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 9,12,13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 2, --the—should be inserted before “adapter”.
In claim 12, line 1, --a—should be inserted before “stump”.
In claim 13, line 3, --a—should be inserted before “stump”.
In claim 13, line 4, “the blank” should be –the at least one blank--.
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 7 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.
In claim 7, line 3, “the adhesive bond” has no prior antecedent basis.
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 1-6,8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunne 20100310786.
With regard to claim 1, Dunne discloses a method for manufacturing a dental prosthesis part 206 (fig. 2) that can be connected to a tooth stump, comprising the following steps:
a) providing a stump data set with three-dimensional data on the shape and size of the tooth stump (see paragraph 30 which discloses that 3D data for a prepared tooth surface may be provided);
b) manufacturing an adapter 112 for a machine tool using the stump data set, wherein the adapter 112 has a stump section 110 which corresponds in shape and size to the tooth stump, and wherein the adapter has a coupling section (the lowest part of adapter 112 (fig. 1) which can be coupled to a clamping device 108 of a machine tool;
c) manufacturing a blank 210 (see fig. 2) using the stump data set, wherein the blank 210 has a recess 208 that can at least partially receive the tooth stump;
d) connecting the blank 210 to the adapter 112 (see fig. 2), wherein the stump section 110 of the adapter 112 is at least partially received by the recess 208 of the blank 210 (this is disclosed in paragraph 35);
e) clamping the coupling section in the clamping device 108 of the machine tool (see fig. 1) ;
f) additive and/or subtractive reworking of the blank 210 into the dental prosthesis part by the machine tool (see paragraph 35);_and
g) removing the dental prosthesis part from the adapter (inherent after the method is complete, and prior to installation of the dental prosthesis part in a patient).
With regard to claim 2, note that the adapter 112 in step b) and/or the blank 210 in step c) is/are produced by casting, machining, milling, grinding and/or turning, and/or by additive methods. See paragraphs 42 and 44.
With regard to claim 3, note that the stump data set is provided in step a) by determining the shape and size of the tooth stump. This is inherent in the acquisition of the three dimensional data of the tooth stump. See paragraph 30.
With regard to claim 4, note that that the shape and size of the tooth stump are determined directly in the mouth of a person to be treated or in that the shape and size of the tooth stump are determined by scanning a model. See paragraph 30 which discloses how three dimensional data for the “prepared tooth surface” is acquired, which inherently includes the step of performing it directly in the mouth of a person.
With regard to claim 5, note that the blank 210 is detachably adhesively bonded to the adapter 112 (on the stump section 110) in step d). See paragraph 36.
With regard to claim 6, note that the recess 208 in step c) is designed in terms of shape and size such that, when connecting in step d), an intermediate volume remains between the recess 208 and the stump section 110, and wherein the intermediate volume is filled with a connecting material. This is disclosed in paragraph 36, as an intermediate volume is inherent when an adhesive is used between the recess 208 and stump section 110.
With regard to claim 8, note that the additive reworking in step f) comprises coating and/or that the subtractive reworking in step f) comprises milling, grinding and/or polishing. See paragraphs 42 and 44 which disclose cutting and machining (milling).
With regard to claim 9, note that steps b), c) and d) are combined (they are considered to be “combined” since Dunne discloses all of them together in a single method), and adapter 112 and blank 210 are manufactured in one piece (this occurs when blank 210 is adhesively attached directly on top of adapter 112, and thus forms a “single piece” due to the adhesive bonding of blank 210 on adapter 112).
With regard to claim 10, note that Dunne discloses an adapter 112 for a machine tool, comprising a stump section 110 which corresponds in shape and size to a tooth stump (see fig. 1) and a coupling section (the lowest part of adapter 112) which can be coupled to a clamping device 108 of a machine tool.
With regard to claim 11, note that the adapter 112 has a plurality of stump sections, each stump section corresponding in shape and size to a different tooth stump, and/or in that the adapter 112 is multi-part, wherein one adapter part (the upper part) of the multi-part adapter 112 has the stump section 110 and another adapter part (the lower part) of the multi-part adapter 112 has the coupling section (the section attached to clamping device 108).
With regard to claim 12, note that Dunne discloses a blank 210 of a dental prosthesis part (the blank 210 ultimately becomes a dental prosthesis), wherein the blank 210 has a recess 208 which can at least partially receive a tooth stump. It is noted that lines 1-2 of this claim, recite a method step of producing the blank. This method step is considered to be a product by process limitation, which does not impart any additional structural limitations to the claim. Since the final product required by claim 12 is disclosed by the Dunne reference, then the reference meets the claim.
With regard to claim 13, note that Dunne discloses a set comprising at least one adapter 112 according to claim 10 (see above rejection of claim 10) and at least one blank 210, wherein the blank 210 has a recess 208 which can at least partially receive the tooth stump, wherein the stump section 110 of the at least one adapter 112 and the recess 208 of the at least one blank 210 are adapted to the same tooth stump. It is noted that lines 3-5 of this claim recite a method step of producing the blank. This method step is considered to be a product by process limitation, which does not impart any additional structural limitations to the claim. Since the final product required by claim 13 is disclosed by the Dunne reference, then the reference meets the claim.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne 20100310786.
With regard to claim 7, although Dunne discloses removing the dental prosthesis part from the adapter 112 (see paragraph 36), Dunne does not disclose removing the prosthesis by melting the adhesive bond.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to melt the adhesive bond between the adapter and the dental prosthesis part in the method of Dunne, in view of the teaching of Dunne that the dental prosthesis is ultimately removed from the adapter, after being bonded to the adapter. One skilled in the art would recognize that the bond between the dental prosthesis and the adapter is facilitated by a “film” and thus would be motivated to use heat to melt the film and break the adhesive bond.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunne 20100310786 in view of Beeby 10383713.
With regard to claim 14, Dunne does not disclose wherein the set comprises at least one more adapter, wherein the coupling section is identical for each adapter and the stump sections of the adapters are different.
Beeby discloses a set comprising a plurality of adapters (see figs. 4a and 4b), each adapter having an identical coupling section 21, with each adapter having a different stump section 12.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include at least one more adapter in the set of Dunne, with each coupling section being identical and each stump section being different, in view of the teaching of Beeby that it is known to provide a set of adapters with different stump sections, so that different final prostheses can be provided.
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
