DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/2025 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites “a tooth portion which is made of a resin and comprises: an anterior tooth portion configured to cover anterior teeth; and a molar tooth portion configured to cover molar teeth” lines 3-5 wherein it is unclear as to how a tooth portion can comprise multiple teeth portions. Further, it is unclear how an anterior tooth portion and a molar tooth portion cover multiple anterior teeth and molar teeth. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the tooth portion being the teeth portion to comprise the multiple teeth portions. Further, it will be interpreted that the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion are anterior teeth portion and molar teeth portions to comprise the multiple teeth being covered.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the unit regions is defined by a plurality of side walls, and each of the side walls has a predetermined thickness and is solid” in lines 30-31 wherein it is unclear as to what means by solid. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the sidewalls being solid along the entire length from an inner surface to an outer surface or if the sidewalls are solid in portions. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the sidewalls being solid along the entire length from an inner surface to an outer surface.
Claims 3, 5-7, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 1.
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, 3, 5-7, 13-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20180106589 A, see machine translated ver.) in view of Shanjani (US 20190262101 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Kim discloses a dental intraoral device that is worn within an oral cavity, the dental intraoral device (Abstract; 100B) comprising:
a tooth portion (P) which is made of a resin (Par. 35) and comprises:
an anterior tooth portion configured to cover anterior teeth (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 6; Fig. 6 shows that it covers the anterior teeth); and
a molar tooth portion configured to cover molar teeth (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 6; Fig. 6 shows that it covers the molar teeth),
wherein the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion are each formed into a mesh (See Figs. 6-7; Par. 45) shape by approximately regularly arranging a plurality of unit regions (120a; Par. 45), each of which has a hole 120a (Par. 45 discloses that the unit regions are made by plurality of saliva holes and as such would have holes),
wherein the anterior tooth portion comprises:
a tip portion that is a top portion of the anterior tooth portion (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 2 where though it presents a different embodiment, it provides a cross-sectional view of the anterior tooth portion. The embodiments differ by the arrangement and number of unit regions/saliva holes), the tip portion configured to cover a tip of the anterior tooth (Fig. 6):
a buccal-side portion that is a side portion of the anterior tooth portion, the buccal-side portion configured to cover a buccal-side surface of the anterior tooth (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 2 where though it presents a different embodiment, it provides a cross-sectional view of the anterior tooth portion. The embodiments differ by the arrangement and number of unit regions/saliva holes; Fig. 6); and
a palatal-side portion that is a side portion of the anterior tooth portion, the palatal-side portion configured to cover a palatal-side surface of the anterior tooth (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 2 where though it presents a different embodiment, it provides a cross-sectional view of the anterior tooth portion. The embodiments differ by the arrangement and number of unit regions/saliva holes; Fig. 6); and
the anterior tooth portion is formed into a concave shape with the tip portion, the buccal-side portion, and the palatal-side portion (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 2),
wherein the molar tooth portion comprises:
an occlusal portion that is a top portion of the molar tooth portion, the occlusal portion configured to cover an occlusal surface of the molar tooth (Annotated Figure C of Fig. 3 where though it presents a different embodiment, it provides a cross-sectional view of the molar tooth portion. The embodiments differ by the arrangement and number of unit regions/saliva holes; Fig. 6);
a buccal-side portion that is a side portion of the molar tooth portion, the buccal-side portion configured to cover a buccal-side surface of the molar tooth (Annotated Figure C of Fig. 3 where though it presents a different embodiment, it provides a cross-sectional view of the molar tooth portion. The embodiments differ by the arrangement and number of unit regions/saliva holes; Fig. 6); and
a palatal-side portion is a side portion of the molar tooth portion, the palatal-side portion configured to cover a palatal-side surface of the molar tooth (Annotated Figure C of Fig. 3 where though it presents a different embodiment, it provides a cross-sectional view of the molar tooth portion. The embodiments differ by the arrangement and number of unit regions/saliva holes; Fig. 6),
wherein each of the unit regions is defined by a plurality of side walls (Because the unit regions make the saliva holes, there would need to be at least one side wall to make the saliva hole; see Fig. 7 which presents the mesh in a plan view, defining a side wall; Fig. 7 shows a cross-section of the mesh where the side walls make a square shape for the saliva hole), and the plurality of side walls has a predetermined thickness and is solid (Because the unit regions make the saliva holes, it would need to be solid to create the hole to allow saliva to be expelled and as such would have a thickness which can be predetermined; see Fig. 7 which presents the mesh in a plan view, defining the side wall; Fig. 2-4 shows a cross-section of the intraoral device where it displays the side wall’s thickness and is solid),
wherein in the top portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion, the side wall of the unit regions extend in a vertical direction, so that the hole extends in the vertical direction in a tubular shape, and in the side portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion, the side wall of the unit regions extend in a horizontal direction, so that the hole extends in the horizontal direction in a tubular shape (Par. 34 discloses that the saliva holes which are considered to be the unit regions can be formed on the side portions as well as the top portions of the unit regions where it comprises a tubular shape. They comprise a tubular shape as the unit regions comprises a height that extends the thickness of the intraoral device; Par. 45 is found to also provide teaching the inner and outer wall can be connected by a portion, occlusal/tip portion where the particular portion can have a mesh structure), and
wherein a cross-section of the unit region (see Fig. 7) has a polygonal shape defined by a plurality of edges (Fig. 7 where the unit region has a square shape), and each of the edges has a predetermined length (Fig. 7 where the length make up the each side of the square shape).
However, Kim is silent to the length of the edges being in a range from 0.1 mm to 5.0 mm, and a ratio (L/T) of the length (L) to the [[a]] thickness (T) is in a range from 1.25 to 50.
Kim does disclose that the by varying the number of saliva holes per unit area and the distribution position of the saliva holes, it can change the flexibility of the tooth pockets (Par. 23). Kim as such teaches changing the flexibility can be done by changing the thickness of the walls.
Shanjani discloses a dental intraoral device in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a tooth portion made of resin (Par. 159 and Fig. 3-4) that comprises an anterior tooth portion and a molar tooth portion (Fig. 8) that are each formed into a mesh shape (Abstract). Further, Shanjani discloses at least a part of the mesh shape is formed by a plurality of unit regions, the unit region having a hole formed by the mesh shape (Par. 7, 22-23, and 64; Fig. 3 and 8-10 where the holes are present due to the structure’s open geometry; It should be noted that “at least a part of the mesh shape” is found to be broad where the mesh shape can be interpreted as a singular cellular lattice described by Shanjani) and the unit regions comprises a plurality of side walls (see Fig. 2 and 8 shows the unit regions and the side walls in as a cross section that create the different cellular patterns and shapes). In addition, Shanjani discloses that a cross-section of the unit region has a polygonal shape defined by a plurality of edges (Par. 7, 22-23, and 64; Fig. 3-4 and 8-9). Further, Shanjani discloses that the unit regions can have varying lengths and thickness where the length may range from 10 micrometers to 7 millimeters and the thickness may range from 10 micrometers to 5 millimeters. As such, a range of L/T ratios can be determined as well from the dimensions. Adjusting the length and thickness can adjust the mechanical properties of the mesh shape (Par. 80).
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the unit region of Kim to have each of the edges have a predetermined length (L), the length (L) being in a range from 0.1 mm to 5.0 mm, and a ratio (L/T) of the length (L) to the [[a]] thickness (T) is in a range from 1.25 to 50 as taught by Shanjani to provide adjustment of the mechanical properties of the mesh shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
493
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
PNG
media_image2.png
509
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
PNG
media_image3.png
446
848
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C
Re. Claim 3, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses in a plan view, the plurality of unit regions is arranged adjacent to each other via the side walls (Figs. 6-7, Par. 45).
Re. Claim 5, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses the cross sections of the unit regions each have a regular polygonal shape (Fig. 7 shows the opening of the mesh having a square opening; Regular polygon is being interpreted as the definition of regular polygon which is a shape with 3 or more equal sides).
Re. Claim 6, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses the cross sections of the unit regions each have one kind of a polygonal shape (Fig. 7 shows the opening of the mesh having a square opening).
Re. Claim 7, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses the cross sections of the unit regions each have one kind of a regular polygonal shape (Fig. 7 shows the opening of the mesh having a square opening; Regular polygon is being interpreted as the definition of regular polygon which is a shape with 3 or more equal sides).
Re. Claim 13, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim discloses that the rigidity can vary depending on the number of unit regions (saliva holes) (Par. 44). Shanjani also presents a similar teaching where the unit regions can be varied in region from one another (Par. 27, 65, 78-79 and 81; Fig. 4 and 6 presents the unit regions of varying rigidity on a dental intraoral device).
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have an anterior tooth part of the tooth portion of Kim and Shanjani to be formed by the unit regions having higher rigidity than other parts of the tooth portion as taught by Kim and Shanjani to achieve more effective desire tooth movement, provide less discomfort to the patient, provide a longer therapeutic lifetime in comparison to a device with a constant rigidity and allow for the device to be tailored to specific patients depending on what type of treatment plan they need (Par. 78-79 of Shanjani).
Re. Claim 14, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim discloses that the rigidity can vary depending on the number of unit regions (saliva holes) (Par. 44). Shanjani also presents a similar teaching where the unit regions can be varied in region from one another (Par. 27, 65, 78-79 and 81; Fig. 4 and 6 presents the unit regions of varying rigidity on a dental intraoral device).
As such, it would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the intraoral device of Kim and Shanjani to have the unit regions at the side portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion are smaller than the unit regions at the top portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion such that the side portion has a higher rigidity than the top portion as taught by Kim and Shanjani to achieve more effective desire tooth movement, provide less discomfort to the patient, provide a longer therapeutic lifetime in comparison to a device with a constant rigidity and allow for the device to be tailored to specific patients depending on what type of treatment plan they need (Par. 78-79 of Shanjani).
Re. Claim 15, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Kim further discloses the tooth portion is formed to cover intraoral teeth, and a part of the tooth portion where the unit regions are formed is the tooth portion that covers a tooth to be straightened (Fig. 6; Abstract).
Re. Claim 16, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 15, wherein Kim further discloses the side portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion that covers the tooth to be straightened (Fig. 6) are formed by the unit regions having higher rigidity than the top portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion (Par. 44).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the side portions of the anterior portion and the molar tooth portion of Kim and Shanjani to have the unit regions having higher rigidity than the top portions of the anterior tooth portion and the molar tooth portion as taught by Kim to achieve more effective desire tooth movement, provide less discomfort to the patient, provide a longer therapeutic lifetime in comparison to a device with a constant rigidity and allow for the device to be tailored to specific patients depending on what type of treatment plan they need (Par. 78-79 of Shanjani).
Re. Claim 18, Kim and Shanjani discloses a method for manufacturing the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Shanjani further discloses the method comprising: generating three-dimensional data of the dental intraoral device; and modeling the dental intraoral device by a three-dimensional modeling device based on the three-dimensional data (Par. 92-93; 146-150).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the method of manufacturing the dental intraoral device of Kim and Shanjani to include generating three-dimensional data of the dental intraoral device; and modeling the dental intraoral device by a three-dimensional modeling device based on the three-dimensional data as taught by Shanjani to develop an intraoral device fitted for the patient.
Re. Claim 19, Kim and Shanjani discloses the dental intraoral device according to claim 1, wherein Shanjani further discloses the ratio (L/T) of the length (L) to the thickness (T) is from 2.0 to 3.0 (Shanjani discloses in Par. 23 that the length may range from 10 micrometers to 7 millimeters and the thickness may range from 10 micrometers to 5 millimeters. As such, a range of L/T ratios can be determined as well from the dimension).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the ratio of the length to the thickness of Kim and Shanjani to be 2.0 to 3.0 as taught by Shanjani to provide adjustment of the mechanical properties of the mesh shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
9/16/2025