DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-14, 17, 20-23, 25, 27, 30, 33-36, 38, 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching (US 10,342,638 B2), in view of Knopp (US 7,637,740 B2), and further in view of O’Leary (US 2019/0152152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kitching et al. teaches an orthodontic treatment system comprising a series of appliances, the series of appliances comprising:
a series of shell aligner appliances configured to be sequentially worn on a patient’s teeth to incrementally move a patient’s teeth from an initial tooth arrangement to a target tooth arrangement (Col. 5 l. 37-67), further wherein each shell aligner appliance of the series of shell aligner appliances comprises a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities configured to hold the patient’s teeth and to apply a force to one or more of the patient’s teeth to move one or more of the patient’s teeth (Col. 5 l. 37-67 and see Figures 2a-2B); and
one or more shell conversion appliances configured to worn as either a first appliance in the series of shell aligner appliances or as an intermediate appliance in the series of shell aligner appliances, wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances comprises a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities configured to hold the patient’s teeth without moving the patient’s teeth (Col. 20 l. 40-63; the treatment plan may include one or more duplicate appliances made for retention of the teeth as to prevent further movement/relapse during the time it’s worn between stages).
Kitching teaches the duplicate appliances are retention appliances and do not move the teeth compared to the aligner appliances used previously, but is silent to wherein the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each of the one or more shell conversion appliances is larger than the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance.
Knopp teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment. Knopp teaches an appliance may be created with a space around the tooth and within one of the cavities of the shell such that no force applying contact is made by the appliance as to relieve the teeth from stress that has been applied to them (see claim 1 and Col. 12 l. 40-47, 66-67). Knopp teaches that varying the thickness of the appliance can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47, 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliances such that they have more space/volume between the tooth and the shell and fit more loosely around the teeth, as taught by Knopp, as it would provide a larger space within the cavity that would result in the cavity having no contact with the teeth and therefore not exerting a movement force, which would be necessary for a retaining appliance.
Kitching is further silent to wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances include one or more attachment receiving cavities that are configured to secure the one or more shell conversion appliances to the patient’s teeth via one or more attachments on the patient’s teeth and configured to apply a force below a dental movement threshold when worn.
O’Leary teaches a polymeric dental retainer (abstract and [0008-0010]) and intended to be used to retain the teeth following an orthodontic treatment using an aligner ([0031]). O’Leary further discusses the user may select controls to adjust the thickness and clearance for crown, buccal and lingual sides of the retainer such that a clearance between boundaries of the retainer and the patient’s dentition may be adjusted (see at least [0205], [0217-0218]). O’Leary further teaches the retainer may include one or more attachment regions for mating with an attachment on the patient’s teeth for example, a protrusion, a button, bump, hook, etc. on either or both the lingual and/or buccal sides ([0245]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining appliance to include an attachment region configured for engaging an attachment on the patient’s dentition, as taught by O’Leary, because it would improve securement of the attachment to the teeth.
Regarding claim 2, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances are configured to be worn as intermediate appliance in the series of appliances (Col. 20 l. 40-63; the retention/duplicate appliance is worn after a stage but before the next stage as to revise the treatment plan and assess whether the teeth are on or off track).
Regarding claims 4, 6-7, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches a retention/conversion appliance. Knopp teaches a retaining appliance has a space within the cavity around the tooth (see claim 1), and therefore the combination of Kitching/Knopp would teach the claimed relationship between the retention/conversion and aligner appliances. The combination teaches the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the one or more shell conversion appliances has an average volume that is greater than an average volume of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of any of the shell aligner appliances of the series of shell aligner appliances since there is a larger space within the cavity of the retention appliance.
Kitching is silent to specifically wherein the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the one or more shell conversion appliances have an average wall thickness that is less than the average wall thickness of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the shell aligner appliances of the series of shell aligner appliances, wherein the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the one or more shell conversion appliances have buccal and lingual sidewalls and the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the shell aligner appliances of the series of shell aligner appliances have buccal and lingual sidewalls, further wherein an average thickness of the buccal and lingual sidewalls of the shell conversion appliances is less than an average thickness of the buccal and lingual sidewalls of the shell aligner appliances of the series of shell aligner appliances.
Knopp further teaches varying the thickness of the appliances can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliance to be thinner than the aligning appliance, since a thinner appliance would exert less forces compared to a thicker appliance and therefore maintain tooth positions as would be necessary for a retaining appliance. The thickness of the retaining appliance would be the same all around (including the buccal and lingual regions) as it is meant to retain all of the teeth and therefore the buccal and lingual walls of the conversion/retaining appliance would be thinner than the buccal and lingual walls of the aligner appliance.
Regarding claim 9, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches wherein each appliance of the series of appliances are configured to be worn for more than 3 days before wearing the next appliance of the series of appliances (Col. 18 l. 49-67; a wear interval may be 2 weeks and therefore each appliance of Kitching is fully capable of being worn for more than 3 days).
Regarding claim 10, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches wherein the series of appliances is a first series of appliances that are configured to be worn on the patient’s upper arch, wherein the system further comprises a second series of appliances configured to be worn on the patient’s lower arch, wherein the second series of appliances comprises a second series of shell aligner appliances and a second one or more shell conversion appliances (Col. 4 l. 50-67, and Col. 5 l. 1-18; the appliances are used to treat the upper teeth and the lower teeth and therefore each jaw uses a set of appliances).
Regarding claim 11, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 10 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches wherein the second one or more shell conversion appliances correspond to a different position in the second series of appliances than a position of the one or more shell conversion appliances in the first series of appliances. The retention/conversion appliances are supposed to be synchronized with downstream actions planned to coincide with a particular treatment stage, such as a planned tooth modification, treatment planning, and the like (e.g., interproximal reduction, dentition/appliance modeling, digital representations, etc. (Col. 20 l. 50-63). Therefore, the second one conversion/retention appliance (which corresponds to the lower jaw), is fully capable of being different or at a different stage than that for the upper jaw since the teeth may require different treatment planning.
Regarding claim 12, Kitching et al. teaches a method of fabricating a series of dental appliances, the method comprising:
fabricating a series of shell aligner appliances configured to implement a dental treatment plan comprising a plurality of treatment stages, wherein each stage comprises a shell aligner appliance configured to be sequentially worn in a specified treatment stage of the dental treatment plan, wherein each shell aligner appliance is configured to exert a force on one or more of the patient’s teeth in order to move the patient’s dentition from an initial arrangement towards a final arrangement (Col. 5 l. 37-67; a treatment plan comprising successive appliances corresponding to stages of treatment is created. The appliances are tooth receiving shell aligners that exert forces on the teeth to move and reposition them); and
fabricating a shell conversion appliance to implement a conversion appliance stage of the dental treatment plan, wherein the conversion appliance stage is between two treatment stages of the dental treatment plan, further wherein the shell conversion appliance is configured to exert a force of less than a dental movement threshold on the patient’s teeth when worn on the patient’s teeth so that the patient’s teeth remain substantially unchanged for the conversion appliance stage (Col. 5-6, and Col. 20 l. 40-63; a revised or modified treatment plan will be generated in step 622 and a revised treatment plan may include one or more duplicate appliances made for retention of the teeth as to prevent further movement/relapse during the time it’s worn between stages. The duplicate appliance is worn after an aligner and before a next appliance and does not move the teeth); and
sending the modified dental treatment plan to a dental professional for review (Col. 7 l. 54-67 and Col. 8 l. 1-6; the treatment plan is reviewed before making the appliances). Kitching teaches the duplicate appliances are retention appliances and do not move the teeth compared to the aligner appliances used previously, but is silent to wherein the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each of the one or more shell conversion appliances is larger than the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance.
Knopp teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment. Knopp teaches an appliance may be created with a space around the tooth and within one of the cavities of the shell such that no force applying contact is made by the appliance as to relieve the teeth from stress that has been applied to them (see claim 1 and Col. 12 l. 40-47, 66-67). Knopp teaches that varying the thickness of the appliance can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47, 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliances such that they have more space/volume between the tooth and the shell and fit more loosely around the teeth, as taught by Knopp, as it would provide a larger space within the cavity that would result in the cavity having no contact with the teeth and therefore not exerting a movement force, which would be necessary for a retaining appliance.
Kitching is further silent to wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances include one or more attachment receiving cavities that are configured to secure the one or more shell conversion appliances to the patient’s teeth via one or more attachments on the patient’s teeth and configured to apply a force below a dental movement threshold when worn.
O’Leary teaches a polymeric dental retainer (abstract and [0008-0010]) and intended to be used to retain the teeth following an orthodontic treatment using an aligner ([0031]). O’Leary further discusses the user may select controls to adjust the thickness and clearance for crown, buccal and lingual sides of the retainer such that a clearance between boundaries of the retainer and the patient’s dentition may be adjusted (see at least [0205], [0217-0218]). O’Leary further teaches the retainer may include one or more attachment regions for mating with an attachment on the patient’s teeth for example, a protrusion, a button, bump, hook, etc. on either or both the lingual and/or buccal sides ([0245]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining appliance to include an attachment region configured for engaging an attachment on the patient’s dentition, as taught by O’Leary, because it would improve securement of the attachment to the teeth.
Regarding claim 13, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches the method further comprising receiving the dental treatment plan for fabrication to form the series of shell aligner appliances and the shell conversion appliances (Col. 9 l. 39-57).
Regarding claim 14, Kitching in view of Knopp teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches it wherein the conversion appliance stage om relation to the plurality of treatment stages is determined based on instructions from a dental professional indicating at which stage in the dental treatment plan to insert the conversion appliance stage (Col. 20 l. 50-63; the retention appliances are supposed to be synchronized with downstream actions planned to coincide with a particular treatment stage, such as a planned tooth modification, treatment planning, and the like (e.g., interproximal reduction, dentition/appliance modeling, digital representations, etc. Therefore, the dental professional must make a decision as to when a retention appliance is to be used. Additionally, the appliance is designed to be a duplicate of one of the stages, therefore the instructions indicate which stage it is used at).
Regarding claim 17, Kitching in Knopp and O’Leary teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above). Kitching’s teachings indicate wherein each shell aligner appliance of the dental treatment plan is configured to exert a force that is more than the dental movement threshold on one or more of the patient’s teeth (Col. 5 l. 37-67 and Col. 20 l. 40-67). The appliances are aligners that reposition the teeth and the duplicate appliance is a retention appliance and does not move the teeth. The movement threshold is low as to limit the conversion/retention appliance from moving the teeth. Therefore, the aligner appliances, which are reposition the teeth, are fully capable of exerting more force than the dental movement threshold.
Regarding claims 20-23, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches a retention/conversion appliance. Knopp teaches a retaining appliance has a space within the cavity around the tooth (see claim 1), and therefore the combination of Kitching/Knopp would teach the claimed relationship between the retention/conversion and aligner appliances. The combination teaches the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the one or more shell conversion appliances has an average volume that is greater than an average volume of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of any of the shell aligner appliances of the series of shell aligner appliances since there is a larger space within the cavity of the retention appliance.
Kitching is silent to wherein the fabricating the shell conversion appliance comprises configuring the shell conversion appliance so that the shell conversion appliance comprises a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities having an average wall thickness that is less than an average wall thickness of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance, or configuring the shell conversion appliance to have buccal and lingual sidewalls having an average thickness that is less than the average thickness of buccal and lingual sidewalls of each shell aligner appliance.
Knopp further teaches varying the thickness of the appliances can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliance to be thinner than the aligning appliance, since a thinner appliance would exert less forces compared to a thicker appliance and therefore maintain tooth positions as would be necessary for a retaining appliance. The thickness of the retaining appliance would be the same all around (including the buccal and lingual regions) as it is meant to retain all of the teeth and therefore the buccal and lingual walls of the conversion/retaining appliance would be thinner than the buccal and lingual walls of the aligner appliance.
Regarding claim 25, Kitching et al. teaches an orthodontic treatment system comprising:
a series of shell aligner appliances configured to implement a dental treatment plan comprising a plurality of treatment stages, wherein each stage comprises a shell aligner appliance configured to be sequentially worn in a specified treatment stage of the dental treatment plan, wherein each shell aligner appliance is configured to exert a force on one or more of the patient’s teeth in order to move the patient’s dentition from an initial arrangement towards a final arrangement (Col. 5 l. 37-67; a treatment plan comprising successive appliances corresponding to stages of treatment is created. The appliances are tooth receiving shell aligners that exert forces on the teeth to move and reposition them); and
a shell conversion appliance configured to implement a conversion appliance stage of the dental treatment plan, wherein the conversion appliance stage is between two treatment stages of the dental treatment plan, further wherein the shell conversion appliance is configured to exert a force of less than a dental movement threshold on the patient’s teeth when worn on the patient’s teeth so that the patient’s teeth remain substantially unchanged for the conversion appliance stage (Col. 5-6, 17-20; a revised or modified treatment plan will be generated in step 622 and a revised treatment plan may include one or more duplicate appliances made for retention of the teeth as to prevent further movement/relapse during the time it’s worn between stages. The duplicate appliance is worn after an aligner and before a next appliance and does not move the teeth).
Kitching teaches the duplicate appliances are retention appliances and do not move the teeth compared to the aligner appliances used previously, but is silent to wherein the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each of the one or more shell conversion appliances is larger than the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance.
Knopp teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment. Knopp teaches an appliance may be created with a space around the tooth and within one of the cavities of the shell such that no force applying contact is made by the appliance as to relieve the teeth from stress that has been applied to them (see claim 1 and Col. 12 l. 40-47, 66-67). Knopp teaches that varying the thickness of the appliance can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47, 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliances such that they have more space/volume between the tooth and the shell and fit more loosely around the teeth, as taught by Knopp, as it would provide a larger space within the cavity that would result in the cavity having no contact with the teeth and therefore not exerting a movement force, which would be necessary for a retaining appliance.
Kitching is further silent to wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances include one or more attachment receiving cavities that are configured to secure the one or more shell conversion appliances to the patient’s teeth via one or more attachments on the patient’s teeth and configured to apply a force below a dental movement threshold when worn.
O’Leary teaches a polymeric dental retainer (abstract and [0008-0010]) and intended to be used to retain the teeth following an orthodontic treatment using an aligner ([0031]). O’Leary further discusses the user may select controls to adjust the thickness and clearance for crown, buccal and lingual sides of the retainer such that a clearance between boundaries of the retainer and the patient’s dentition may be adjusted (see at least [0205], [0217-0218]). O’Leary further teaches the retainer may include one or more attachment regions for mating with an attachment on the patient’s teeth for example, a protrusion, a button, bump, hook, etc. on either or both the lingual and/or buccal sides ([0245]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining appliance to include an attachment region configured for engaging an attachment on the patient’s dentition, as taught by O’Leary, because it would improve securement of the attachment to the teeth.
Regarding claim 27, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 25 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches wherein conversion appliance stage in relation to the plurality of treatment stages is determined based on instructions from a dental professional indicating at which stage in the dental treatment plan to insert the conversion appliance stage (Col. 20 l. 40-63; the retention appliances are supposed to be synchronized with downstream actions planned to coincide with a particular treatment stage, such as a planned tooth modification, treatment planning, and the like (e.g., interproximal reduction, dentition/appliance modeling, digital representations, etc. Therefore, the dental professional must make a decision as to when a retention appliance is to be used. Additionally, the appliance is designed to be a duplicate of one of the stages, therefore the instructions indicate which stage it is used at).
Regarding claim 30, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 25 (see rejection above), wherein each shell aligner appliance of the dental treatment plan is configured to exert a force that is more than the dental movement threshold on one or more of the patient’s teeth (Col. 5 l. 37-67 and Col. 20 l. 40-67). The appliances are aligners that reposition the teeth and the duplicate appliance is a retention appliance and does not move the teeth. The movement threshold is low as to limit the conversion/retention appliance from moving the teeth. Therefore, the aligner appliances, which are reposition the teeth, are fully capable of exerting more force than the dental movement threshold.
Regarding claims 33-36, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 25 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches a retention/conversion appliance. Knopp teaches a retaining appliance has a space within the cavity around the tooth (see claim 1), and therefore the combination of Kitching/Knopp would teach the claimed relationship between the retention/conversion and aligner appliances. The combination teaches each shell aligner appliance comprises a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities having an average volume that is greater than an average volume of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance and configuring the shell conversion appliance so that the shell conversion appliance so that the shell aligner appliance comprises a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities that are configured to be more loosely fitting to the patient’s teeth than a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance. since there is a larger space within the cavity of the retention appliance.
Kitching is silent to wherein the shell conversion appliance comprises a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities having an average wall thickness that is less than an average wall thickness of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each shell aligner appliance, or configuring the shell conversion appliance to have buccal and lingual sidewalls having an average thickness that is less than the average thickness of buccal and lingual sidewalls of each shell aligner appliance.
Knopp further teaches varying the thickness of the appliances can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliance to be thinner than the aligning appliance, since a thinner appliance would exert less forces compared to a thicker appliance and therefore maintain tooth positions as would be necessary for a retaining appliance. The thickness of the retaining appliance would be the same all around (including the buccal and lingual regions) as it is meant to retain all of the teeth and therefore the buccal and lingual walls of the conversion/retaining appliance would be thinner than the buccal and lingual walls of the aligner appliance.
Regarding claim 38, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches a retention/conversion appliance. Knopp teaches a retaining appliance has a space within the cavity around the tooth (see claim 1), and therefore the combination of Kitching/Knopp would teach the claimed relationship between the retention/conversion and aligner appliances. The combination teaches wherein an average dimension of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of the one or more shell conversion appliances is larger than an average dimension of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities of each of the shell aligner appliances since the cavity of the retaining appliance is formed having a space around the tooth as to not have the walls of the cavity contact the tooth and therefore not apply any forces and therefore the dimensions of a retaining cavity are larger than the dimensions of the aligner cavity.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliances such that they have more space/volume between the tooth and the shell and fit more loosely around the teeth, as taught by Knopp, as it would provide a larger space within the cavity that would result in the cavity having no contact with the teeth and therefore not exerting a movement force, which would be necessary for a retaining appliance.
Regarding claim 42, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). O’Leary further teaches the one or more shell conversion appliances are configured to settle the patient's bite without moving the patient's teeth ([0177], [0182], [0184]; the retainer may be used to integrate features such as mandibular advancement feature, sleep devices, bite guards, etc. and may include add on options including one or more of : a protrusion , tab , hook , or other attachment structure config ured to attach a rubber band , a slot configured to attach a rubber band , a mandibular advancement feature , a ramp , a gingival support region , a thickened base region , and a plurality of ridges).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining appliance to include an attachment region configured for engaging an attachment on the patient’s dentition, as taught by O’Leary, because it would improve securement of the attachment to the teeth.
Regarding claims 43-44, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). O’Leary further wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances includes one or more bite correction features to correct the patient's bite without moving the patient's teeth and wherein the one or more bite correction features include one or more of: an occlusal block, a bite ramp, a mandibular advancement splint, a bite plate, and a hook for an elastic ([0177], [0182], [0184]; the retainer may be used to integrate features such as mandibular advancement feature, sleep devices, bite guards, etc. and may include add on options including one or more of : a protrusion , tab , hook , or other attachment structure config ured to attach a rubber band , a slot configured to attach a rubber band , a mandibular advancement feature , a ramp , a gingival support region , a thickened base region , and a plurality of ridges).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining appliance to include an attachment region configured for engaging an attachment on the patient’s dentition, as taught by O’Leary, because it would improve securement of the attachment to the teeth.
Regarding claim 45, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Knopp teaches wherein walls of all regions of each of the one or more shell conversion appliances are thinner than walls of each of the series of shell aligner appliances since Knopp teaches that varying the thickness of the appliance can be used to permit relaxation since thicker appliances apply greater forces than thinner appliances (Col. 12 l. 44-47, 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conversion/retention appliances such that they have more space/volume between the tooth and the shell and fit more loosely around the teeth, as taught by Knopp, as it would provide a larger space within the cavity that would result in the cavity having no contact with the teeth and therefore not exerting a movement force, which would be necessary for a retaining appliance.
Claim(s) 3, 19, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching (US 10,342,638 B2), in view of Knopp (US 7,637,740 B2), O’Leary (US2019/0152152 A1), and further in view of in view of Phan et al. (US 6,524,101 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances are formed of a different material than the shell aligner appliances of the series of shell aligner appliances.
Phan et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Phan teaches the orthodontic treatment comprises using a series of shell appliances configured to be worn over the patient’s teeth to accomplish desired orthodontic repositioning (Col. 2 l. 34-67). Phan teaches the systems may comprise a plurality of incremental elastic position adjustment appliances in which at least one appliance has the same yet different elastic modulus as an immediately prior appliance. Such that a series of incremental appliances may be produced with differing elastic moduluses to reposition teeth from an initial tooth arrangement to the next successive tooth arrangement in a progression of arrangements to the final arrangement (Col. 6 l. 7-18). Phan teaches achieving different elastic moduluses is achieved by different materials and directly influence the stiffness (Col. 1 l. 58-67 and Col. 3 l. 3-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the appliances such that the retention/conversion appliance is made of a different material than the material of the aligner appliances, such that each appliance is intended to perform in a certain manner (i.e., move or retain the teeth) and therefore each appliance must be made of a different material as to have desired material properties such as elasticity and stiffness and therefore apply the proper forces.
Regarding claim 19, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above), but does not teach specifically configuring the shell conversion appliance so that the shell conversion appliance is formed of a different material of each shell aligner appliance.
Phan et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Phan teaches the orthodontic treatment comprises using a series of shell appliances configured to be worn over the patient’s teeth to accomplish desired orthodontic repositioning (Col. 2 l. 34-67). Phan teaches the systems may comprise a plurality of incremental elastic position adjustment appliances in which at least one appliance has the same yet different elastic modulus as an immediately prior appliance. Such that a series of incremental appliances may be produced with differing elastic moduluses to reposition teeth from an initial tooth arrangement to the next successive tooth arrangement in a progression of arrangements to the final arrangement (Col. 6 l. 7-18). Phan teaches achieving different elastic moduluses is achieved by different materials and directly influence the stiffness (Col. 1 l. 58-67 and Col. 3 l. 3-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the appliances such that the retention/conversion appliance is made of a different material than the material of the aligner appliances, such that each appliance is intended to perform in a certain manner (i.e., move or retain the teeth) and therefore each appliance must be made of a different material as to have desired material properties such as elasticity and stiffness and therefore apply the proper forces.
Regarding claim 32, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 25 (see rejection above), but does not teach specifically wherein the instructions further comprise configuring the shell conversion appliance so that shell conversion appliance is formed of a different material than a material of each shell aligner appliance.
Phan et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Phan teaches the orthodontic treatment comprises using a series of shell appliances configured to be worn over the patient’s teeth to accomplish desired orthodontic repositioning (Col. 2 l. 34-67). Phan teaches the systems may comprise a plurality of incremental elastic position adjustment appliances in which at least one appliance has the same yet different elastic modulus as an immediately prior appliance. Such that a series of incremental appliances may be produced with differing elastic moduluses to reposition teeth from an initial tooth arrangement to the next successive tooth arrangement in a progression of arrangements to the final arrangement (Col. 6 l. 7-18). Phan teaches achieving different elastic moduluses is achieved by different materials and directly influence the stiffness (Col. 1 l. 58-67 and Col. 3 l. 3-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the appliances such that the retention/conversion appliance is made of a different material than the material of the aligner appliances, such that each appliance is intended to perform in a certain manner (i.e., move or retain the teeth) and therefore each appliance must be made of a different material as to have desired material properties such as elasticity and stiffness and therefore apply the proper forces.
Claim(s) 8, 24, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching (US 10,342,638 B2), in view of Knopp (US 7,637,740 B2), O’Leary (US 2019/0152152 A1), and further in view of in view of Kopelman et al. (US 2017/0007360 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches the appliances may have attachments (such as 660, 662, 664, 666) and therefore corresponding second attachment wells in the appliance. However, it is silent to specifically wherein at least one of the shell aligner appliances has at least one of: pontics, attachment receiving wells, hooks, or precision cuts, further wherein the one or more shell conversion appliances do not include pontics, or precision cuts.
Kopelman et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Kopelman teaches the orthodontic treatment comprises a series of aligner appliances configured to be sequentially worn over the patient’s teeth to accomplish desired orthodontic repositioning ([0081-0083]). Kopelman teaches in cases involving more complex movements, it may be beneficial to utilize auxiliary components such as pontics, hooks, etc. ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that an aligner appliance may auxiliary components to efficiently achieve more complex tooth movements, as taught by Kopelman, because it would allow achieving more complex movement of the teeth.
It would have also been obvious that a retention/conversion appliance would not need such components as they are only useful when an appliance is applying force to move the teeth and in the case of a retainer, they would be useless.
Regarding claim 24, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches the appliances may have attachments (such as 660, 662, 664, 666) and therefore corresponding attachment wells in the appliance. However, it is silent to specifically wherein shell aligner appliance comprises at least one of: pontics, second attachment receiving wells, hooks, or precision cuts, further wherein the one or more shell conversion appliance does not include pontics, hooks, or precision cuts.
Kopelman et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Kopelman teaches the orthodontic treatment comprises a series of aligner appliances configured to be sequentially worn over the patient’s teeth to accomplish desired orthodontic repositioning ([0081-0083]). Kopelman teaches in cases involving more complex movements, it may be beneficial to utilize auxiliary components such as pontics, hooks, etc. ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that an aligner appliance may auxiliary components to efficiently achieve more complex tooth movements, as taught by Kopelman, because it would allow achieving more complex movement of the teeth.
It would have also been obvious that a retention/conversion appliance would not need such components as they are only useful when an appliance is applying force to move the teeth and in the case of a retainer, they would be useless.
Regarding claim 37, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 25 (see rejection above). Kitching teaches the appliances may have attachments (such as 660, 662, 664, 666) and therefore corresponding second attachment wells in the appliance. However, it is silent to specifically wherein at least one of the shell aligner appliances comprises at least one of: pontics, attachment receiving wells, hooks, or precision cuts, further wherein the shell conversion appliance does not include pontics, hooks, or precision cuts.
Kopelman et al. teaches systems and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Kopelman teaches the orthodontic treatment comprises a series of aligner appliances configured to be sequentially worn over the patient’s teeth to accomplish desired orthodontic repositioning ([0081-0083]). Kopelman teaches in cases involving more complex movements, it may be beneficial to utilize auxiliary components such as pontics, hooks, etc. ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that an aligner appliance may auxiliary components to efficiently achieve more complex tooth movements, as taught by Kopelman, because it would allow achieving more complex movement of the teeth.
It would have also been obvious that a retention/conversion appliance would not need such components as they are only useful when an appliance is applying force to move the teeth and in the case of a retainer, they would be useless.
Claim(s) 15-16, 28-29, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching (US 10,342,638 B2), in view of Knopp (US 7,637,740 B2), O’Leary (US 2019/0152152 A1), and further in view of in view of Morton et al. (US 2016/0193014 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the method of claim 12 (see rejection above), but is silent to the dental movement threshold is 0.7 N or wherein the dental movement threshold is 0.5 N.
Morton et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning. Morton teaches the orthodontic treatment involves use of shell aligner appliances configured to provide one or more activation forces to facilitate tooth movement (abstract). Morton teaches the appliances may provide a force to the teeth within a range of 0.5 N to 3 N ([0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a force threshold for the conversion/retention appliance to be close to 0.5 N or less, since the retention appliance is intended to not exert forces that move the teeth and a threshold at such value would ensure the forces applied by the retention appliance will maintain the teeth in current positions and prevent shifting rather than applying a force that moves the teeth.
Regarding claims 28-29, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 25 (see rejection above), but is silent to the dental movement threshold is 0.7 N or wherein the dental movement threshold is 0.5 N.
Morton et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning. Morton teaches the orthodontic treatment involves use of shell aligner appliances configured to provide one or more activation forces to facilitate tooth movement (abstract). Morton teaches the appliances may provide a force to the teeth within a range of 0.5 N to 3 N ([0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a force threshold for the conversion/retention appliance to be close to 0.5 N or less, since the retention appliance is intended to not exert forces that move the teeth and a threshold at such value would ensure the forces applied by the retention appliance will maintain the teeth in current positions and prevent shifting rather than applying a force that moves the teeth.
Regarding claim 40, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the dental movement threshold is configured to apply a force that is less than 0.5 N to the patient's teeth.
Morton et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatment planning. Morton teaches the orthodontic treatment involves use of shell aligner appliances configured to provide one or more activation forces to facilitate tooth movement (abstract). Morton teaches the appliances may provide a force to the teeth within a range of 0.5 N to 3 N to move the teeth ([0132]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a force threshold for the conversion/retention appliance, which includes forces applied by attachments, to be close to 0.5 N or less, since the retention appliance is intended to not exert forces that move the teeth and a threshold at such value would ensure the forces applied by the retention appliance will maintain the teeth in current positions and prevent shifting rather than applying a force that moves the teeth.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitching et al. (US 10,342,638 B2), in view of Knopp (US 7,637,740 B2), O’Leary (US 2019/0152152 A1), and further in view of Dentsply Serona (NPL, 2012).
Regarding claim 41, Kitching in view of Knopp and O’Leary teaches the system of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein buccal and/or lingual sides of the one or more conversion shell appliances has a smaller height than each of the shell aligner appliances.
Densply Serona teaches in a study relating to the effect of gingival-margin design on the retention of thermoformed aligners, that aligners with a higher trimline (2 mm above the gingival line) showed more retention (i.e., the force needed to flex the aligner over the attachment; as the aligner moves over the attachment), and therefore retention of the aligner to the teeth, than other shorter or scalloped trimlines (see NPL; Fig. 1 and page 702).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retaining appliance to have smaller height (shorter trimline), because it would ensure that the retaining appliance will apply low/no force on the teeth and therefore not moving them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on 12/12/2025 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
2/27/2026