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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulhof et al. (US 2016/0346063).
Schulhof shows an orthodontic device (Fig. 1), the orthodontic device comprising a bonding tray (20) having a first surface (inside surface of 20 towards top of Fig. 2) and a second surface (outside surface of 20 towards bottom of Fig. 2); a plurality of support structures (22) extending from the first surface of the bonding tray (seen extending therefrom in Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of support structures are integral to the bonding tray ([0041]; “single piece”); a plurality of alignment structures extending from the first surface of the bonding tray (extends from inside surface towards the outside surface as seen in Fig. 2) and configured to aid in aligning the bonding tray in a patient’s mouth (fits the teeth for alignment); and a plurality of orthodontic appliances (25/29), wherein the plurality of orthodontic appliances are secured to the bonding tray via the support structures (Fig. 1 shows the securing) and oriented based on a patient’s dentition (follow a patient’s dental arch and dentition in Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 for instance), and wherein the plurality of orthodontic appliances are integral to the bonding tray ([0041]; “single piece”). With respect to claim 2, wherein the orthodontic device is additively manufactured as a single unit ([0041]-[0042]; 3D printer utilizes additive manufacturing). With respect to claim 7, wherein at least some of the plurality of orthodontic appliances are angled relative to the bonding tray (as seen in Fig. 1-2, 5). With respect to claim 9, wherein the plurality of orthodontic appliances include one or more of brackets, molar tubes, buccal tubes, Class II correctors, Class III correctors, and auxiliaries (brackets 25/29).
Apparatus claims 10-11, 16 are rejected similarly to the above and additionally wherein the plurality of support structures includes groups of support structures (groups of 2 support structures 22 are shown going to each bracket in Fig. 1), wherein each group of support structures connects one of the plurality of orthodontic appliances to the bonding tray at an orientation based on a patient’s dentition (Fig. 1-2, 5 in particular); wherein the orthodontic device is defined by a computer data file wherein computer data file includes data to additively manufacture the orthodontic device including the bonding tray, the plurality of orthodontic appliances, and the plurality of support structures (this is considered product-by-process where only the resulting structure is at issue, which has been addressed above). Claim 11 is rejected in a similar manner as claim 2. Claim 16 is rejected similarly to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Schulhof does not show the newly added first and second surface structure, however as detailed in the rejection above, the inside surface of the body (coinciding with the first surface) has the brackets/supports extending therefrom away from the first surface, and the inside surface of the body also has the alignment structures extending away from the first surface towards the second surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights