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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they respectfully are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the prior art of Lotte fails to provide for the limitation “an object that is solid and is inserted into the cavity formed by the hollow portion, wherein the object is fixed to the plastic shell subsequent to being inserted into the cavity” nor where “the object being preformed separately from the plastic shell and having a first registration feature…the corresponding registration feature of the plastic shell being formed separate from the object”, however these limitations to the process by which the object are formed do not result in a physical difference than the cited object of Lotte. These limitation are being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). While the shell of Lotte, and thus its corresponding registration feature, is formed first and thus separately from the object, when the acrylic or cured resin is in a cured state within the cavity there is no structural difference with the claimed object besides the process of forming. Applicant has not provided any evidence that forming of the object separately imparts any structural difference to distinguish from the cited fillings of Lotte. Further it would appear that since Lotte does also disclose the cavity can be filled by other materials, metal, ceramic, etc., then forming such objects to fill the cavity would be done separately as well as metal or ceramic or wood to fill the hollows would be formed separately as they are different materials than that of Lotte’s shell and thus it would provide motivation for the separate forming of the acrylic or cured resin.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for providing structural strength” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof Including the limitations of “the means for providing structural strength is to fit into the cavity of the hollow portion and is to extend to a location above the main body responsive to being inserted into the cavity of the hollow portion” and that the means is solid and thus is a solid object with a shape having surfaces and has a feature of a ridge, lip or knurling.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 5, 8, 15-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lotte et al. (US 2003/0207224).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 21, Lotte discloses a dental appliance (Figs. 1a-e) comprising: a plastic shell (element 50; [0029] “polymeric bite positioning appliance” and is made of acrylic polymer in paragraph [0038] lines 20-23 disclosing the shell can be made of acrylic which is a polymer) comprising:
a main body (50) forms an interior shape that substantially conforms to a dental arch of a patient ([0029]); and
a hollow portion forming a cavity ([0030], “Preferably, wedge 62 and wedge 52 are hollow. Alternatively, one or more of the wedges are filled with acrylic, a cured resin, ceramic, metal, or any other substance suitable for adding structural rigidity to wedge 52 and wedge 62”. As the hollow portions of wedge 62 and 52 are recited to be “filled” with various solid materials the hollow portion is construed to be the portion that forms a cavity which is “filled”.), wherein the hollow portion is shaped to alter, while the dental appliance is worn in a mouth of the patient, contact points between the dental arch and an opposing dental arch of the patient to correct malocclusion, wherein the hollow portion extends from a side surface of the main body (see figure below) to a location above the main body (see figure below; [0031] “illustrates the first contact of wedge 52 of appliance 50 and wedge 62 of appliance 60 as the patient closes their mouth. Surface 66 comes into contact with surface 56 and prevents the patient from achieving a completely closed occlusion. Since angle 58 is greater than 90 degrees, surface 56 is sloped in order to encourage the patient's mandibular jaw to slide medially when surface 66 comes into contact with surface 56”), the side surface corresponding to a lingual surface or buccal surface of the dental arch (see figure below, the side surface corresponds to a buccal surface as it faces the facial surface of teeth which faces the cheeks); and
PNG
media_image1.png
654
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a means for providing structural strength being an object that is solid and is inserted and fused into the cavity formed by the hollow portion (paragraph [0030], “one or more of the wedges are filled acrylic, a cured resin, ceramic, metal, or any other substance suitable for adding structural rigidity to wedge 52 and wedge 62”, the filling material of the cured resin which is a cured acrylic, see Lotte claims 18/19, which fills the hollow cavity of 52 and 62 is construed as “an object” and since the shell also being made of acrylic, paragraph [0038] lines 20-23, the cured resin acrylic of the object and the shell are to be fused as acrylic is configured to be fused to itself through either chemical reaction or heating, the claim limitation does not require the object and the shell to actually be fused together, further recitation in paragraph [0030] that lists acrylic as a separate item from cured resin teaches that the object can be a cured resin, and thus a cured acrylic resin as per claim 18/19, before the object is inserted into the hollow, regarding the limitation of “is inserted” This limitation is being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965) as such once the cured acrylic is in the cavity in a cured state the end product is the same), wherein the object is configured to provide structural strength to the dental appliance at a location of the hollow portion without interfering with a first of the dental appliance onto the dental arch of the patient (paragraph [0030], “Preferably, wedge 62 and wedge 52 are hollow. Alternatively, one or more of the wedges are filled with, a cured resin, ceramic, metal, or any other substance suitable for adding structural rigidity to wedge 52 and wedge 62” as it is shown to fit onto an arch in FIG. 1B it is construed to not interfere with a fit of the dental appliance, by the cavity being recited by Lotte as to be “filled” with the cured resin, it is clear that the object is solid and in an inserted placed into the cavity to fill it with the object); and
the object having a first surface shaped to fit into the cavity of the hollow portion and configured to extend to a location above the main body (Fig. 2c showing an example of one way the hollow body would be formed includes the hollow forming part of the mold 92 would extend to a location “above” or beyond the occlusal surface of the main body) responsive to being inserted into the cavity hollow portion and a second surface corresponding to the lingual/buccal surface of the dental arch and being configured to facilitate the fit of the dental appliance comprising the plastic shell bonded to the object on the dental arch of the patient and the second surface being configured to be adjacent to at least a portion of one or more teeth of the dental arch responsive to the dental appliance being worn in the mouth of a patient (Fig. 1c element 52, Fig. 4f element 62 inner surface of element 66 at the tip, etc. being a hollow cavity of the shell, the cavity having a first surface as exampled by the mold of the occlusal portion of element 92 showing in figure 2c a first inner surface of the hollow cavity would be formed at the occlusal side of the shell formed over 92 and a second surface of the object would be formed similar to the surface of object 92 that is attached to the tooth mold 90, paragraph [0030] making clear the cavity formed would have the shape of the hollow formed around element 92 when attach to tooth model 90 is “filled” with a cured resin, and thus to be “filled” as defined by the Meriam Webster dictionary definition : “to put into as much as can be held”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/filled, the entire hollow cavity interior shape would be matched by the shape of the object that was to be “filled” in the cavity and thus much match the cavity and by being a solid object would inherently have a first surface that contacts the inside surface of the hollow wedge cavity and thus would extend to the location above the main body in order to fill the hollow. Further as the hollow cavity has a tip above the main body, it would be this internal surface of the tip that would form at least part of the first surface. Further the portion of the object that filled the cavity that would be adjacent the teeth would fill the cavity as well and thus have a second surface that would be adjacent the teeth when worn. Regarding the limitation of “responsive to being inserted into the hollow cavity” this limitation is being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). It is possible to understand the cavity formation and insertion being meant by the applicant to occur simultaneously thought that would be at odds grammatically with the term “inserted” and there is no clarifying special definition in the specification. The limitation of “inserted” is being treated as a product by process limitation and thus only the final product and its structural characteristics are required by the prior art.),
the object (the material of the interior of 52) having some shape that corresponds to a first feature (the object filling that space within 52/62 and thus having the same internal shape as 62 in order to fill the hollow as recited by Lotte “the wedges are filled”) shaped to reposition the jaw (by contact of 52/62 together as shown in FIG. 1E; [0031], “how appliance 50 and applicant 60 reposition the patient’s mandibular dentition”),
and that the object being pre-formed separately from the plastic shell and having a first registration feature comprising at least one of a ridge or lip that is configured mechanically interlock with a corresponding feature of the plastic shell responsive to the object being inserted in the cavity the corresponding registration feature of the plastic shell being formed separate from the object (Fig. 5a showing the cavity that the object fills has a preformed edge that would be met by the edges of the object that would thus form a lip and ridges formed by the object that would make the shape of the cavity which shows portions that would result in ridges, see image below, further as the shell is formed by the vacuum forming over the mold body as show below the sharp edge of the mold wedge attached to the mold teeth to form the mold body would thus create a positive form of a lip that would interlock when the subsequent object fills the negative shape hollow wedge of the shell then would have the sharp edge from overmolding, paragraph [0036] lines 15-20 and [0015] disclosing molding process and thus the produced shells would have the sharp edge that would interlock mechanically as a corresponding registration feature with object when filled. Regarding the process limitations of how the registration features of the object are made, This limitation is being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965), in this case as the object is not actually recited as being fused to the cavity but is recited as in the cavity the resulting structure is provided for by the cured acrylic even though the processes of forming would be different).
PNG
media_image3.png
275
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
283
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lotte discloses where the object is a preformed object that substantially conforms to a shape or contour of the cavity and wherein the object comprises plastic ( paragraph [0030] lines 11-14 the hollow cavity is filled with a solid object such a cured resin and substantially matches the shape and counter such that the cavity is “Filled” Meriam Webster dictionary definition : “to put into as much as can be held”).
Regarding claim 15, Lotte further discloses wherein the hollow portion is shaped to engage a second feature on the second dental arch of the patient (52 and 62 both have objects within the hollow portions which engage each other [0030]-[0031]). Regarding claim 16, Lotte further discloses wherein the object is positioned on a buccal region of the dental appliance (FIG. 1b shows the object/hollow portions being on a buccal region of the dental appliances 50/60).
Regarding claim 16, Lotte further discloses wherein the object is positioned on a buccal region of the dental appliance (FIG. 1b shows the object/hollow portions being on a buccal region of the dental appliances 50/60).
Regarding claim 17, Lotte further discloses wherein the object is shaped to provide bite stabilization to address contact between the first dental arch and the second dental arch of the patient ([0030]; [0032]).
Regarding claim 18, Lotte further discloses wherein the object is shaped to increase bite separation between the first dental arch and the second dental arch of the patient ([0030]; [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Lotte further discloses wherein the object is shaped to alter one or more occlusal contacts between the first dental arch and the second dental arch of the patient ([0030]; [0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Lotte further discloses wherein the dental appliance comprises an aligner including a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities shaped to receive and resiliently reposition teeth on the first dental arch ([0012], “The difference between the actual tooth position and the geometry of the tooth-receiving cavity provides a tooth repositioning force”).
Regarding claim 22, Lotte further discloses wherein the plastic shell including the hollow portion comprises a feature at an interface between the main body and the hollow portion (Fig. 5a the edge opening of element 52 is at the interface between the hollow part of 52 and the main body of 50) the feature being a plastic shell ridge and plastic shell lip at an interface that is configured to mechanically inter lock the object in the cavity formed by the hollow portion and the object is configured to be secured in the cavity formed by the hollow portion via the retention feature and configured to be fused to the plastic shell subsequent to being inserted into the cavity and secured in the cavity by the retention feature (Figs. 5a showing the hollow cavity which would have a lip at the edge and ridges at the edges and peaks where the shell has curves to match the tooth surface, see image above in claim 1, and would thus mechanically lock the object that is inside the hollow cavity, paragraph [0030] lines 11-14 the hollow cavity is filled with a solid object such as the cured resin and substantially matches the shape and contour such that the cavity is “Filled” Meriam Webster dictionary definition : “to put into as much as can be held” and would be retained by the tapering matching fill shape and thus once present inside the cavity would be bonded and secured to the shell via the shape of the object and the shape of the hollow cavity it is shaped to cause to be “filled”. The limitation of “being inserted” this limitation is being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965), further the limitation of “to be fused” since the shell is also made of acrylic, paragraph [0038] lines 20-23, the cured resin acrylic of the object and the shell are configured to be fused as acrylic is configured to be fused to itself through either chemical or heating, the claim limitation does not require the object and the shell to actually be fused together).
Regarding claim 24, Lotte further discloses where the object when solid an in the hollow space is held in place by a friction fit (Figs. 5a showing the hollow cavity which would have a lip at the edge and ridges at the edges and peaks where the shell has curves to match the tooth surface, see image above in claim 1, and would thus mechanically lock the object that is inside the hollow cavity, paragraph [0030] lines 11-14 the hollow cavity is filled with a solid object such as the cured resin and substantially matches the shape and contour and thus by being surrounded and in physical contact it would be friction coupled to the shell), further regarding the limitation of “prior to being melted and re-hardened” it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotte et al. (US 2003/0207224) in view of Mah et al. (US 2003/0198912 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Lotte discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where Lotte further discloses the first surface has a first shape that substantially matches first contour walls of the hollow portion that form the cavity (paragraph [0030] lines 11-14 the hollow cavity is filled with a solid object such a cured resin and substantially matches the shape and counter such that the cavity is “Filled” Meriam Webster dictionary definition : “to put into as much as can be held” and thus the shaped object that would cause the cavity to be filled would have a shape that substantially matches first contour walls of the hollow portion), but fails to explicitly disclose where the second surface has a second shape that substantially matches second contours of the at least a portion of the one or more teeth of the first dental arch.
However, Mah discloses a dental aligner appliance (title and abstract) having a hollow portion of the shell at a labial/buccal side of the shell (Fig. 1c element 55) and a solid object that is inserted in the hollow such that object has a first surface that substantially matches a first contour wall of the hollow (Fig. 1c element 75 that matches the contour of the wall of 55) and a second surface has a second shape that substantially matches second contours of the at least a portion of the one or more teeth of the first dental arch (Fig. 1c surface of 57 that matches the contour of the teeth opening of element 55, Fig. 12 element 57 showing the second surface that matches the contour of the teeth of the arch by including the interproximal shaped contour) and the inserted object provides structural stability to the hollow portion of the shell (paragraph [0039] lines 26-31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the second surface to have the second shape that substantially matches second contours of the at least a portion of the one or more teeth of the first dental arch as taught by Mah into the second surface of the object filling the hollow cavity as taught by Lotte for the purpose of having the material that fills the cavity to provide the structural stability by being fully bounded by the patient’s dental surface as taught by Mah (paragraph [0039] lines 2731 the stability is provided by the cavity being filled by the material object and the bounding being by a first surface of the inside of the cavity and a second surface bounded by the patient’s dentition).
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotte et al. (US 2003/0207224) in view of Martz et al. (US 2015/0157421 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lotte discloses each and every structural element of the dental appliance as set forth above but fails to explicitly discloses that the object is configured to be fused to the plastic shell, using one or more of a laser welding or ultrasonic welding.
However, Martz discloses a tooth positioning appliance (title and abstract) having a polymer shell (Fig. 2 elements 15) that have objects of the same material that are configured to be fused to the shell by ultrasonic welding (paragraph [0067] lines 18-24, disclosing the use of ultrasonic welding to fused a plastic panel over a region of the plastic shell).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an object being configured to be fused to a plastic shell such as by ultrasonic welding as taught by Martz into the bonding of the objecting to the shell as taught by Lotte as Martz teaches that there are a number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for joining acrylics together (paragraph [0067] all disclosing that “there are several conventional methods “ for connecting parts of an plastic orthodontic shell) and therefore, “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 103” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. __, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), thus the use of the ultrasonic welding that would fuse the polymers together would have been a known obvious option.
Regarding claim 23, Lotte discloses each and every structural element of the dental appliance as set forth above, and further discloses where a portion of the object and shell could fuse by light curing adhesive (paragraph [0049] lines 36-37) but fails to explicitly discloses that a portion of the object and a portion of the plastic shell at an interface between them are melted and re-hardened in the bonded or fused state.
However, Martz discloses a tooth positioning appliance (title and abstract) having a polymer shell (Fig. 2 elements 15) that have objects of the same material that are configured to be fused to the shell by ultrasonic welding as a known alternative to cold-cure acrylic bonding. (paragraph [0067] lines 10-13 disclosing cold curing acrylic as one way of bonding to a polymer shell and 18-24, disclosing a known alternative use of ultrasonic welding to fused a plastic panel over a region of the plastic shell)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an object being melt and re-hardened in a fused state to the plastic shell such as by ultrasonic welding as taught by Martz into the bonding of the objecting to the shell as taught by Lotte as Martz teaches that there are a number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for joining acrylics together (paragraph [0067] all disclosing that “there are several conventional methods “ for connecting parts of an plastic orthodontic shell) and therefore, “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 103” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. __, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), thus the use of the ultrasonic welding that would fuse the polymers together would have been a known obvious option.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 04/03/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772