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 1-6 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 that Aall represents the total area of the adhesive interface inside the retention groove where no pattern section is formed, but then defines Aall representing the total area of the adhesive interface inside the retention groove. These are conflicting and it is unclear which one is intended as what Aall represents.
Claim 4 recites a method of manufacturing the crown of claim 1, however claim 1 has inclined laser engraving, and claim 4 recites nearly perpendicular engraving direction. These are mutually exclusive and therefore it is unclear how the perpendicular engraving yields inclined engravings.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinya (US 2019/0307536).
Shinya shows an artificial crown (10) comprising: a prosthesis (at 10 in Fig. 1, 3) configured to be fitted and bonded on a prepared tooth (to be bonded as in Fig. 1); having a retention groove in which the prepared tooth is configured to be inserted (interior of 10); and a plurality of pattern sections formed by laser engraving (this is considered product-by-process where only the resulting structure is at issue) to extend into a predetermined depth and inclined on an inner surface of the prosthesis (patterns of 11A; incline at edges of 11a in Fig. 1 for instance; see also [28] for other shaped grooves with inclined portions), in order to receive an adhesive for bonding the prosthesis on the prepared tooth (C) and wherein a ratio of a laser-engraved pattern area (laser considered product-by-process) to a total adhesive interface area satisfies the equation: Total area of lingual and labial engraved sections are greater than 20% and less than 95% of the area with no pattern section and that the area of lingual/labial engraved sections alone are each greater than 10% of the area with no pattern section (see 112 rejection above, however as best understood, the pattern of Shinya in Fig. 3 is within this range since the pattern extends around the sides and not on the top such that the equations are met).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the plurality of the pattern sections is formed to extend into a depth of 0.01mm through 2mm on the inner surface of the retention groove of the prosthesis, respectively ([0024] teaches 0.02mm to 0.120 mm).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya in view of Johnson (US 2007/0196792).
Shinya shows wherein the plurality of the pattern sections comprises, a lingual pattern section bonded on a lingual side of the prepared tooth (pattern to be placed on lingual side of tooth); a labial pattern section bonded on a labial side of the prepared tooth (pattern that is to be placed on the labial side). However, Shinya fails to show wherein a depth of the lingual pattern section is formed to be deeper than a depth of the labial pattern section.
Johnson similarly teaches crowns to be bonded onto teeth with grooves of various shapes, depths, and sizes (Fig. 1 and 9 in particular show 30 with a deeper groove across its length than the smaller dimples or indentations 30a) and establishes their arrangement respective to the sides of the tooth 12 as providing enhanced surface for aiding in the bonding where required. 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 Shinya’s groove depths/profiles to be deeper on a lingual side since this is a known result-effective variable and determining the optimum or workable ranges of said variable would be routine experimentation to provide adequate support to desired sides of the tooth.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya in view of Weigl et al. (US 2004/0106087).
Shinya discloses the device as previously described above and wherein the prosthesis is formed of ceramic or metal materials ([42]), but fails to show specifically molding the prosthesis in a predetermined shape using an injection molding process and forming the plurality of the pattern sections by applying a laser engraving on the inner surface of the prosthesis.
Weigl similarly teaches a dental crown manufacturing method wherein both use of an injection mold for forming a traditional ceramic restoration ([0006]) and also the use of an ultra-short-pulse laser to define retention patterns into the ceramic ([0022]). 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 Park’s method by utilizing known injection molding and laser engraving techniques as taught by Weigl in order to utilize conventional methods of forming a restoration and allowing very controlled retention patterns to substantially improve the adhesive bond ([0022] for instance). Shinya’s drill is raised and lowered with the cutting nearly perpendicular to the surface to achieve the patterns, and utilizing the laser of Weigl would require the same movement and angle, particularly to achieve the rectangular grooves of Shinya.
Claim 5 is rejected similarly to the above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya in view of Weigl et al. and further in view of Johnson.
Shinya/Weigl shows wherein the plurality of the pattern sections comprises, a lingual pattern section bonded on a lingual side of the prepared tooth (pattern to be placed on lingual side of tooth); a labial pattern section bonded on a labial side of the prepared tooth (pattern that is to be placed on the labial side). However, Shinya/Weigl fails to show wherein a depth of the lingual pattern section is formed to be deeper than a depth of the labial pattern section.
Johnson similarly teaches crowns to be bonded onto teeth with grooves of various shapes, depths, and sizes (Fig. 1 and 9 in particular show 30 with a deeper groove across its length than the smaller dimples or indentations 30a) and establishes their arrangement respective to the sides of the tooth 12 as providing enhanced surface for aiding in the bonding where required. 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 Shinya/Weigl’s groove depths/profiles to be deeper on a lingual side since this is a known result-effective variable and determining the optimum or workable ranges of said variable would be routine experimentation to provide adequate support to desired sides of the tooth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended claim language have been addressed with the new references above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 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
