DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 9 February 2026. Claims 1, 4, 12, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 16 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 have been examined on their merits.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 7, filed 9 February 2026, with respect to rejected claims 4 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 9 February 2026. The rejections of claims 4 and 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 7-9, filed 9 February 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
However, Hansen does not disclose, teach, or suggest a 3D oral device configured to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth, such as an aligner or retainer. Accordingly, Hansen fails to teach the amended limitation of claim 1. Applicant further submits Ahjri and Crabtree fail to disclose, teach, or suggest at least this claim element, nor were they cited for such purpose. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully agrees.
The Examiner emphasizes that all anticipated components and limitations
of pending claims are present in the prior art as supported below. In addition, the Examiner notes the limitation of a single option of “… adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth, such as an aligner or retainer” was newly presented in the Request for Continued Examination received on 9 February 2026 by the Office, and has been addressed as set forth in the Office Action below.
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments,
Crabtree's inspection module "is also provided to identify a surface texture of each AM part on the first conveyor 116, corresponding to a surface finish quality of the part before post-processing." Id., para. [0208]. This is general surface smoothing based on surface texture and roughness parameters for aesthetic purposes, not targeted smoothing of specific features identified as exceeding a dimensional deviation threshold relative to a patient-specific data file. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 3)
The Applicant's arguments against the references individually, wherein one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the Examiner recognizes the Applicant has not addressed the combination of Ajri’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0051234 A1) teaching of “compare the 3D scan file with the data file to determine at least one feature represented in the 3D scan file that exceeds a deviation threshold relative to a corresponding respective feature represented in the data file” in view of Crabtree’s (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0387415 A1) teaching of “finish the additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part” as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 of the Final Office Action mailed on 7 August 2025, and similarly in claims 12 and 20. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Ajri's QC module "can determine whether the manufactured dentition model is a good or defective part based on the distribution of offsets of the differences model, which can comprise of data points of offset values." Ajri, para. [0047]. However, Ajri also does not teach finishing or smoothing features that exceed a deviation threshold. Instead, Ajri identifies good or defective parts for quality control purposes. Thus, the cited references collectively fail to teach or suggest the claimed combination where the scanner compares the 3D scan file with the data file to determine at least one feature that exceeds a deviation threshold, and the finishing module then finishes the 3D oral device by smoothing that specific identified feature. Moreover, Hansen fails to disclose or suggest such elements, not was Hansen cited for such purpose. (pg. 9, paragraph 1)
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “… finishing or smoothing features that exceed a deviation threshold.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the Examiner respectfully notes the arguments appear directed to limitations of withdrawn claims 2 and 13. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0051234 A1 (hereinafter Ajri) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0387415 A1 (hereinafter Crabtree) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0038346 A1 (hereinafter Sandwick).
As per claim 1, Ajri substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Ajri teaches the limitations of a network enabled, three-dimensional (3D) printing and automated processing system for oral devices, the system comprising:
a 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 110) coupled with one or more processors (pg. 3, par. [0033] and pgs. 5-6, par. [0057]; i.e. [0033]: “… fabrication module 110 can be a 3D printing system such as a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer or a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer. The 3D printing material used can be a photopolymer, methacrylate based polymer, ester based polymer, ABS plastic, thermal plastic, acrylic esters, or a medical grade plastic.” and [0057]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an overall system or apparatus 700 in which system 100 and process 600 can be implemented. In accordance with various aspects of the disclosure, an element, or any portion of an element, or any combination of elements may be implemented with a processing system 714 that includes one or more processing circuits 704.”), the 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 110) configured to:
receive, via a network, a data file representative of a mouth of a user (pg. 2, par. [0025]-[0027], pg. 3, par. [0032], and claim 8, claim 21; i.e. [0024]: “A patient's dentition data set can include one or more of the patient's scan data from multiple and/or duplicative scans of various portions of the patient's mouth. For example, each scan data can be a scan of one or more portions of the patient's jaw. The manufactured dentition model described herein can be fabricated using 3D data (e.g., electronic image) of at least a portion of a patient's dentition. A patient's scanned dentition data (also referred to as scanned 3D patient-dentition data) can be obtained by a direct intraoral scan of the patient's teeth”, [0025]: “To generate the scanned 3D patient-dentition data, one or more scans can be performed on the patient's teeth, depending upon where the dental prosthesis is to be installed.”, [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.”, claim 21: “… obtaining a scanned 3D dentition data of dentition of a patient; printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data …”),
print a 3D oral device based on the data file (pg. 2, par. [0027] and pg. 8, claim 21; i.e. [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.” and claim 21: “… printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data”), and
a scanner (Fig. 1, element 105; i.e. a model scanner) communicatively coupled with the 3D printer and the one or more processors (pg. 3, par. [0032], pg. 4, par. [0039]-[0041], pgs. 5-6, par. [0057], and Fig. 7, element 704 of Fig. 7, element 714; i.e. [0057]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an overall system or apparatus 700 in which system 100 and process 600 can be implemented. In accordance with various aspects of the disclosure, an element, or any portion of an element, or any combination of elements may be implemented with a processing system 714 that includes one or more processing circuits 704.”)), the scanner (Fig. 1, element 105) configured to:
scan the 3D oral device to generate a 3D scan file of the 3D oral device (pg. 4, par. [0039]-[0041]; i.e. [0039]: “Once dentition model 200 is cured, it can be scanned to create a 3D data of dentition model 200. Model scanner 120 can be a contact or non-contact inspection device that can generate a scanned data set of the manufactured dentition model.”), and
compare the 3D scan file with the data file to determine at least one feature represented in the 3D scan file that exceeds a deviation threshold relative to a corresponding respective feature represented in the data file (pg. 3, par. [0031], pg. 5, par. [0047], [0049]-[0051]; i.e. [0031]: “… the manufactured dentition model is scanned to generate another set of 3D data—the scanned 3D manufactured-dentition data. This dataset and the scanned 3D patient-dentition data are then used to generate a differences model upon which quality control is performed.”, [0047]: “QC module 125 can determine whether the manufactured dentition model is a good or defective part based on the distribution of offsets of the differences model, which can comprise of data points of offset values.”).
Not explicitly taught are automatically eject the 3D oral device;
receive the 3D oral device from the 3D printer;
the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth; and
a finishing module communicatively coupled with the one or more processors and the scanner, the finishing module configured to:
receive the 3D oral device from the scanner and
finish the 3D oral device by smoothing the at least one feature on the 3D oral device.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitations of automatically eject an additive manufacturing part (abstract, pg. 1, par. [0003], and pg. 6, par. [0199]; i.e. abstract: “… a system (100) for automatically processing an additively manufactured part.” and [0199]: “A robotic system 106 is configured to retrieve one or more 3D printed powder blocks, including one or more AM parts therein, from at least one of the printers 104 and transport them to a support removal module 108.”);
a scanner (pg. 7, par. [0208] and Fig. 1, element 120; i.e. an optical inspection module) configured to:
receive the additive manufacturing part from a 3D printer (pg. 6, par. [0199], pg. 7, par. [0208], and Fig. 1, element 104; i.e. [0199]: “A robotic system 106 is configured to retrieve one or more 3D printed powder blocks, including one or more AM parts therein, from at least one of the printers 104 and transport them to a support removal module 108.” and [0208]: “An optical inspection module 120 is also provided to identify a surface texture of each AM part on the first conveyor 116, corresponding to a surface finish quality of the part before post-processing.”); and
a finishing module (Fig. 1, element 118; i.e. a surface finishing module/apparatus) communicatively coupled with one or more processors (Fig. 1, element 102; i.e. a controller) and the scanner (pg. 7, par. [0208], Fig. 1, element 120; i.e. optical inspection device; i.e. “The inspection module 120 is also configured to provide data relating to the surface finish quality of the part to the controller 102. The controller 102 is configured to then operate the surface finishing module/apparatus 118 accordingly to achieve a desired surface texture.”), the finishing module (Fig. 1, element 118) configured to:
receive the additive manufacturing part from the scanner (pg. 7, par. [0210]; i.e. “At least one further robotic arm 124 may be provided with object recognition/vision capability for automatically locating/retrieving each rack/hanger into/from the surface finishing module/apparatus 118.”) and
finish the additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part (pg. 7, par. [0211]; i.e. “The surface finishing module/apparatus 118 is aptly configured to automatically smooth an AM polymer part to a desired surface roughness by using a solvent-based method, such as described in GB1721485.9 by Additive Manufacturing Technologies Limited.”) for the purpose of automating post-processing in additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 7, par. [0211])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitations of automatically eject an additive manufacturing part; a scanner configured to: receive the additive manufacturing part from a 3D printer; and a finishing module communicatively coupled with one or more processors and the scanner, the finishing module configured to: receive the additive manufacturing part from the scanner and finish the additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view Crabtree does not expressly the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth.
However Sandwick, in an analogous art of dental appliances (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a 3D oral device (Fig. 1A, element 10 and Fig. 2, element 10; i.e. i.e. an orthodontic retainer) being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth (pg. 2, par. [0024] and [0025], [0028], and [0029]) for the purpose of retaining lower and upper teeth in a mouth (pg. (pg. 2, par. [0024] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree to include the addition of the limitation of a 3D oral device being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth to advantageously manufacture a thinner, stronger, more hygienic retainer that encourages greater patient compliance, and less effects on negative speech patterns compared to traditional non-metal orthodontic retainers (Sandwick: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
As per claim 4, Ajri teaches the deviation threshold is 50 microns (pg. 5, par. [0051]; i.e. “… QC module 125 can flag a manufactured dentition model as a bad part when over 15% of the offsets are over ±50 microns. Inversely, QC module 125 can flag a manufactured dentition model as a good part when over 85% of the offsets are within ±50 microns.”).
As per claim 12, Ajri substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Ajri teaches the limitations of a method for network enabled, three-dimensional (3D) printing and automated processing of oral devices, the method comprising:
receiving, via a network, a data file representative of a mouth of a user (pg. 2, par. [0025]-[0027], pg. 3, par. [0032], and claim 8, claim 21; i.e. [0024]: “A patient's dentition data set can include one or more of the patient's scan data from multiple and/or duplicative scans of various portions of the patient's mouth. For example, each scan data can be a scan of one or more portions of the patient's jaw. The manufactured dentition model described herein can be fabricated using 3D data (e.g., electronic image) of at least a portion of a patient's dentition. A patient's scanned dentition data (also referred to as scanned 3D patient-dentition data) can be obtained by a direct intraoral scan of the patient's teeth”, [0025]: “To generate the scanned 3D patient-dentition data, one or more scans can be performed on the patient's teeth, depending upon where the dental prosthesis is to be installed.”, [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.”, claim 21: “… obtaining a scanned 3D dentition data of dentition of a patient; printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data …”);
printing, by a 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 110), a 3D oral device based on the data file (pg. 2, par. [0027], pg. 3, par. [0033], and pg. 8, claim 21; i.e. [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.”, [0033]: “… fabrication module 110 can be a 3D printing system such as a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer or a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer. The 3D printing material used can be a photopolymer, methacrylate based polymer, ester based polymer, ABS plastic, thermal plastic, acrylic esters, or a medical grade plastic.”, and claim 21: “… printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data”);
scanning, by a scanner (Fig. 1, element 105; i.e. a model scanner), the 3D oral device to generate a 3D scan file of the 3D oral device (pg. 4, par. [0039]-[0041]; i.e. [0039]: “Once dentition model 200 is cured, it can be scanned to create a 3D data of dentition model 200. Model scanner 120 can be a contact or non-contact inspection device that can generate a scanned data set of the manufactured dentition model.”); and
comparing, by one or more processors (pgs. 5-6, par. [0057] and Fig. 7, element 704 of Fig. 7, element 714; i.e. one or more processing circuits of a processing system and [0057]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an overall system or apparatus 700 in which system 100 and process 600 can be implemented. In accordance with various aspects of the disclosure, an element, or any portion of an element, or any combination of elements may be implemented with a processing system 714 that includes one or more processing circuits 704.”), the 3D scan file with the data file to determine at least one feature represented in the 3D scan file that exceeds a deviation threshold relative to a corresponding respective feature represented in the data file (pg. 3, par. [0031], pg. 5, par. [0047], [0049]-[0051]; i.e. [0031]: “… the manufactured dentition model is scanned to generate another set of 3D data—the scanned 3D manufactured-dentition data. This dataset and the scanned 3D patient-dentition data are then used to generate a differences model upon which quality control is performed.”, [0047]: “QC module 125 can determine whether the manufactured dentition model is a good or defective part based on the distribution of offsets of the differences model, which can comprise of data points of offset values.”).
Not explicitly taught are the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth;
automatically ejecting, from the 3D printer, the 3D oral device; and
finishing, by a finishing module, the 3D oral device by smoothing the at least one feature on the 3D oral device.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitations of automatically ejecting, from an 3D printer (pg. 6, par. [0198] and Fig. 1, element 104), an additive manufacturing part (abstract, pg. 1, par. [0003], and pg. 6, par. [0199]; i.e. abstract: “… a system (100) for automatically processing an additively manufactured part.” and [0199]: “A robotic system 106 is configured to retrieve one or more 3D printed powder blocks, including one or more AM parts therein, from at least one of the printers 104 and transport them to a support removal module 108.”); and
finishing, by a finishing module (Fig. 1, element 118; i.e. a surface finishing module/apparatus), an additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part (pg. 7, par. [0211]; i.e. “The surface finishing module/apparatus 118 is aptly configured to automatically smooth an AM polymer part to a desired surface roughness by using a solvent-based method, such as described in GB1721485.9 by Additive Manufacturing Technologies Limited.”) for the purpose of automating post-processing in additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 7, par. [0211])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitations of automatically ejecting, from an 3D printer, an additive manufacturing part; and finishing, by a finishing module, an additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view Crabtree does not expressly the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth
However Sandwick, in an analogous art of dental appliances (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a 3D oral device (Fig. 1A, element 10 and Fig. 2, element 10; i.e. i.e. an orthodontic retainer) being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth (pg. 2, par. [0024] and [0025], [0028], and [0029]) for the purpose of retaining lower and upper teeth in a mouth (pg. (pg. 2, par. [0024] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree to include the addition of the limitation of a 3D oral device being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth to advantageously manufacture a thinner, stronger, more hygienic retainer that encourages greater patient compliance, and less effects on negative speech patterns compared to traditional non-metal orthodontic retainers (Sandwick: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0271323 A1 (hereinafter Zinniel).
As per claim 3, Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach the finishing module comprises at least one of a sandblaster and a vapor smoother.
However Zinniel, in an analogous art of manufacturing three-dimensional object (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a finishing module comprises of a vapor smoother (pg. 3, par. [0030] and [0031] and Fig. 1, element 60, i.e. a vapor smoothing system) for the purpose of reducing or eliminating effects on three-dimensional objects (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of a finishing module comprises of a vapor smoother to advantageously build quality three-dimensional objects based on individual designs and specification of customers (Zinniel: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
As per claim 14, Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach the finishing module comprises at least one of a sandblaster and a vapor smoother.
However Zinniel, in an analogous art of manufacturing three-dimensional object (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a finishing module comprises of a vapor smoother (pg. 3, par. [0030] and [0031] and Fig. 1, element 60, i.e. a vapor smoothing system) for the purpose of reducing or eliminating effects on three-dimensional objects (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of a finishing module comprises of a vapor smoother to advantageously build quality three-dimensional objects based on individual designs and specification of customers (Zinniel: pg. 1, par. [0004]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0298879 A1 (hereinafter Miller).
As per claim 5, Ajri teaches identify a respective feature represented in the 3D scan file that deviates from a corresponding respective feature in the data file by at least 100 microns (pg. 5, par. [0050]; i.e. “… QC module 125 can flag a manufactured dentition model as a bad part when over 10% of the offsets are over ±75 microns. In some embodiments, a part can be considered bad when over 30% of the offsets are over ±75 microns.”; Examiner’s Note: Ajri teaching of “over ±75 microns” encompasses the claimed limitation of “at least 100 microns” since 100 microns is more than 75 microns.).
Ajri does not expressly teach designate the 3D oral device for manual finishing.
Ajri in view of Crabtree does not expressly teach designate the 3D oral device for manual finishing.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach designate the 3D oral device for manual finishing.
However Miller, in an analogous art of manufacturing a dental prothesis (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of designate a 3D oral device for manual finishing (pg. 3, par. [0044]-[0047]; i.e. designating between automatic and manual removal of a material from a dental component) for the purpose of removing material from a dental component (pg. 3, par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of designate a 3D oral device for manual finishing to advantageously manufacture dental components with a low work effort and minimized number of errors (Miller: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
As per claim 15, Ajri teaches the deviation threshold is 50 microns (pg. 5, par. [0051]; i.e. “… QC module 125 can flag a manufactured dentition model as a bad part when over 15% of the offsets are over ±50 microns. Inversely, QC module 125 can flag a manufactured dentition model as a good part when over 85% of the offsets are within ±50 microns.”); and
identifying, by the one or more processors (pgs. 5-6, par. [0057] and Fig. 7, element 704 of Fig. 7, element 714; i.e. one or more processing circuits of a processing system and [0057]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an overall system or apparatus 700 in which system 100 and process 600 can be implemented. In accordance with various aspects of the disclosure, an element, or any portion of an element, or any combination of elements may be implemented with a processing system 714 that includes one or more processing circuits 704.”), a respective feature represented in the 3D scan file that deviates from a corresponding feature in the data file by at least 100 microns (pg. 5, par. [0050]; i.e. “… QC module 125 can flag a manufactured dentition model as a bad part when over 10% of the offsets are over ±75 microns. In some embodiments, a part can be considered bad when over 30% of the offsets are over ±75 microns.”; Examiner’s Note: Ajri teaching of “over ±75 microns” encompasses the claimed limitation of “at least 100 microns” since 100 microns is more than 75 microns.).
Ajri does not expressly teach designating, by the one or more processors, the 3D oral device for manual finishing.
Ajri in view of Crabtree does not expressly teach designating, by the one or more processors, the 3D oral device for manual finishing.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach designating, by the one or more processors, the 3D oral device for manual finishing.
However Miller, in an analogous art of manufacturing a dental prothesis (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of designating a 3D oral device for manual finishing (pg. 3, par. [0044]-[0047]; i.e. designating between automatic and manual removal of a material from a dental component) for the purpose of removing material from a dental component (pg. 3, par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of designating a 3D oral device for manual finishing to advantageously manufacture dental components with a low work effort and minimized number of errors (Miller: pg. 1, par. [0005]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0098828 A1 (hereinafter Hansen).
As per claim 6, Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach convert the data file into a set of code that is executable by the 3D printer to print the 3D oral device.
However Hansen, in an analogous art of additively manufacturing dental restorations (pg. 2, par. [0032]), teaches the missing limitation of convert a data file into a set of code that is executable by a 3D printer to print a 3D oral device (pg. 2, par. [0032] and [0034]; i.e. [0032]: “Systems to generate digital 3D images or models based upon image sets from multiple views are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,956,862 and 7,605,817, both of which are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. These systems can use an intra-oral scanner to obtain digital images from multiple views of teeth or other intra-oral structures, and those digital images are processed to generate a digital 3D model or scan representing the scanned teeth or other intra-oral structure. The 3D models or scans can be implemented as, for example, a polygonal mesh or point cloud representing the surface of the scanned object or intra-oral structure.” and [0034]: “… receiving digital 3D models of intra-oral structures, such as models 12, or parameters for a preformed restoration (step 22), generating a design of the restoration (step 24), generating instructions for a 3D printer to make the restoration (step 26) …”) for the purpose of making dental restorations with a 3D printer (pg. 2, par. [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of convert a data file into a set of code that is executable by a 3D printer to print a 3D oral device to enhance a function and ease-of-use of ceramic dental restorations, including integral retention, identification, adjustability, flexibility, and tailored porosity (Hansen: pgs. 1-2, par. [0031]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0261848 A1 (hereinafter Haraszati) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0174932 A1 (hereinafter Granlund).
As per claim 9, Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach the 3D oral device comprises (i) a base portion, (ii) a teeth portion, and (iii) a support portion, and
wherein the 3D printer is further configured to:
print the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for the base portion,
a second material for the teeth portion, and
a third material for the support portion.
However Haraszati, in an analogous art of 3D printing of a dental protheses (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 4, par. [0058]), teaches the missing limitations of a 3D oral device comprises (i) a base portion and (ii) a teeth portion (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… the 3D printer applied uses a bearing material, and biocompatible raw material of two or three or four color, and the 3D printer builds up the teeth from a white, toothlike color material, the base plate is made from a unicolor pink material (gingiva).)”), and
wherein a 3D printer (pg. 3, par. [0038]; i.e. “… the prosthesis is produced from the established digital model with a spatial 3D printer (PRI) suitable for printing several different colors, several different raw materials from a biologically compatible liquid composite plastic material setting under laser or UV light, preferably with Multi Jet Modelling (MJM) method.”) is further configured to:
print the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for the base portion and a second material for the teeth portion (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… the 3D printer applied uses a bearing material, and biocompatible raw material of two or three or four color, and the 3D printer builds up the teeth from a white, toothlike color material, the base plate is made from a unicolor pink material (gingiva).) and
print the 3D oral device with multiple materials (pg. 3, par. [0036] and pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. [0036]: “… the prosthesis created from the digital model in the known way, was made by a spatial printer suitable for printing various colors and various raw materials …” and [0058]: “…the 3D printer applied uses a bearing material, and biocompatible raw material of two or three or four color …” for the purpose of producing a removable dental prostheses (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitations of a 3D oral device comprises (i) a base portion and (ii) a teeth portion, and wherein a 3D printer is further configured to: print the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for the base portion and a second material and print the 3D oral device with multiple materials for the teeth portion to quickly and efficiently manufacture a dental prostheses (Haraszati: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati does not expressly teach a 3D oral device comprises (iii) a support portion; and print the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for a third material for the support portion.
However Granlund, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing systems (pg. 1, pr. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of a 3D oral device comprises a support portion (pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0038]; i.e. [0035]: “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part.” and [0038]: “… an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system for printing or otherwise building 3D parts and support structures using a layer-based, additive manufacturing technique, where the parts may be printed from the materials-FP …”); and
print the 3D oral device by utilizing a third material for the support portion (pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0038]; i.e. “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part” and [0038]: “… an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system for printing or otherwise building 3D parts and support structures using a layer-based, additive manufacturing technique, where the parts may be printed from the materials-FP …”) for the purpose of printing 3D parts and support structures (pg. 4, pr. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati to include the addition of the limitations of a 3D oral device comprises a support portion; and print the 3D oral device by utilizing a third material for the support portion to advantageously complete a 3D part without damaging any critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part (Granlund: pg. 4, par. [0035]).
As per claim 17, Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach the 3D oral device comprises (i) a base portion, (ii) a teeth portion, and (iii) a support portion, and
wherein the method further comprises:
printing, by the 3D printer, the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for the base portion, a second material for the teeth portion, and a third material for the support portion.
However Haraszati, in an analogous art of 3D printing of a dental protheses (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 4, par. [0058]), teaches the missing limitations of a 3D oral device comprises (i) a base portion and (ii) a teeth portion (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… the 3D printer applied uses a bearing material, and biocompatible raw material of two or three or four color, and the 3D printer builds up the teeth from a white, toothlike color material, the base plate is made from a unicolor pink material (gingiva).)”), and
wherein the method further comprises:
printing, by a 3D printer (pg. 3, par. [0038]; i.e. “… the prosthesis is produced from the established digital model with a spatial 3D printer (PRI) suitable for printing several different colors, several different raw materials from a biologically compatible liquid composite plastic material setting under laser or UV light, preferably with Multi Jet Modelling (MJM) method.”), the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for the base portion and a second material for the teeth portion (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… the 3D printer applied uses a bearing material, and biocompatible raw material of two or three or four color, and the 3D printer builds up the teeth from a white, toothlike color material, the base plate is made from a unicolor pink material (gingiva).) and
print the 3D oral device with multiple materials (pg. 3, par. [0036] and pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. [0036]: “… the prosthesis created from the digital model in the known way, was made by a spatial printer suitable for printing various colors and various raw materials …” and [0058]: “…the 3D printer applied uses a bearing material, and biocompatible raw material of two or three or four color …” for the purpose of producing a removable dental prostheses (pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitations of 3D oral device comprises (i) a base portion and (ii) a teeth portion, and wherein the method further comprises: printing, by a 3D printer, the 3D oral device by utilizing a first material for the base portion and a second material for the teeth portion and print the 3D oral device with multiple materials to quickly and efficiently manufacture a dental prostheses (Haraszati: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati does not expressly teach the 3D oral device comprises (iii) a support portion; and
printing, by the 3D printer, the 3D oral device by utilizing a third material for the support portion.
However Granlund, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing systems (pg. 1, pr. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of a 3D oral device comprises a support portion (pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0038]; i.e. [0035]: “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part.” and [0038]: “… an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system for printing or otherwise building 3D parts and support structures using a layer-based, additive manufacturing technique, where the parts may be printed from the materials-FP …”); and
printing, by a 3D printer (pg. 4, par. [0038] and [0039] and Fig. 1, element 10; i.e. a system for printing 3D parts and supports), the 3D oral device by utilizing a third material for the support portion (pg. 4, par. [0035] and [0038]; i.e. “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part” and [0038]: “… an extrusion-based additive manufacturing system for printing or otherwise building 3D parts and support structures using a layer-based, additive manufacturing technique, where the parts may be printed from the materials-FP …”) for the purpose of printing 3D parts and support structures (pg. 4, pr. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati to include the addition of the limitations of a 3D oral device comprises a support portion; and printing, by a 3D printer, the 3D oral device by utilizing a third material for the support portion to advantageously complete a 3D part without damaging any critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part (Granlund: pg. 4, par. [0035]).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick, Haraszati, Granlund, and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0318718 A1 (hereinafter Espalin).
As per claim 10, Ajri does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the network enabled, 3D printing and automated processing system further comprises an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to:
place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion,
automatically remove the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved, and
place the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitations of place the additive manufacturing part at a support removal module (pg. 7, par. [0209] and Fig .1, element 108; i.e. a de-powdering module and [0209]: “… the controller 102 may be configured to modify parameters of the de-powdering process, performed by the de-powdering module 108, based on the surface texture identified by the optical inspection module 120. This helps to remove the supports of the part in a more efficient way to ensure as much of the support as possible is removed.”),
automatically remove the additive manufacturing part at the support removal module (Fig. 1, element 108; i.e. the de-powdering module) when the support portion is removed (pg. 7, par. [0210]; i.e. “At least one further robotic arm 124 may be provided with object recognition/vision capability for automatically locating/retrieving each rack/hanger into/from the surface finishing module/apparatus 118.”), and
place the additive manufacturing part into the finishing module (pg. 7, par. [0210]; i.e. “At least one further robotic arm 124 may be provided with object recognition/vision capability for automatically locating/retrieving each rack/hanger into/from the surface finishing module/apparatus 118.”) for the purpose of automating post-processing in additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 7, par. [0211])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitations of place the additive manufacturing part at a support removal module, automatically remove the additive manufacturing part at the support removal module when the support portion is removed, and place the additive manufacturing part into the finishing module to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the network enabled, 3D printing and automated processing system further comprises an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to:
place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion,
automatically remove the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved, and
place the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the network enabled, 3D printing and automated processing system further comprises an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to:
place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion,
automatically remove the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved, and
place the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the network enabled, 3D printing and automated processing system further comprises an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to:
place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion,
automatically remove the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved, and
place the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
However Granlund, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing systems (pg. 1, pr. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of the third material for the support portion is dissolvable (pg. 4, par. [0035]; i.e. “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part.”) and
place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion (pg. 4, par. [0035]; i.e. “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part.”) for the purpose of printing 3D parts and support structures (pg. 4, pr. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati to include the addition of the limitations of the third material for the support portion is dissolvable and place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion to advantageously complete a 3D part without damaging any critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part (Granlund: pg. 4, par. [0035]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick, Haraszati and Granlund does not expressly teach the network enabled, 3D printing and automated processing system further comprises an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to:
place the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion,
automatically remove the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved, and
place the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
However Espalin, in an analogous art of three-dimensional printing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of an autonomous robotic arm (Fig. 1, element 14) communicatively coupled with the one or more processors (pg. 1, par. [0008] and pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. [0008]: “… automatically transporting 3D printing parts between manufacturing and processing stations.” and [0026]: “… a robot arm 14 capable of transporting one or more parts to all surrounding stations .”) that is configured to transport three-dimensional parts between stations (pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. “… the term robot refers to any mechanical or virtual artificial agent such as an electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program and/or electronic circuitry, and which may be autonomous or semi-autonomous.”) for the purpose of printing three-dimensional (3D) objects per removing and placing 3D parts in separate processing stations (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick, Haraszati and Granlund to include the addition of the limitation of an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to transport three-dimensional parts between stations to advantageously provide accurate and convenient removal and replacement of 3D parts (Espalin: pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0008]).
As per claim 18, Ajri does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the method further comprises:
placing, by an autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion;
automatically removing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved; and
placing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitations of placing the additive manufacturing part at a support removal module (pg. 7, par. [0209] and Fig .1, element 108; i.e. a de-powdering module and [0209]: “… the controller 102 may be configured to modify parameters of the de-powdering process, performed by the de-powdering module 108, based on the surface texture identified by the optical inspection module 120. This helps to remove the supports of the part in a more efficient way to ensure as much of the support as possible is removed.”),
automatically removing the additive manufacturing part at the support removal module (Fig. 1, element 108; i.e. the de-powdering module) when the support portion is removed (pg. 7, par. [0210]; i.e. “At least one further robotic arm 124 may be provided with object recognition/vision capability for automatically locating/retrieving each rack/hanger into/from the surface finishing module/apparatus 118.”), and
placing the additive manufacturing part into the finishing module (pg. 7, par. [0210]; i.e. “At least one further robotic arm 124 may be provided with object recognition/vision capability for automatically locating/retrieving each rack/hanger into/from the surface finishing module/apparatus 118.”) for the purpose of automating post-processing in additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 7, par. [0211])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitations of placing the additive manufacturing part at a support removal module, automatically removing the additive manufacturing part at the support removal module when the support portion is removed, and placing the additive manufacturing part into the finishing module to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the method further comprises:
placing, by an autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion;
automatically removing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved; and
placing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the method further comprises:
placing, by an autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion;
automatically removing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved; and
placing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati does not expressly teach the third material for the support portion is dissolvable, and
the method further comprises:
placing, by an autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion;
automatically removing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved; and
placing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
However Granlund, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing systems (pg. 1, pr. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of the third material for the support portion is dissolvable (pg. 4, par. [0035]; i.e. “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part.”); and
placing the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion (pg. 4, par. [0035]; i.e. “… the support structure of the support material may be removed to reveal the completed 3D part, preferably without damaging any of the critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part. To accomplish this removal, the support material may be dissolved in aqueous solutions or dispersions, allowing the support structure to be at least partially, and typically completely dissolved away from the 3D part.”) for the purpose of printing 3D parts and support structures (pg. 4, pr. [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Haraszati to include the addition of the limitations of the third material for the support portion is dissolvable; and placing the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion to advantageously complete a 3D part without damaging any critical or delicate geometrical features of the 3D part (Granlund: pg. 4, par. [0035]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick, Haraszati and Granlund does not expressly teach the method further comprises:
placing, by an autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into a bath configured to dissolve the support portion;
automatically removing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device from the bath when the support portion is dissolved; and
placing, by the autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device into the finishing module.
However Espalin, in an analogous art of three-dimensional printing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of an autonomous robotic arm (pg. 1, par. [0008], pg. 2, par. [0026] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. [0008]: “… automatically transporting 3D printing parts between manufacturing and processing stations.” and [0026]: “… a robot arm 14 capable of transporting one or more parts to all surrounding stations .”) that transports three-dimensional parts between stations (pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. “… the term robot refers to any mechanical or virtual artificial agent such as an electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program and/or electronic circuitry, and which may be autonomous or semi-autonomous.”) for the purpose of printing three-dimensional (3D) objects per removing and placing 3D parts in separate processing stations (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick, Haraszati and Granlund to include the addition of the limitation of an autonomous robotic arm that transports three-dimensional parts between stations to advantageously provide accurate and convenient removal and replacement of 3D parts (Espalin: pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0008]).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick and Espalin.
As per claim 11, Ajri teaches the 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 110) printing the 3D oral device (pg. 2, par. [0027], pg. 3, par. [0033], and pg. 8, claim 21; i.e. [0033]: “… fabrication module 110 can be a 3D printing system such as a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer or a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer. The 3D printing material used can be a photopolymer, methacrylate based polymer, ester based polymer, ABS plastic, thermal plastic, acrylic esters, or a medical grade plastic.” and [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.” and claim 21: “… printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data”).
Ajri does not expressly teach an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors that is configured to:
responsive to the 3D printer printing the 3D oral device, automatically grab the 3D oral device within the 3D printer to remove the 3D oral device from the 3D printer.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitation of responsive to the 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 104) printing the additive manufacturing part, automatically grab the additive manufacturing part within the 3D printer to remove the additive manufacturing part from the 3D printer (abstract, pg. 1, par. [0003], and pg. 6, par. [0199]; i.e. abstract: “… a system (100) for automatically processing an additively manufactured part.” and [0199]: “A robotic system 106 is configured to retrieve one or more 3D printed powder blocks, including one or more AM parts therein, from at least one of the printers 104 and transport them to a support removal module 108.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitation of responsive to the 3D printer printing the additive manufacturing part, automatically grab the additive manufacturing part within the 3D printer to remove the additive manufacturing part from the 3D printer to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree does not expressly teach an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further Sandwick does not expressly teach an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with the one or more processors.
However Espalin, in an analogous art of three-dimensional printing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of an autonomous robotic arm (Fig. 1, element 14) communicatively coupled with one or more processors (pg. 1, par. [0008] and pg. 2, par. [0026]; i.e. [0008]: “… automatically transporting 3D printing parts between manufacturing and processing stations.” and [0026]: “… a robot arm 14 capable of transporting one or more parts to all surrounding stations .”) for the purpose of printing three-dimensional (3D) objects per removing and placing 3D parts in separate processing stations (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with one or more processors to advantageously provide accurate and convenient removal and replacement of 3D parts (Espalin: pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0008]).
As per claim 19, Ajri teaches the 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 110) printing the 3D oral device (pg. 2, par. [0027], pg. 3, par. [0033], and pg. 8, claim 21; i.e. [0033]: “… fabrication module 110 can be a 3D printing system such as a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer or a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer. The 3D printing material used can be a photopolymer, methacrylate based polymer, ester based polymer, ABS plastic, thermal plastic, acrylic esters, or a medical grade plastic.” and [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.” and claim 21: “… printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data”).
Ajri does not expressly teach responsive to the 3D printer printing the 3D oral device, automatically grabbing, by an autonomous robotic arm, the 3D oral device within the 3D printer to remove the 3D oral device from the 3D printer.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitation of responsive to the 3D printer (Fig. 1, element 104) printing the additive manufacturing part, automatically grabbing the additive manufacturing part within the 3D printer to remove the additive manufacturing part from the 3D printer (abstract, pg. 1, par. [0003], and pg. 6, par. [0199]; i.e. abstract: “… a system (100) for automatically processing an additively manufactured part.” and [0199]: “A robotic system 106 is configured to retrieve one or more 3D printed powder blocks, including one or more AM parts therein, from at least one of the printers 104 and transport them to a support removal module 108.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitation of responsive to the 3D printer printing the additive manufacturing part, automatically grabbing the additive manufacturing part within the 3D printer to remove the additive manufacturing part from the 3D printer to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view of Crabtree does not expressly teach an autonomous robotic arm.
Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick does not expressly teach an autonomous robotic arm.
However Espalin, in an analogous art of three-dimensional printing (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of an autonomous robotic (pg. 1, par. [0008], pg. 2, par. [0026] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. [0008]: “… automatically transporting 3D printing parts between manufacturing and processing stations.” and [0026]: “… a robot arm 14 capable of transporting one or more parts to all surrounding stations .”) for the purpose of printing three-dimensional (3D) objects per removing and placing 3D parts in separate processing stations (pg. 3, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Crabtree in further view of Sandwick to include the addition of the limitation of an autonomous robotic arm communicatively coupled with one or more processors to advantageously provide accurate and convenient removal and replacement of 3D parts (Espalin: pg. 1, par. [0005] and [0008]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajri in view of Hansen in further view of Crabtree and Sandwick.
As per claim 20, Ajri substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Ajri teaches the limitations of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 7, element 706) having stored thereon a set of instructions (pg. 6, par. [0061] and [0062]), executable by at least one processor (Fig. 7, element 704 of Fig. 7, element 714; i.e. one or more processing circuits of a processing system), for network enabled, three-dimensional (3D) printing and automated processing of oral devices (pg. 3, par. [0033] and pgs. 5-6, par. [0057]-[0060]; i.e. [0033]: “… fabrication module 110 can be a 3D printing system such as a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer or a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer. The 3D printing material used can be a photopolymer, methacrylate based polymer, ester based polymer, ABS plastic, thermal plastic, acrylic esters, or a medical grade plastic.” and [0057]: “FIG. 7 illustrates an overall system or apparatus 700 in which system 100 and process 600 can be implemented. In accordance with various aspects of the disclosure, an element, or any portion of an element, or any combination of elements may be implemented with a processing system 714 that includes one or more processing circuits 704.”), the set of instructions comprising:
instructions for receiving, via a network, a data file representative of a mouth of a user (pg. 2, par. [0025]-[0027], pg. 3, par. [0032], and claim 8, claim 21; i.e. [0024]: “A patient's dentition data set can include one or more of the patient's scan data from multiple and/or duplicative scans of various portions of the patient's mouth. For example, each scan data can be a scan of one or more portions of the patient's jaw. The manufactured dentition model described herein can be fabricated using 3D data (e.g., electronic image) of at least a portion of a patient's dentition. A patient's scanned dentition data (also referred to as scanned 3D patient-dentition data) can be obtained by a direct intraoral scan of the patient's teeth”, [0025]: “To generate the scanned 3D patient-dentition data, one or more scans can be performed on the patient's teeth, depending upon where the dental prosthesis is to be installed.”, [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.”, claim 21: “… obtaining a scanned 3D dentition data of dentition of a patient; printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data …”);
instructions for executing code to print a 3D oral device with the 3D printer (pg. 2, par. [0027], pg. 3, par. [0033], pg. 8, claim 21, and Fig. 1, element 110; i.e. [0027]: “As alluded to above, once the scanned patient-dentition data is obtained, it is used to fabricate a 3D printed model (i.e., the manufactured dentition model) that will be eventually shipped to the dentist.”, [0033]: “… fabrication module 110 can be a 3D printing system such as a stereolithography (SLA) 3D printer or a digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer. The 3D printing material used can be a photopolymer, methacrylate based polymer, ester based polymer, ABS plastic, thermal plastic, acrylic esters, or a medical grade plastic.”, and claim 21: “… printing, using a 3D printer, the 3D-printed dentition model based at least on the scanned 3D dentition data”);
instructions for scanning the 3D oral device to generate a 3D scan file of the 3D oral device (pg. 4, par. [0039]-[0041]; i.e. [0039]: “Once dentition model 200 is cured, it can be scanned to create a 3D data of dentition model 200. Model scanner 120 can be a contact or non-contact inspection device that can generate a scanned data set of the manufactured dentition model.”); and
instructions for comparing the 3D scan file with the data file to determine at least one feature represented in the 3D scan file that exceeds a deviation threshold relative to a corresponding respective feature represented in the data file (pg. 3, par. [0031], pg. 5, par. [0047], [0049]-[0051]; i.e. [0031]: “… the manufactured dentition model is scanned to generate another set of 3D data—the scanned 3D manufactured-dentition data. This dataset and the scanned 3D patient-dentition data are then used to generate a differences model upon which quality control is performed.”, [0047]: “QC module 125 can determine whether the manufactured dentition model is a good or defective part based on the distribution of offsets of the differences model, which can comprise of data points of offset values.”).
Not explicitly taught instructions for converting the data file to a set of code that is executable by a 3D printer;
instructions for executing the set of code to print a 3D oral device with the 3D printer, the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth;
instructions for automatically ejecting the 3D oral device from the 3D printer; and
instructions for finishing the 3D oral device by smoothing the at least one feature on the 3D oral device.
However Hansen, in an analogous art of additively manufacturing dental restorations (pg. 2, par. [0032]), teaches the missing limitations of instructions for converting a data file to a set of code that is executable by a 3D printer (pg. 2, par. [0032] and [0034] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. [0032]: “Systems to generate digital 3D images or models based upon image sets from multiple views are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,956,862 and 7,605,817, both of which are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. These systems can use an intra-oral scanner to obtain digital images from multiple views of teeth or other intra-oral structures, and those digital images are processed to generate a digital 3D model or scan representing the scanned teeth or other intra-oral structure. The 3D models or scans can be implemented as, for example, a polygonal mesh or point cloud representing the surface of the scanned object or intra-oral structure.” and [0034]: “… receiving digital 3D models of intra-oral structures, such as models 12, or parameters for a preformed restoration (step 22), generating a design of the restoration (step 24), generating instructions for a 3D printer to make the restoration (step 26) … Some steps of this method, such as steps 22, 24, 26, and 28, can be implemented in software or firmware modules for execution by a processor such as processor 20, and the method can possibly be implemented using cloud computing.”);
instructions for executing the set of code to print a 3D oral device with the 3D printer (pg. 2, par. [0034] and Fig. 1, element 14; i.e. “receiving digital 3D models of intra-oral structures, such as models 12, or parameters for a preformed restoration (step 22), generating a design of the restoration (step 24), generating instructions for a 3D printer to make the restoration (step 26), outputting the instructions to the 3D printer for making the restoration (step 28) … Some steps of this method, such as steps 22, 24, 26, and 28, can be implemented in software or firmware modules for execution by a processor such as processor 20, and the method can possibly be implemented using cloud computing.”), the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user (pg. 2, par. [0037] and pg. 3, par. [0042]; i.e. [0037]: “… 3D printing of zirconia, or other additively manufacturable material, can create geometric features in crowns, or other dental restorations, unattainable with milling methods” and [0042]: “… all of the additively manufacturable crowns described herein have a wall having a bottom edge and an occlusal portion joined with the wall opposite the bottom edge, where the wall and occlusal portion form an interior surface and an opposing exterior surface”); and
instructions for finishing the 3D oral device at least one feature on the 3D oral device (pg. 2, par. [0034]; i.e. “… receiving digital 3D models of intra-oral structures, such as models 12, or parameters for a preformed restoration (step 22), generating a design of the restoration (step 24), generating instructions for a 3D printer to make the restoration (step 26), outputting the instructions to the 3D printer for making the restoration (step 28), and possibly performing post-processing of the 3D printed restoration (step 30). Some steps of this method, such as steps 22, 24, 26, and 28, can be implemented in software or firmware modules for execution by a processor such as processor 20, and the method can possibly be implemented using cloud computing.”) to enhance a function and ease-of-use of ceramic dental restorations, including integral retention, identification, adjustability, flexibility, and tailored porosity (Hansen: pgs. 1-2, par. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri to include the addition of the limitations of instructions for converting a data file to a set of code that is executable by a 3D printer; instructions for executing the set of code to print a 3D oral device with the 3D printer, the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user; and instructions for finishing the 3D oral device at least one feature on the 3D oral device to enhance a function and ease-of-use of ceramic dental restorations, including integral retention, identification, adjustability, flexibility, and tailored porosity (Hansen: pgs. 1-2, par. [0031]).
Ajri in view of Hansen does not expressly teach the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth;
instructions for automatically ejecting the 3D oral device from the 3D printer; and
instructions for finishing the 3D oral device by smoothing the at least one feature on the 3D oral device.
However Crabtree, in an analogous art of additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 6, par. [0198]), teaches the missing limitations of instructions for automatically ejecting an additive manufacturing part from a 3D printer (abstract, pg. 1, par. [0003], pg. 6, par. [0199], pg. 7, par. [0215], and Fig. 1, element 104; i.e. abstract: “… a system (100) for automatically processing an additively manufactured part.”, [0199]: “A robotic system 106 is configured to retrieve one or more 3D printed powder blocks, including one or more AM parts therein, from at least one of the printers 104 and transport them to a support removal module 108.”, and [0215]: “The individual processes and modules of the system 100 are linked and selectively controlled by a software application executed by the controller 102 which automatically manages the AM process and links the system 100 to the 3D printers and the initial CAD stage.”); and
instructions for finishing the additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part (pg. 7, par. [0211] and [0215]; i.e. [0211]: “The surface finishing module/apparatus 118 is aptly configured to automatically smooth an AM polymer part to a desired surface roughness by using a solvent-based method, such as described in GB1721485.9 by Additive Manufacturing Technologies Limited.” and [0215]: “The individual processes and modules of the system 100 are linked and selectively controlled by a software application executed by the controller 102 which automatically manages the AM process and links the system 100 to the 3D printers and the initial CAD stage.”) for the purpose of automating post-processing in additive manufacturing (pg. 1, par. [0001] and pg. 7, par. [0211])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Hansen to include the addition of the limitations of instructions for automatically ejecting an additive manufacturing part from a 3D printer; and instructions for finishing the additive manufacturing part by smoothing at least one feature on the additive manufacturing part to advantageously improve a system’s throughput (Crabtree: pg. 1, par. [0011]).
Ajri in view of Hansen in further view of Crabtree does not expressly the 3D oral device being configured for insertion into the mouth of the user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth.
However Sandwick, in an analogous art of dental appliances (pg. 1, par. [0001]), teaches the missing limitation of a 3D oral device (Fig. 1A, element 10 and Fig. 2, element 10; i.e. i.e. an orthodontic retainer) being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth (pg. 2, par. [0024] and [0025], [0028], and [0029]) for the purpose of retaining lower and upper teeth in a mouth (pg. (pg. 2, par. [0024] and [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Ajri in view of Hansen in further view of Crabtree to include the addition of the limitation of a 3D oral device being configured for insertion into a mouth of a user to adjust or maintain a position of an existing structure within the mouth to advantageously manufacture a thinner, stronger, more hygienic retainer that encourages greater patient compliance, and less effects on negative speech patterns compared to traditional non-metal orthodontic retainers (Sandwick: pg. 1, par. [0001]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to additive manufacturing and dental prosthesis
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0276271 A1 discloses a 3D printer that uses a 3D printing technique, such as an additive manufacturing technique, a subtractive manufacturing technique, and/or the like to create the 3D printed object.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0000583 A1 discloses a method for manufacturing an orthodontic aligner includes printing a mold associated with a dental arch of a patient based on a digital model of the mold, forming the orthodontic aligner over the mold, and trimming the orthodontic aligner.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0031427 A1 discloses a three-dimensional orthodontic retainer and method for producing the three-dimensional orthodontic retainer.
U.S. Patent No. 12,194,684 B2 discloses a manufacturing method for a prosthetic dental apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117