DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/11/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because for 371 applications that is not a lack of unity standard. Further each group would be in different classes and subclasses.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/11/25.
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 1-11, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al (US Patent 20210177549).
Connell discloses a medical article having a microstructured surface (abs). The base member can be planar or non-planar having a curved surface (paragraph 117). The base member can be made of a single polymeric material (paragraph 101). The base member can be made of thermoplastic polymers (paragraph 100). The microstructured article comprises peaks having side walls with angles greater than 10 degrees (paragraph 51) and valleys have a maximum width from 10 to 250 microns (paragraph 20). However, this reference is silent to the polymer shape having a curvature radius of up to 20mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Connell and made the article have a curved shape with a curvature radius of up to 20mm as they the article of Connell is used for the same purposes as the present invention as a dental device and would of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the curvature of the article depending upon the end use of the article and less that 20mm would be suitable to retainers or other dental articles.
As to claims 2, 9 and 10, Connell discloses that the microstructure surface is integral to the curvature as these can be used as mouthguard and other dental articles (paragraph 7).
As to claims 3-5, Connell discloses that the thermoplastic polymers can be polyamides, styrenic copolymers, polyolefins (paragraph 100). These are the same polymers used within the present invention for the same purposes and therefore would inherently have a draw down ratio of greater than 1.1 and elongation at break of 50 to 100% or greater. In the alternative would have been obvious to use a thermoplastic polymer of these materials with that ratio and elongation break.
As to claims 6 and 7, Connell discloses that the surface can be curved and can have microstructures, however is silent to the polymer having a second curve with or without microstructures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the article to have a second curve with or without microstructures as it would be a design choice of the user depending upon the final use of the article as one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the shape of the article depending upon the desired end use of the article as there intended for the same purpose as the invention.
As to claim 8, Connell discloses that the height of the peaks of the microstructured article can be from 10 to 125 microns (paragraph 63).
As to claim 11, Connell discloses that the articles are used in dental and orthodontic articles and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the coefficient of friction depending upon the desired end structure of the teeth and one would know how to control this adjustment.
As to claims 26 and 27, Connell discloses a base member wherein the thickness can be lower in certain areas (paragraph 106), and the article including the microstructure can be patterned by the tool (paragraph 36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights