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
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 15, “manufacturing” should be –manufacture--.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
In each of claims 1-7, line 1 “for manufacturing a prefabricated crown” is unclear, since each claim actually recites that a plurality of crowns are manufactured. It is suggested that line 1 of each claim be amended to recite –for manufacturing a plurality of crowns--.
In claim 1, line 18, “the measured” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 2, line 13, “the heated” has no prior antecedent basis.
Claims 2-4 are unclear. Specifically, the first paragraph of each of these claims recites a grouping of possible manufacturing methods, and is subsequently followed by “and the steps of” along with specific method steps of a manufacturing method. While it is understood that the specific manufacturing steps recited after the first paragraph are intended to be positively claimed, the listing of the possible manufacturing methods in the first paragraph of each claim is confusing. It is suggested (and will be assumed for purposes of this action) that in claims 2-4, first paragraph, each method not being referred to in the subsequent paragraphs of the claim, be deleted from the claim.
In claim 5, line 4, “by inputting by inputting” is unclear.
In claim 5, line 6, “the input part” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 5, line 7, “the three dimensional size” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 4, “the input part” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 7, lines 16 and 17, “the colorants that comprise a plurality of fluorescent materials” has no prior antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1,5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leeson et al 20166291585 in view of Heymann et al 20050008887.
With regard to claim 1, Leeson et al discloses a method for manufacturing a prefabricated crown by processing and tabulating prefabricated blanks for (capable of) sub-gingival and supra-gingival, and actual and try-in crowns by type, size, material and color by a table system 166 (database), the method comprising:
a first step of classifying a plurality of prefabricated blanks by type and size by a first module of the table system 166 (see paragraphs 46 and 57);
a second step of classifying the plurality of prefabricated blanks by color and material (paragraphs 46 and 57) by a second module of the table system 166;
a third step of tabulating the type, size, color and material data of the prefabricated blanks classified in the first and second steps by a third module of the table system 166, and assigning an identification code 204/304 to each data (see paragraph 33);
a fourth step of manufacturing the tabulated plurality of prefabricated crowns (paragraph 34, crowns may be manufactured); and
a fifth step of inputting the measured type, size, color and material data of patient's tooth (paragraph 55) into a fourth module of the table system 166 to select a prefabricated blank corresponding thereto.
Leeson et al do not disclose that the method steps tabulate/classify crowns, but rather discloses tabulating/classifying blanks.
Heymann et al discloses a similar method of manufacturing crowns, wherein crowns are tabulated/classified in a table system. See paragraph 66.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the method of Leeson et al to tabulate/classify prefabricated crowns, in view of the teaching of Heymann et al allows for a practitioner to select a prefabricated crown for further milling/final crown production.
With regard to claim 5, note that in the method of Leeson et al/Heymann et al, in the first step, the prefabricated crowns are classified by type and size by the first module by inputting by inputting whether the prefabricated crowns are sub-gingival or supra-gingival, and actual or try-in through the input part of the table system and inputting the three-dimensional size. This is inherent, as Leeson et al disclose inputting these parameters. See paragraph 55 of Leeson et al.
With regard to claim 6, note that in the method of Leeson et al/Heymann et al, the second step is a step of inputting the material and color of the prefabricated crowns through the input part of the table system and classifying the prefabricated crowns by material and color by the second module. See paragraph 55 of Leeson et al.
With regard to claim 7, note that in the method of Leeson et al/Heymann et al, the third step comprises matching and tabulating the type, size, color and material data of the prefabricated crowns classified by the first module and the second module with each other by the third module, and is a step of tabulating each identification code by assigning identification codes by classifying the types of the prefabricated crowns into supra-gingival or sub-gingival, or actual or try-in; assigning identification codes by aligning the sizes of the prefabricated crowns so that each prefabricated crown is distinguished from each other; assigning identification codes so that a plurality of ceramics may be distinguished from each other in the materials of the prefabricated crowns and expressing the content of the ceramics to be distinguished in the form of numbers in the identification codes; and assigning identification codes so that the colorants that comprise a plurality of fluorescent materials are distinguished from each other in the colors of the prefabricated crowns and expressing the content of the colorants to be distinguished in the form of numbers in the identification codes. See paragraph 33 of Leeson et al, which discloses assigning codes to each of the prosthetics in the database. These codes inherently would include information regarding the parameters recited in this claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights