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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 19 August 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 August 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (Sun I, CN 111136915 A).
Regarding claim 11, Sun I (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0008], [0009], [0017]-[0020], [0031], [0032] and [0034] of the translation) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method for the design and 3D printing for a denture) of Sun I), including (a) dispensing a plurality of building formulations to form a layer corresponding to cross-sectional shapes of at least one artificial tooth and a base structure (see paragraphs [0008] (dividing the dentition into 3-5 layers, with cross transition layers between adjacent layers to realize gradient transition of color), [0009] (dividing the denture base into upper and lower layers to realize gradient transition of color) and [0031] (inputting material liquids of different colors; controlling the nozzle to print the outline of the denture) of Sun I); and (b) hardening the layer to form a monolithic structure having cross-sectional shapes of the tooth and base structure, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the artificial tooth and the base structure have different colors (see paragraphs [0032] (base material liquid and artificial tooth material liquid are switched to realize integrated processing of the multi-color denture) and [0034] (self-curing material) of Sun I).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 18-20, see paragraphs [0008] (dividing the dentition into 3-5 layers, with cross transition layers between adjacent layers to realize gradient transition of color), [0009] (dividing the denture base into upper and lower layers to realize gradient transition of color), [0031] (inputting material liquids of different colors; controlling the nozzle to print the outline of the denture) and [0032] (base material liquid and artificial tooth material liquid are switched to realize integrated processing of the multi-color denture) of Sun I.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, see paragraphs [0017] (designing dentition and base using CAD software), [0018] (dividing the dentition into 3-5 layers, with cross transition layers between adjacent layers to realize gradient transition of color), [0019] (dividing the denture base into upper and lower layers to realize gradient transition of color) and [0020] (setting color layers distinguished by color codes according to personalized clinical color matching results) of Sun I.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (Sun II, WO 2016/062247 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sun II (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0012], [0035], [0040] and [0048] of the translation; Figure 3) teaches a process (see paragraphs [0001] (method for manufacturing complete dentures) and {0012] (CAD/RP (rapid prototyping) technology-based manufacturing method) of Sun II), including (a) dispensing a plurality of building formulations to form a layer corresponding to cross-sectional shapes of at least one artificial tooth and a base structure (see Figure 3, paragraph [0040] (denture base material and artificial tooth material are heated in a molten state in a three-dimensional printer, forming droplets that are ejected from the nozzle to form a two-dimensional printed cross-section) of Sun II); and (b) hardening the layer to form a monolithic structure having cross-sectional shapes of the tooth and base structure, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the artificial tooth and the base structure have different colors (see paragraphs [0040] ( during printing, when reaching the color interface, printing pauses, the denture base material and the artificial tooth material of the next color are replaced, and printing resumes) and [0048] (self-curing resin material) of Sun II).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-20, see Figure 3, paragraph [0040] (denture base material and artificial tooth material are heated in a molten state in a three-dimensional printer, forming droplets that are ejected from the nozzle to form a two-dimensional printed cross-section) of Sun II.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, see paragraph [0035] (import CAD of dentition data and base data into a processing device, set color layers differentiated by color model according to clinical color matching results, each layer representing one color and mark the start and stop planes of different color layers for changing different color materials) of Sun II.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (Sun I, Cn 111136915 A) as applied to claims 11-16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0167300 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sun I does not teach (1) that the building material formulation includes silica. Lee (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0015] and [0045]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (method for producing an artificial tooth or teeth and denture base by three-dimensional printing) of Lee), wherein the building material formulation includes silica (see paragraph [0045] (the composition may contain inorganic particles, including silica) of Lee), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include silica in the building material formulation of Sun I in view of Lee in order to provide a composition for manufacturing a denture base and artificial teeth having appropriate mechanical properties (see paragraph [0015] of Lee).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (Sun II, WO 2016/062247 A1) as applied to claims 11-16 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0167300 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sun II does not teach (1) that the building material formulation includes silica. Lee (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0002], [0015] and [0045]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0002] (method for producing an artificial tooth or teeth and denture base by three-dimensional printing) of Lee), wherein the building material formulation includes silica (see paragraph [0045] (the composition may contain inorganic particles, including silica) of Lee), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include silica in the building material formulation of Sun II in view of Lee in order to provide a composition for manufacturing a denture base and artificial teeth having appropriate mechanical properties (see paragraph [0015] of Lee).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights