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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument on pages 2 – 4 that Adkisson does not teach or suggest “wherein the one or more connectors have a core material surrounded by one or more coating layers, and wherein the core material has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers”. This argument have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Adkisson (US 5266028 A).
Regarding applicant’s argument on pages 4 – 5 that Adkisson does teach or suggest “Applicant's claimed dental appliance includes a connector that has a configuration of a core material surrounded by one or more coating layers. The core material has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers. The formation of a high durometer core and lower durometer coating layers provides unknown advantages over the prior art. For example, Applicant's specification teaches:
[0073] In some implementations, 3 or 4 materials can be printed, where the force straps can have a stiffer core with one, two or more progressively softer, more elastic concentric wraps/coatings of material, making a structure like a leaf spring, or a multi-axial variable force member depending on degree of deflection. In an example, these stiffer force bands can be arranged in any orientation, in any combination to effect specific movements of teeth. In an example, the force strap can be printed with individual voxel control with different materials (resins) available to be dispensed to create one or more types of stresses. For example, a force strap can be configured to provide a tensile force. In another example, a force strap can be configured to provide a compressive force.
[00754] In some implementations, one or more adjacent voxels surrounding a rod/connector can be absent or made from a highly compliant material as to not obstruct a force and/or tension of targets or intended areas in communication with the rod/connector (e.g., one or more sides of a dental arch). In another example, one or more adjacent voxels surrounding a rod/connector can enhance a force and/or tension by serving as a fulcrum.
As disclosed in the specification, the use of softer (lower Durometer) coatings over a stiffer core can create a leaf spring like structure or a multi-axial variable force member depending on degree of deflection. Additionally, the use of (lower Durometer) coatings over a stiffer core can enhance a force and/or tension by serving as a fulcrum. These advantages are not recognized in the prior art”.
MPEP 2111.01(II) – It is improper to import claim limitations from specification. While the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) must be consistent with the specification, it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims. Therefore, the BRI of the claim does not require that having one or more coating layers surrounding the core material having a high durometer would create a leaf spring like structure or a multi-axial variable force member depending on degree of deflection, or enhance a force and/or tension by serving as a fulcrum, for one or more connectors. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader that what is argued.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding "voxel", as stated in the action mailed 10/01/2024, "voxel" is understood as a section of material with an area (also referred to as a volume in a 3D structure) smaller than the total area (volume) of the dental aligner.
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(s) 1 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al. (US 2017/0007359 A1) in view of Uchida (US 20050037312 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman et al. discloses a dental appliance (Fig. 13, alternatively Fig. 16. Please note that Fig. 16 teaches an "integrally formed component" 1602 [0221] on the dental appliance of Fig. 15 [0212, 0213 lines 1-3]) comprising:
a matrix of printed voxels (the devices of Figs. 13 and 16 are made of smaller volumes of material. paragraph 0317; the devices may be 3D printed (voxel or volumetric pixels are small volumetric cubic structures that makes up the structure, material, and density of a 3D printed object)) having a three-dimensional shape of a dental arch for surrounding a set of teeth corresponding to a first teeth alignment of a patient, the shape of the dental arch having a lingual side, an occlusal surface, and a facial side (see Figs. 15 – 16; paragraph 0161);
wherein each voxel includes a deposited material for adhering to an adjacent voxel (paragraph 0088; In some embodiments, the appliances with variable localized properties herein are produced using direct fabrication methods which provide precise control over the geometry, composition, and/or properties of the appliance in three dimensions. Direct fabrication of appliances with complex geometries and heterogeneous properties that would otherwise be difficult to produce using other fabrication techniques. These voxels with variable properties adhere to adjacent voxel as required to make the devices of Fig. 13 or 16 (see paragraphs 0317 – 0318));
wherein a portion of the matrix of printed voxels defines one or more connectors (1312 Fig. 13 or 1602 Fig. 16), each connector of the one or more connectors configured to extend between a respective first contact point corresponding to a respective anchor tooth (Fig. 13 (1306)) [0161 lines 5-8] of the set of teeth and a respective second contact point corresponding to a respective target tooth (Fig. 13 (1302)) of the set of teeth (As Kopelman teaches moving teeth from one position to a target arrangement [0009, 0101], it is understood that the connector 1602 extends between the targeted tooth for movement and an anchor point such as that described in [0084 lines 25-29]), thereby applying a force to the target tooth (paragraph 0161: lines 16-21; paragraph 0221 lines 3-9, paragraph 0219 lines 1-4 and 9-12);
wherein one or more of the connectors are composed of two or more materials (paragraph 0162; In some embodiments, unwanted movements and/or forces can be reduced or eliminated by varying the directional stiffness of the appliance using the methods provided herein (e.g., variable stiffness, variable material properties, variable material compositions, etc.). see further paragraphs 0101 lines 8 – 11; 0156 – 0157 lines 6 – 7), wherein each material has a different elastic modulus and/or Durometer ([0162 lines 11-18] "varying direction stiffness" as a result of the "varying direction stiffness using variable material compositions" as set forth previously. See further [0104, 0107 line 2, 0155 lines 7-10, 0160 final sentence, 0175 lines 1- 3]);
wherein the matrix of printed voxels is configured to apply a force to one or more teeth of the set of teeth causing the one or more teeth to shift into a second teeth alignment (paragraph 0088 lines 5-9; paragraph 0101); and wherein at least one of the one or more connectors (1312 (Fig. 13) or 1602 (Fig. 16)) is forming a compressive member that is rotating teeth (paragraph 0161 line 16-0162; 0221 lines 3-9, 0219 lines 1-4 and 9-12) (as the members 1312 and 1602 may be stiffer than the materials around them, they apply a compressive force).
Kopelman discloses that variable material composition throughout a device can be used to apply specific forces to teeth [0160, 0162], Kopelman further teaches that stiff connectors (1312 or alternatively 1602) can be used in the device. Kopelman further discloses fabrication methods [0155-0157] to include the heterogeneous properties/materials on the singular device which include "discrete sections, compartments, or layers" [0156 lines 2-4]. Utilizing any of these three alternatives for the fabrication method of the device would result in a device with a connector made of multiple materials with different elastic moduli.
Kopelman is silent regarding claim 1 wherein the one or more connectors have a core material surrounded by one or more coating layers, and wherein the core material has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Uchida teaches an analogous device (131 Figs. 7 – 8) comprising a connector of the one or more connectors configured to extend between a respective first contact point corresponding to a respective anchor tooth of the set of teeth (see annotated Fig. 7). Regarding claim 1, Uchida further teaches the one or more connectors (see annotated Fig. 7) have a core material (106 Fig. 7; element 106 is a wire that are analogous to alloy or cobalt but inexpensive (see paragraph 0126)) surrounded by one or more coating layers (resin, 108 Figs. 7 and 8; see that the anterior portion of element 106 is embedded in element 108), and wherein the core material has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers (the core material is an inexpensive standard wire comparable to as a titanium alloy, a cobalt chromium alloy, or a PGA (platinum alloy) (paragraph 0126) while element 108 is a resin (paragraph 0137), therefore the core has a higher durometer than the coating layer ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more connectors of Kopelman to be configured such that the one or more connectors have a core material surrounded by one or more coating layers, and wherein the core material has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers, as taught by Uchida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a dental retainer appliance that makes over-treatment for the respective teeth and tusk possible and is effective aesthetically, as suggested by Uchida.
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman et al. in view of Uchida discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Kopelman further discloses wherein the matrix of printed voxels includes one or more sections of variable elasticity (paragraph 0104), wherein each section of variable elasticity applies a local force to the one or more teeth of the set of teeth causing the one or more teeth to shift (paragraphs 0088, 0101, and 0104).
Regarding claim 3, Kopelman et al. in view of Uchida discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Kopelman further discloses wherein the matrix of printed voxels includes a soft layer made from a softer material for interfacing with a gingiva of the patient (paragraph 0156 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, Kopelman et al. in view of Uchida discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Kopelman further discloses wherein the matrix of voxels has one or more voxels formed from a first resin with a first durometer and one or more voxels formed from a second resin with a second durometer (paragraph 0156).
Regarding claim 5, Kopelman et al. in view of Uchida discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 4. Kopelman further discloses wherein the first durometer is considered hard and the second durometer is considered soft (paragraph 0156).
Regarding claim 6, Kopelman et al. in view of Uchida discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 4. Kopelman further discloses wherein at least a portion of the first resin and the second resin are mixed (paragraph 0155 lines 15-17) (though not required by the claim language, the materials may be mixed prior to curing).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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.
/C.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772