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 Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a ratio represented by W2/W1 is 0.9 to 1.22 where W1 is a width of a lingual cusp of one of the artificial teeth, the one corresponding to a first molar tooth on the upper jaw side, and W2 is a width of a pit of one of the artificial teeth in a buccolingual direction, the one corresponding to a first molar tooth on the lower jaw side, and a ratio represented by Sk/Sj is 0.85 to 0.95 where, when the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side is viewed from an occlusal surface, Sj is an area surrounded by ridges of buccal and lingual edges that pass buccal and lingual cusp tips, and mesial and distal marginal ridges in the occlusal surface, and Sk is an area surrounded by an edge of the pit in the occlusal surface” in lines 10-18.
Claim 2 recites “Θ2- Θ1 is 15o to 32o where Θ1 is an angle formed by the lingual cusp of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the upper jaw side, and Θ2 is an angle formed by inclination of the pit of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side” in lines 2-5.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 2 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 2 recites “Θ2 - Θ1 is 15° to 32o where Θ1 is an angle formed by the lingual cusp of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the upper jaw side, and Θ2 is an angle formed by inclination of the pit of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side” in lines 2-5 wherein it is unclear if “Θ2 - Θ1” refers to an angle range where the Θ2 refers to the lower bound of the range and Θ1 refers to the upper bound and that Θ1 is larger than Θ2 OR if it refers to when subtracting the two angles, it results in the ranged angle. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as an angle range where the Θ2 refers to the lower bound of the range and Θ1 refers to the upper bound and that Θ1 is larger than Θ2.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavicek (US 20170312061 A1) in view of Satoh (US 8403669 B2) and Shima (JP 2003135489 A, see machine translated version).
Re. Claim 1, Slavicek teaches a group of artificial teeth having plural artificial teeth on each of upper and lower jaw sides, the upper and lower jaw sides being in an occlusal style based on a lingualized occlusion (Abstract; and 46; Fig. 1-5), wherein
in artificial teeth belonging to posterior teeth parts among the plural artificial teeth on the upper and lower jaw sides (Abstract; Par. 46),
buccal convexity of artificial teeth on the upper jaw side is in a form of convexity suitable in the lingualized occlusion (Abstract; Par. 22-25 and 46), and
in a centric occlusal position, a lingual cusp of each of the artificial teeth on the upper jaw side is fit in a central fossa of each of artificial teeth on the lower jaw side (Par. 46, 55-56, and 74; Abstract).
However, Slavicek is silent to a ratio represented by W2/W1 is 0.9 to 1.22 where W1 is a width of a lingual cusp of one of the artificial teeth, the one corresponding to a first molar tooth on the upper jaw side, and W2 is a width of a pit of one of the artificial teeth in a buccolingual direction, the one corresponding to a first molar tooth on the lower jaw side, and a ratio represented by Sk/Sj is 0.85 to 0.95 where, when the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side is viewed from an occlusal surface, Sj is an area surrounded by ridges of buccal and lingual edges that pass buccal and lingual cusp tips, and mesial and distal marginal ridges in the occlusal surface, and Sk is an area surrounded by an edge of the pit in the occlusal surface.
Satoh discloses an artificial tooth for posterior teeth in the same field of endeavor and further discloses in artificial teeth belonging to posterior teeth parts among the plural artificial teeth on the upper and lower jaw sides (Col. 2, lines 27-32; Fig. 10-12). Further, discloses a buccal convexity of artificial teeth on the upper jaw side in a form of convexity suitable for an occlusion adjustment (Col. 4, lines 38-44; Fig. 10a-10d), in a centric occlusal position, a lingual cusp of each of the artificial teeth on the upper jaw side is fit in a central fossa of each artificial teeth on the lower jaw side (Element 74a is the central fossa; Col. 8, lines 53-54; Fig. 12), a ratio represented by a width of a lingual cusp of one of the artificial teeth, the one corresponding to a first molar tooth on the upper jaw side and a width of a pit of one of artificial teeth in a buccolingual direction, the one corresponding to a first molar tooth on the lower jaw side (Fig. 12; Col. 18, lines 56-61 discloses that the width of the lingual cusp tip is found to be 22 to 32 found from the ratio provided between the distance of X axis from the mesial lingual cusp tip to maximum position of the mesial surface of the tooth. Col. 16, lines 7-13 discloses the width of the pit in a buccolingual direction to be 45 to 55 provided by the ratio between it and the x coordinate value of the tooth.) The ratio for W2/W1 can as such be determined by effective variable results through making various combinations of the widths provided by the ranges.
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art to have the ratio W2/W1 of Slavicek to be 0.9 to 1.22 as taught by Satoh a result effective variable as the ratio can be changed for a specific ratio best suited for each user.
Shima teaches an artificial teeth system in the same field of endeavor and further discloses an mesial fossa (5c), a mesial central fossa (5d), a distal central fossa (5e), and a distal fossa (5b; Par. 22; Fig. 8) found on the surface of a molded metal part (3; Par. 20-22; Fig. 3, 5 and 8). Further, the molded metal part is formed for the total area of the occlusion surface with all of the fossa to be at least 50% (Par. 20; Fig. 8). It is found that Shima anticipates the ratio to be 0.85 to 0.95 as Shima discloses the total area to be at least 50% for all fossa. As such, one can create the claimed ratio through changing the surface area of the occlusal surface as desired to fall within the range.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have a ratio represented by Sk/Sj of Slavicek and Satoh to be 0.85 to 0.95 where, when the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side is viewed from an occlusal surface, Sj is an area surrounded by ridges of buccal and lingual edges that pass buccal and lingual cusp tips, and mesial and distal marginal ridges in the occlusal surface, and Sk is an area surrounded by an edge of the pit in the occlusal surface as taught by Shima to create a suitable occlusion for the artificial teeth for the user.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavicek (US 20170312061 A1) in view of Satoh (US 8403669 B2), Shima (JP 2003135489 A, see machine translated version), Kadobayashi (US 20110045441 A1, herein denoted as Kadobayashi-US), and Kadobayashi (WO 2007052404 A1, see machine translated version, herein denoted as Kadobayashi-WO).
Re. Claim 2, Slavicek and Shima discloses the group of artificial teeth according to claim 1, wherein but are silent to an Θ2 - Θ1 is 15° to 32o where Θ1 is an angle formed by the lingual cusp of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the upper jaw side, and Θ2 is an angle formed by inclination of the pit of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side.
Slavicek does teach a range of angles for the buccal cusps as such which the teeth may comprise (Par. 80).
Kadobayashi-US teaches a plurality of artificial teeth in the same field of endeavor and further teaches lingual cusps and buccal cusps of the first molar tooth having an angle of 5 to 30 degrees (Par. 51).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the Θ1 of Slavicek, Satoh and Shima to be 15° to 32o where Θ1 is an angle formed by the lingual cusp of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the upper jaw side, as taught by Kadobayashi-US to provide an ideal occlusion for the patient.
Kadobayashi-WO teaches a plurality of artificial teeth in the same field of endeavor and further teaches an angle formed by inclination of the pit of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side (2; Par. 45). It is disclosed that the inclination of the pit can be 30 degrees or more AND 30 degrees or less than the occlusal surface part (Par. 45). Further, it is disclosed that the angle can be 10 degrees or more OR 0 degrees to form with the shaped occlusal surface part (Par. 45).
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the Θ2 angle of Slavicek, Satoh, Shima and Kadobayashi-US to be an angle formed by inclination of the pit of the artificial tooth corresponding to the first molar tooth on the lower jaw side as taught by Kadobayashi-WO to provide an ideal occlusion for the patient.
As such the combination would provide teaching of an Θ2 - Θ1 is 15° to 32o as it is interpreted to be the angle of each teaching to be the lower and upper bounds which can be determined through trial and error of each range value with one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772