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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the legal terminology “means”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The following limitations are being interpreted as such:
In claim 7, line 3, “removable fixing means”.
In claim 11, line 3, “adjustment means”.
In claim 12, line 4, “adjustment means”.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 ends with a comma. The comma should be changed to a period.
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 1-17 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 claim 1, line 5, “at least said template” is unclear. Should this be phrased as –said at least one template--? For purposes of this action, it will be assumed as such.
In claim 5, lines 2 and 3, “the 4 upper incisors” and “the two lower incisors” do not have prior antecedent basis.
In claim 5, lines 3 and 4, “the central position” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 2, “the free end” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 7, line 3, “the connection” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 3, “the template” should be –the at least one template--.
In claim 9, line 3, “the template” should be –the at least one template--.
In claim 10, line 4, “the optimal position” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 2, “the upper template” and “the lower template”
Claim 12 is unclear, as it recites “the adjustment means of the templates”, while claim 11 recites that the adjustment means are part of the “guides”. For purposes of this action, in claim 12, “the adjustment means of the templates” will be assumed to mean –the adjustment means of the guides--.
In claim 13, line 3, “the guides” has no prior antecedent basis. It appears that claim 13 should depend from claim 11, and will be assumed as such for purposes of this action.
In claim 14, line 3, “the guides” has no prior antecedent basis. It appears that claim 13 should depend from claim 11, and will be assumed as such for purposes of this action.
In claim 16, line 3, “for a plane on its upper face” is unclear. It appears that this should read –each form a plane on an upper face--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Llop et al 10729521.
With regard to claim 1, Llop et al discloses an impression making system for the manufacture of removable dental prostheses comprising: at least one template 106/110 with a cavity 116 capable of housing an impression material and adapting to the jaw of a patient, and positioning means (see fig. 5) for positioning at least said template in the patient's mouth, characterized in that the positioning means are formed by at least one tooth row 108.
With regard to claim 2, note that the system is characterized in that it comprises an upper template 106 and a lower template 110,
With regard to claim 3, note that the positioning means are formed by two tooth rows, an upper tooth row 108 and a lower tooth row 112 in occlusal position.
With regard to claim 4, note that the upper tooth row 108 is made up of at least two teeth and the lower tooth row 112 is made up of at least two teeth. See fig. 1A.
With regard to claim 5, note that the upper tooth row 108 is formed by 4 upper incisors and the lower tooth row 112 is formed by at least two lower incisors located in a central position. See fig. 1A.
With regard to claim 6, note that a free end of the tooth rows 108/112 define a flat surface. See fig. 1B.
[AltContent: textbox (Flat surface on free end of lower row)][AltContent: textbox (Flat surface on free end of upper row)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
578
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, note that the system comprises removable fixing means 224 for the connection between the templates 106/110 and the positioning means 108/112.
With regard to claim 8, note that the removable fixing means 224 are formed by a tongue-and-groove system where the at least one template 106/110 is the one that includes the female part and the positioning means 108/112 have the male part. See fig. 1C.
With regard to claim 9, note that the removable fixing means 224 are formed by a system capable of allowing relative movement between the at least one template 106/110 and the positioning means 108/112. See fig. 2A.
Claims 1,2,3,4,6,10,15,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou 11116612.
With regard to claim 1, Chou discloses an impression making system for the manufacture of removable dental prostheses comprising: at least one template 1700/1800 (see fig. 28/29) with a cavity (the underside of each template 1700/1800) capable of housing an impression material and adapting to the jaw of a patient, and positioning means for positioning at least said template 1700/1800 in the patient's mouth, characterized in that the positioning means are formed by at least one tooth row 1730/1840.
With regard to claim 2, note that the system comprises an upper template 1700 and a lower template 1800.
With regard to claim 3, note that the positioning means are formed by two tooth rows, an upper tooth row 1730 and a lower tooth row 1840 in occlusal position. See fig. 28/29.
With regard to claim 4, note that the upper tooth row 1730 is made up of at least two teeth and the lower tooth row 1840 is made up of at least two teeth. See fig. 28 and 29.
[AltContent: textbox (Flat surface)] With regard to claim 6, note that a free end of the tooth rows 1730/1840 define a flat surface. See fig. 28/29.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
262
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
286
280
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 10, note centric relation marking device 1820 (fig. 30) which in turn comprises a marker element 2920 adjustable in height with a tip to record the optimal position in the vertical dimension. See fig. 30.
With regard to claim 15, note that the marker element 1820 comprises a threaded area 3022 that cooperates with a complementary thread existing inside a central hole (see fig. 30 and paragraph 126) that the centric relation marking device 1820 has.
With regard to claim 17, note that the upper template 1700 and/or the lower template 1800 comprise a marking platform 3220 that occupies a large central area thereof. See fig. 32.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11,12,13,14,16 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
