki further discloses wherein a plurality of raised portions may be present in only the crown portion or the root portion (Fig. 2; p. 4, ln. 5-11), and wherein the raised portions may be of a size in plan view of 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm (p. 4, ln. 12-21; see further Fig. 2, depicting a spacing between raised portions 13 appearing to be approximate in size and/or greater than the width of the raised portions). Moreover, Choi teaches wherein the root length may vary from approximately 11.0 mm to 12.2 mm, and crown length may vary from approximately 8.5 mm to 10.9 mm (p. 42, Table 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the plurality of model calculi to be arranged at intervals of equal to or less than 0.5 mm from each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Iwaki further discloses wherein the model calculus provided on the side surface of the model tooth body comprises a plurality of calculi, and the plurality of model calculi form an aggregate of the plurality of model calculi, as previously noted above in claim 5 (Fig. 2; p. 4, ln. 5-11, wherein the number of raised portions may be plural, and wherein the raised portions may be present in multiple portions of the tooth body (e.g., in the crown portion 11 and root portion 12)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that an aggregate of a plurality of model calculi may be located in the crown portion, while another aggregate of a plurality of model calculi may be located in the root portion, for example. Iwaki may not further explicitly disclose wherein an interval between the aggregates is equal to or greater than 1 mm. However, Choi teaches wherein the root length may vary from approximately 11.0 mm to 12.2 mm, and crown length may vary from approximately 8.5 mm to 10.9 mm (p. 42, Table 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the interval between the aggregates (i.e., the aggregate in the crown (upper) portion of the tooth and the another aggregate in the root (lower) portion of the tooth) to be equal to or greater than 1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol, can be reached at (571)272-4430. 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.
/ALYSSA N BIANCAMANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights