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 filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant regarding Uchida, references Uchida's explanation of the limitations of an example of a conventional retainer with synthetic resin portion which convers an entire maxilla in the oral cavity thus requiring resin that is formed thick and wide. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion that Uchida teaches away from the use of a device that has a large amount of resin material. It is the examiner’s interpretation that Uchida teaches away from having retainers wherein the resin section covers the entire maxilla in the oral cavity thus requiring a resin section that is large sized, thick and wide. Furthermore, "large amount of resin material" is subjective because to what degree is the resin component of the dental device being defined as large amount.
Furthermore, Uchida addresses the limitations of current conventional orthodontic that already addressed the issues of the retainer of Fig. 46 as clearly outlined in [0030-0037] and not necessarily directed to the retainer of Fig. 46 as the applicant argued.
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 Uchida (US 20050037312 A1) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 introduces new claim limitations that changes the scope of the claim than was previously presented in the claim filed 08/07/2024 thus, necessitating new search and new ground of rejection.
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 Parker (US 20160184067 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 resin 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; see paragraphs [0317-0318, 0322, 0325, 0329]: resin ([0322] states that resin is one of the materials used for the direct fabrication of the dental appliance) is one of the outlined materials can be used in the direct fabrication of the orthodontic appliances disclosed thus the connectors can be composed of two or more resin materials; furthermore, [0317] discloses that the appliance can be manufactured using additive manufacturing wherein an object can be constructed layer by layer), wherein each resin material of the two or more resin materials 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 (Fig. 13) or alternatively 1602 (Fig. 16)) 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 formed from a resin core material surrounded by one or more coating layers formed from a resin coating material.
Parker teaches an analogous connector (18 Fig. 3) having a core material formed from a resin core material ([0145]: the resin core surrounded by element 114, which is a curable layer) surrounded by one or more coating layers formed from a resin coating material (114 is a curable layer, which the examiner interprets to also be made of resin as outlined in [0030], an exterior matrix (115) encases a center lumen of curable resin (114) or resin components including any light cured resin with or without embedded cords (the resin core surrounded by element 114)), and wherein the core material has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers ([0055]: the resin within the connector can be adjusted to achieve different physical characteristics including firmness, flexibility, strength, hardness, and other relevant properties. The device set forth by Parker has a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success – those being: core and coating layers being the same durometer, and the core being higher durometer and the core being lower durometer. It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to modify the device of Kopelman/Parker to select any one of these solutions since its has been set forth that it is obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to choose from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success).
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 connectors of Kopelman to be configured to comprise a core material that has a higher durometer than the one or more coating layers, as taught by Parker, in order to provide durable and rigid connectors that can be used for the purpose of applying or inhibiting orthodontic movement of teeth and oral structures during orthodontic treatment.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights