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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “a dental veneer” in lines 1 and 6. It is unclear if these are the same veneer or a second different veneer. Claim 12 recites “a posterior dental restoration” in lines 1 and 6. Claim 18 recites “a composite cement” in lines 1 and 3, “a dental veneer” in lines 1 and 3, a “posterior dental restoration” in lines 2 and 4, and “a tooth” in lines 2 and 7. Claim 19 recites “an exterior of a dental veneer” which has already been recited in claim 18 from which it depends. Claim 20 recites “an exterior of a posterior dental restoration” which has already been recited in claim 18 from which it depends. Again, it is unclear if all these are the same structure or a second different structure. It is suggested to change the second recitations to “the dental veneer” for instance.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the light guide" in line 1. Claim 14 recites “the light guide” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lazarof (US 5,098,292).
Lazarof shows a device for holding a dental veneer (such as that in Fig. 15-19) comprising at least one suction tip (tip assembly 70) composed of a translucent or transparent material (70a is a light guide and therefore equivalent to translucent or transparent material); and a handle (body 34); wherein the suction tip is removably attached to the handle (by connector 32; Fig. 17; paragraph starting at col. 5, line 56), and wherein the suction tip is capable of reversibly securing a dental veneer (“releasably grip”; starting at col. 6, lines 10-39). With respect to claim 2, wherein the handle is configured to have one or two suction tips attached thereto (Fig. 15 for instance shows the option of one suction tip attached thereto). With respect to claim 3, wherein the handle is the light guide of a curing light (at and around 22 and filter F in Fig. 17 or at 36 in Fig. 5 with an alternate light source configuration).
Device claims 12-14 are rejected similarly to the above with regards to the handle but substituted with the tip of Fig. 20 (starting at col. 6, line 44), and additionally, at least one restoration carrier tip for a posterior dental restoration (the [pre]molars are considered posterior and are teeth that would receive inlays such as that shown in Fig. 20 at 82) composed of a translucent or transparent material (tip 80 of the same character shown in Fig. 7).
Method claims 18-20 are rejected similarly to the above (it is noted that the present method claims do not claim any order of the steps) and additionally, a method comprising applying a composite cement to an interior side of a dental veneer or posterior dental restoration (a dental cement of a “light-activated filling compound”/”adhesive” is utilized to cement the veneer or restoration to the natural tooth; in both cases, when the veneer or restoration is applied to the tooth, the compound will be applied to an interior side thereof), adhering a tip to an exterior side of the dental veneer or posterior dental restoration (seen in Fig. 15 and Fig. 20), positioning the dental veneer or posterior dental restoration on a tooth by contacting the composite cement on the interior side of the dental veneer or posterior dental restoration with the tooth (cement contacts both the veneer/restoration and the tooth, particularly seen in Fig. 18 while the veneer is being properly positioned). With respect to claim 19, wherein the tip is a suction tip (addressed above), and wherein the suction tip is adhered to an exterior of a dental veneer in step (b) (Fig. 15-18 for instance). With respect to claim 20, wherein the tip is a restoration carrier tip (Fig. 20 as addressed above), and wherein the restoration carrier tip is adhered to an exterior of a posterior dental restoration using a gel in step (b) (seen in Fig. 20; “small mass 84 of a sticky substance, such as gum or adhesive” is considered a gel as it is moldable/needs to hold its shape while it supports 82).
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.
Claims 4-5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarof in view of Friedman (US 2004/0053189).
Lazarof discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show what the tip is made of.
Friedman similarly teaches a flexible light guide for curing a dental cement wherein the tip is composed of a material having a Shore A durometer hardness of between about 30 and about 50 ([0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazarof’s light guiding tip material to have a shore A durometer hardness between about 30 and 50 as taught by Friedman in order to utilize known materials in the art for flexibility and transparency, particularly when applying pressure in combination with curing a photocurable composition ([0014]).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarof in view of Lee et al. (US 2012/0227199).
Lazarof discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show wherein the handle is composed of an autoclavable polymer that is polysulfone.
Lee similarly teaches a dental instrument with a handle for working with the teeth wherein the handle is made of autoclavable polysulfone ([0027]-[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazarof’s device by utilizing an autoclavable polysulfone for the handle as taught by Lee in order to provide the benefit of being autoclavable while providing strength and durability under the stresses and forces of use ([0027]-[0028]).
Claims 7-8, 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazarof in view of Friedman as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Lee.
Lazarof/Friedman discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show wherein the handle is composed of an autoclavable polymer that is polysulfone.
Lee similarly teaches a dental instrument with a handle for working with the teeth wherein the handle is made of autoclavable polysulfone ([0027]-[0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lazarof/Friedman’s device by utilizing an autoclavable polysulfone for the handle as taught by Lee in order to provide the benefit of being autoclavable while providing strength and durability under the stresses and forces of use ([0027]-[0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772