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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)). For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-26 is 05/10/2022.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 26, “at least a portion of each of the reaction surfaces is oriented more in a lingual direction than a buccal direction”, is not supported by the specification. Paragraphs [0013], [0025], [0031], and [0080] of the specification state that a ramp surface is lingually facing; however, the specification does not describe a portion of a reaction surface orientated more in a lingual direction than buccal direction.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, lines 1-2, “wherein the maxillary engagement projections each comprise a lingually-facing ramp surface that includes the reaction surface”, should be corrected to, “wherein the maxillary engagement projections each comprise a lingually-facing ramp surface
Claim 10, paragraph 2, line 4, “a first reaction surface extending from an occlusal surface”, should be corrected to, “a first reaction surface extending from an occlusal surface of the maxillary dental appliance”. This clarifies that the occlusal surface is not from another structure.
Claim 11, line 1, “the resulting force”, should be corrected to, “the lateral expansion force”, for consistency with claim 10, which claim 11 depends on.
Claim 17:
Paragraph 3, line 5, “the first shell body”, should be corrected to, “the second shell body”, for consistency.
Paragraph 4, line 2, “mandibular dental appliance”, should be “maxillary dental appliance”, which is consistent with Paragraph [0011] of the specification, and claim 1, which state that the maxillary engagement projections engage the maxillary dental appliance.
Paragraph 6, line 1 and line 3, “the digital model”, should be “the model”, as a digital model is not mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of claim 17.
Claim 18, line 2, mandibular dental appliance”, should be “maxillary dental appliance”, which is consistent with Paragraph [0011] of the specification, and claim 1, which state that the maxillary engagement projections engage the maxillary dental appliance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Similarly, should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof (see related claim objection for claim 10 above on the use of “digital model”). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 4-18, 20, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 20160081769 A1), herein referred to as Kimura, in view of Falkel (US 20180078343 A1), and further in view of Domroese et al. (US 20220047358 A1), herein referred to as Domroese.
Regarding claim 1, Kimura discloses an orthodontic system (refer to Paragraph [0092]) comprising:
a maxillary dental appliance device (100) having a first shell body (102) comprising a maxillary anterior tooth-receiving region and a pair of maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions that are separated by a palatal region (104) (refer to Paragraphs [0063], [0067], annotated Fig. 1B below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
269
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a mandibular dental appliance device (1100) having a second shell body (1102) comprising a lingual side, an occlusal side and a lateral side (refer to annotated Fig. 11 below), wherein the second shell body (1102) further comprises a mandibular anterior tooth-receiving region and a pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to annotated Fig. 11 below),
PNG
media_image2.png
274
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
319
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kimura does not explicitly disclose the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the mandibular anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions forming an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough.
Although this is not explicitly disclosed, Kimura discloses that the same principles of appliance design described in relation to the upper arch designs can be applied in the lower arch to impart transverse force for mandibular dental expansion (refer to Paragraph [0079]). The principles of appliance design for the upper arch are shown in an alternative embodiment (1200), as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the posterior tooth-receiving regions that forms an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough (refer to Paragraph [0142], annotated Fig. 12C below; the structure is capable of allowing teeth to erupt through the opening). This embodiment (1200) incorporates the use of engagement structures (1212) analogous to a rim extending around the opening to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) with openings as taught by the alternative embodiment (1200) in order to make use of engagement structures (1212) extending around the openings to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
PNG
media_image4.png
512
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kimura is silent to a pair of maxillary engagement projections extending from occlusal sides of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, wherein each of the pair of maxillary engagement projections includes a reaction surface is configured to engage with the maxillary dental appliance device to apply [[an]] a lateral expansion force between a patient's teeth received within the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, wherein at least a portion of each of the reaction surfaces is oriented to apply the lateral expansion force in a buccal direction with respect to each of the patient's teeth received within the mandibular posterior tooth- receiving regions.
Falkel discloses an oral appliance for reshaping the airway in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0025]). The oral appliance (10) comprises a maxillary dental appliance (38a) and a mandibular dental appliance (38b) (refer to Paragraph [0084]), wherein the mandibular dental appliance (38b) comprises posterior tooth receiving regions (22), a pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) extending from occlusal sides of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraph [0042], annotated Fig. 1 below) each including a reaction surface (28a, 28b) configured to engage with the maxillary dental appliance (38a) (refer to Paragraph [0035]; the blocks (12, 14) comprise paired guide surfaces (28a, 28b) to position the mandible), at least a portion of each of the reaction surfaces (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) is oriented to apply the lateral expansion force in a buccal direction with respect to each of the patient's teeth received within the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraphs [0044], [0072]; the transverse slopes of the guide surfaces (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b) of blocks (12, 14) interact to widen the mandibular dental arch by applying an outward force, equivalent to a lateral expansion force). Widening the mandibular dental arch decreases tongue obstruction for improved breathing, while simultaneously moving the teeth into the desired configuration (refer to Paragraphs [0025], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) of Kimura with a pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) as taught by Falkel in order to simultaneously align the teeth while widening the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0025], [0072]).
PNG
media_image5.png
516
1032
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kimura discloses wherein the rim (1212) extends around the opening (refer to Paragraph [0177]; the tooth engagement structures (1212) extend around the entire side surfaces of the tooth to surround the tooth) to support the lateral expansion force (refer to Paragraph [0184]; the tooth engagement structures are arranged to impact a force to move the teeth while the appliance is adjusting the palate of the patient); however, Kimura and Falkel are both silent to wherein the mandibular dental appliance has a thickened rim, the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Domroese discloses a mandibular dental appliance (104) with gingival ridges (102A-102D) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0027]). The device (104) comprises a thickened rim (102A-102D) (refer to Paragraph [0032]; the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D)), where the thickened rim (102A-102D) is advantageous for facilitating difficult tooth movements by applying force vectors at the contact points (refer to Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]), the same function of the rim (1212) of Kimura, which is designed to contact the tooth and apply a force (refer to Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel with the thickened rim as taught by Domroese for facilitating difficult tooth movements by applying force vectors at the tooth contact points (refer to Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Although Domroese does not explicitly teach the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, Domroese teaches the thickness of the thickened rim (102A-102D) as results effective variable. The thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D), to produce the required forces for tooth movement (refer to Paragraphs [0032], [0106]), where the shell of the appliance body (108) is in a thickness range of 0.1-2.0mm, and the rim (102A-102D) thickness Is between 0.05-2.0mm (refer to Paragraph [0098]). Thus, the range of thickness of the rim (102A-102D includes thicknesses greater than the thickness of the appliance body (108) to support the required force for tooth movement. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) to have a thickness in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel by making the thickness of the rim greater than the thickness of the shell body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image6.png
345
555
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura further discloses wherein the lateral expansion force is 1 N or more (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]; embodiments of the present disclosure provide a force of 3 to 9 N for expansion).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; the thickened rim has a thickness that is more than twice a thickness of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
As stated in the rejection for claim 1 above, Domroese does not explicitly teach the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, thus Domroese does not explicitly teach wherein the thickened rim has a thickness that is more than twice a thickness of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
However, Domroese teaches the thickness of the thickened rim (102A-102D) as results effective variable. The thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D), to produce the required forces for tooth movement (refer to Paragraphs [0032], [0106]), where the shell of the appliance body (108) is in a thickness range of 0.1-2.0mm, and the rim (102A-102D) thickness is between 0.05-2.0mm (refer to Paragraph [0098]). Thus, the range of thickness of the rim (102A-102D includes thicknesses that are greater than twice the thickness of the appliance body (108) to support the required force for tooth movement. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) to have a thickness in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel by making the thickness of the rim greater than twice the thickness of the shell body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura is silent to wherein the maxillary engagement projections each extend from a buccal region of the occlusal side of the mandibular maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Falkel further discloses wherein the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) each extend from a buccal region of the occlusal side of the mandibular maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraph [0045], annotated Fig. 3 below). The relative positions of the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) are customized for the desired orthodontic need, (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0054]), thus positioning the maxillary engagement projections on a buccal region affects the desired expansion force in this direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the mandibular tooth receiving regions of Kimura and Domroese with maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) extending from a buccal region of the occlusal side as taught by Falkel for the desired expansion in the buccal direction.
PNG
media_image7.png
778
1117
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura is silent to wherein the maxillary engagement projections do not extend from a lingual region of the occlusal side of the mandibular maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Although Falkel does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Falkel teaches that the dimensions (length, width, height) and relative positions of the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) are results effective variables, in that all of these characteristics are adjusted to meet the orthodontic needs of the patient (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0054]). By adjusting the width and position of the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b), their location can be adjusted to not extend from a lingual region of the occlusal side of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the width and position of the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) to only extend from the desired region, as it involves only adjusting the position and width, dimensions which are disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the mandibular tooth receiving regions of Kimura and Domroese by making the maxillary engagement projections not extend from a lingual region of the occlusal side of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura is silent to wherein the system further comprises a pair of connectors on the maxillary dental appliance device configured to engage with the maxillary engagement projections.
Falkel further discloses the maxillary dental appliance device (22) including a pair of connectors (right and left attachment mechanisms) configured to engage with the maxillary engagement projections(refer to Paragraphs [0090]-[0091]; Examiner understands “a connector” as any structure that joins the maxillary engagement projections with the maxillary device, consistent with the plain definition of “connector” from Collins Dictionary; the maxillary blocks (12) can be attached to the mandibular blocks (14) via an attachment mechanism such as a friction fit, snap fit, elastic band, tether, hook, elastic hook or any combination thereof; the attachment Ent mechanisms are formed for the left and right sides). The pair of connectors (right and left attachment mechanisms) keeps the jaw in the desired arrangement (refer to Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the maxillary dental appliance device of Kimura and Domroese with a pair of connectors (right and left attachment mechanisms) as taught by Falkel in order to keep the jaw in the desired arrangement (refer to Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura is silent to wherein the maxillary engagement projections each comprise a block of material.
Falkel further discloses that the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) can be solid, thus comprising a block of material (refer to Paragraph [0062]) that can be formed with the desired rigidity for desired deformation or compliance (refer to Paragraph [0061].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the maxillary dental appliance device of Kimura and Domroese with solid maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) as taught by Falkel in order to form the blocks with the desired rigidity for desired deformation or compliance (refer to Paragraph [0061].
Regarding claim 9, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura is silent to wherein the maxillary engagement projections each comprise a lingually-facing ramp surface that includes the reaction surface.
Falkel further discloses the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) each comprising a ramp surface (28a, 28b) that includes the reaction surface (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 above). However, Falkel does not explicitly teach the ramp surface (28a, 28b) as lingually-facing.
Although this is not explicitly taught, Falkel teaches that the orientation the ramp surface (28a, 28b) faces is a results effective variable, in that the orientation of the ramp surface (28a, 28b) is customized to the orthodontic treatment, craniofacial structure and/or patient tolerance (refer to Paragraph [0033]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the orientation of the ramp surface (28a, 28b) to be lingually facing, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Domroese by making the ramp surface (28a, 28b) lingually-facing, as taught by Falkel as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura discloses a system for expanding a patient's mandibular arch (refer to Paragraphs [0078]-[0079], [0092]; a lower and upper arch appliance for delivering transverse forces to the lower arch are disclosed), the system (refer to Paragraph [0092]) comprising:
a maxillary dental appliance device (100) comprising:
a first tooth receiving region, a second tooth receiving region and a palatal region extending therebetween (refer to annotated Fig. 1B below);
PNG
media_image8.png
298
615
media_image8.png
Greyscale
a mandibular dental appliance device (1100) comprising: an anterior tooth-receiving region, a first posterior tooth-receiving region, a second posterior tooth-receiving region (refer to annotated Fig. 11 below);
Kimura does not explicitly disclose the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the mandibular anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions forming an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough.
Although this is not explicitly disclosed, Kimura discloses that the same principles of appliance design described in relation to the upper arch designs can be applied in the lower arch to impart transverse force for mandibular dental expansion (refer to Paragraph [0079]). The principles of appliance design for the upper arch are shown in an alternative embodiment (1200), as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the posterior tooth-receiving regions that forms an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough (refer to Paragraph [0142], annotated Fig. 12C below; the structure is capable of allowing teeth to erupt through the opening). This embodiment (1200) incorporates the use of engagement structures (1212) analogous to a rim extending around the opening to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) with openings as taught by the alternative embodiment (1200) in order to make use of engagement structures (1212) extending around the openings to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
Kimura is further silent to:
wherein each of the first and second tooth receiving regions of the maxillary dental appliance device (100) comprises a mandibular engagement projection comprising a first reaction surface extending from an occlusal surface; and
wherein each of the first and second posterior tooth-[[]]receiving regions of the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) comprises a maxillary engagement projection comprising a second reaction surface,
wherein the first reaction surface is configured to engage with the second reaction surface when the maxillary dental appliance device (100) and the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) are worn, and to apply [[an]] a lateral expansion force between the first posterior tooth-receiving region and the second posterior tooth-receiving region to expand a mandibular arch, wherein the second reaction surface of each of the first and second posterior tooth-[[]]receiving regions is oriented to apply the lateral expansion force in a buccal direction.
Falkel discloses an oral appliance for reshaping the airway in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0025]). The oral appliance (10) comprises:
a maxillary dental appliance (38a) and a mandibular dental appliance (38b), wherein the maxillary dental appliance (38a) comprises first and second tooth receiving regions (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below) that each include a mandibular engagement projection (12a, 12b) comprising a first reaction surface (26a, 26b) extending from an occlusal surface (refer to Paragraph [0042], annotated Fig. 1 below; Examiner understands this “occlusal surface” as the occlusal surface of the maxillary dental appliance);
PNG
media_image9.png
450
695
media_image9.png
Greyscale
the mandibular dental appliance (38b) comprises posterior tooth receiving regions (22), that each include maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) extending from occlusal sides of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraph [0042], annotated Fig. 1 below) each including a second reaction surface (28a, 28b);
PNG
media_image10.png
434
755
media_image10.png
Greyscale
the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) is configured to engage with the second reaction surface (28a, 28b) when the maxillary dental appliance device (38a) and the mandibular dental appliance device (38b) are worn, to apply a lateral expansion force between the first posterior tooth-receiving region and the second posterior tooth-receiving region (refer to annotated Fig. 1 above) to expand a mandibular arch, wherein the second reaction surface of each of the first and second posterior tooth-receiving regions (28a, 28b) is oriented to apply the lateral expansion force in a buccal direction (refer to Paragraphs [0044], [0072], Fig. 3; the transverse slopes of the guide surfaces (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b) of the blocks (12, 14) interact to widen the mandibular dental arch by applying an outward force, equivalent to a lateral expansion force).
The addition of the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b), mandibular engagement projections (12a, 12b), which includes the reaction surfaces (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b) enables widening of the mandibular dental arch to decrease tongue obstruction for improved breathing, while simultaneously moving the teeth into the desired configuration (refer to Paragraphs [0025], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maxillary (100) and mandibular dental appliance devices (1100) of Kimura with the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b), mandibular engagement projections (12a, 12b), and the reaction surfaces (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b), as taught by Falkel in order to simultaneously align the teeth while widening the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0025], [0072]).
Kimura discloses wherein the rim (1212) extends around the opening (refer to Paragraph [0177]; the tooth engagement structures (1212) extend around the entire side surfaces of the tooth to surround the tooth) to support the lateral expansion force (refer to Paragraph [0184]; the tooth engagement structures are arranged to impact a force to move the teeth while the appliance is adjusting the palate of the patient); however, Kimura and Falkel are both silent to wherein the mandibular dental appliance has a thickened rim, the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Domroese discloses a mandibular dental appliance (104) with gingival ridges (102A-102D) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0027]). The device (104) comprises a thickened rim (102A-102D) (refer to Paragraph [0032]; the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D)), where the thickened rim (102A-102D) is advantageous for facilitating difficult tooth movements by applying force vectors at the contact points (refer to Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]), the same function of the rim (1212) of Kimura, which is designed to contact the tooth and apply a force (refer to Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel with the thickened rim as taught by Domroese for facilitating difficult tooth movements by applying force vectors at the tooth contact points (refer to Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Although Domroese does not explicitly teach the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, Domroese teaches the thickness of the thickened rim (102A-102D) as results effective variable. The thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D), to produce the required forces for tooth movement (refer to Paragraphs [0032], [0106]), where the shell of the appliance body (108) is in a thickness range of 0.1-2.0mm, and the rim (102A-102D) thickness is between 0.05-2.0mm (refer to Paragraph [0098]). Thus, the range of thickness of the rim (102A-102D includes thicknesses greater than the thickness of the appliance body (108) to support the required force for tooth movement. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) to have a thickness in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel by making the thickness of the rim greater than the thickness of the shell body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image6.png
345
555
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 10; Kimura further discloses wherein the resulting force is 1 N or more (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]; Examiner understands “the resulting force”, as the lateral expansion force; embodiments of the present disclosure provide a force of 3 to 9 N for expansion).
Regarding claim 12, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 10; Kimura is silent to wherein the first reaction surface faces a buccal direction.
Falkel discloses the mandibular engagement projections (12a, 12b) each comprising a first reaction surface (26a, 26b) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 above). However, Falkel does not explicitly teach the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) as buccal facing.
Although this is not explicitly taught, Falkel teaches that the orientation of the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) is a results effective variable, in that the orientation of the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) is customized to the orthodontic treatment, craniofacial structure and/or patient tolerance (refer to Paragraph [0033]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the orientation of the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) to be buccal facing, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Domroese by making the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) buccal facing, as taught by Falkel as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 10; Kimura is silent to wherein the first reaction surface has an angle relative to a plane through the anterior tooth-receiving region, the first posterior tooth-receiving region, and the second posterior tooth-receiving region of the mandibular dental appliance device that is greater than 10 degrees.
Falkel further discloses wherein the first reaction surface (26a, 26b) has an angle (30) relative to a plane through the anterior tooth-receiving region, the first posterior tooth-receiving region, and the second posterior tooth-receiving region of the mandibular dental appliance device (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below) that is greater than 10 degrees (refer to Paragraph [0037]; the maxillary guide surface angle can be from 15 degrees to 75 degrees). Angles within this range advantageously allow the maxillary (12a, 12b) and mandibular engagement projections (14a, 14b) to slidably contact each other (refer to Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maxillary appliance of Kimura and Domroese with the angled first reaction surface (26a, 26b) at an angle of greater than 10 degrees to advantageously allow the maxillary (12a, 12b) and mandibular engagement projections (14a, 14b) to slidably contact each other (refer to Paragraph [0037]).
PNG
media_image11.png
434
522
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 10; as described for claim 10 above, Kimura does not explicitly disclose the first posterior tooth- receiving region and/or the second posterior tooth-receiving region of the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) as comprising an opening through an occlusal side of the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) between the anterior tooth-receiving region and the first posterior tooth-receiving region, configured to permit eruption of one or more teeth therethrough; however, an alternative embodiment (1200), is shown as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the posterior tooth-receiving regions that forms an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough (refer to Paragraph [0142], annotated Fig. 12C below; the structure is capable of allowing teeth to erupt through the opening).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) with openings as taught by the alternative embodiment (1200) in order to make use of engagement structures (1212) extending around the openings to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
Regarding claim 15, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 14; Kimura does not explicitly disclose wherein the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) is missing a buccal side of the mandibular dental appliance device adjacent to the opening through the occlusal side.
Although this is not explicitly disclosed, Kimura discloses that the same principles of appliance design described in relation to the upper arch designs can be applied in the lower arch to impart transverse force for mandibular dental expansion (refer to Paragraph [0079]). The principles of appliance design for the upper arch are shown in an alternative embodiment (1200), as missing a buccal side of the mandibular dental appliance device adjacent to the opening through the occlusal side (refer to Paragraph [0183], annotated Fig. 12B below; the tooth engagement structure extends along a portion of at least one side surface of a tooth). This embodiment (1200) incorporates the use of engagement structures (1210) analogous to a rim extending around the opening to impart more force (refer to Paragraphs [0175], [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) of Kimura, Falkel and Domroese with openings as taught by the alternative embodiment (1200) in order to make use of engagement structures (1212) extending around the openings to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
PNG
media_image12.png
484
674
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Kimura teaches forming the dental appliance with a variation of thickness (refer to Paragraph [0117]); however, Kimura Falkel and Domroese do not explicitly teach wherein a lingual side of the mandibular dental appliance device adjacent to the opening through the occlusal side is thicker than a lingual side of the anterior tooth-receiving region.
Wu discloses a palatal expansion device with openings (Fig. 35; refer to Paragraph [0094]; the palatal expanders disclosed include one or more openings) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0086]). The thickness of the palatal expansion device (Fig. 35) is adjusted based on the region, with the anterior thickness on a lingual side less than the thickness of the lingual posterior regions (refer to Paragraph [0146]; the central palatal thickness (3503) is reduced from the posterior to anterior regions). As Kimura teaches the openings of the mandibular device (refer to annotated Fig.12B above) as being located in the posterior regions, Wu teaches an analogous reduction in thickness, which prevents the device from appearing bulky, causing discomfort and speech impairment (refer to Paragraph [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of lingual side of the mandibular dental appliance device of Kimura, Falkel, and Domroese by making the thickness of the posterior region greater than the anterior region as taught by Wu, in order to prevent the device from appearing bulky, causing discomfort and speech impairment (refer to Paragraph [0146]).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 14; Kimura further discloses wherein the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) is one of a plurality of mandibular dental appliance devices in a sequence of mandibular dental appliance devices configured to be worn as part of a treatment plan to expand the patient's mandibular arch (refer to Paragraph [0055]; a plurality of appliances are worn to achieve gradual expansion of the arch of the patient).
Kimura further discloses wherein a separation between the first and second posterior tooth receiving regions (refer to annotated Fig. 11 above) of the plurality of mandibular dental appliance devices increases across the sequence of mandibular dental appliance devices. (refer to Paragraphs [0045], [0055]; the arch width is from molar to molar; each of the plurality of dental appliances includes an incrementally wider arch width to expand the patient’s arch).
Kimura is silent to a separation between the maxillary engagement projections; however, as described in the above rejection for claim 10, the first and second posterior tooth receiving regions (refer to annotated Fig. 11 above) of Kimura are modified to include the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) of Falkel; thus, by increasing the molar to molar width, as taught by Kimura, the width between the maxillary engagement projections is also increased since the maxillary engagement projections are formed on the first and second posterior tooth receiving regions.
Regarding claim 17, Kimura discloses a method comprising:
generating, from a digital model of a patient's teeth (refer to Paragraph [0101]; a virtual model of a palate and the teeth of the patient is used to form the arch element), a model of a maxillary dental appliance device having a first shell body (102) comprising a maxillary anterior tooth-receiving region and a pair of maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions that are separated by a palatal region (104) (refer to Paragraphs [0063], [0067], annotated Fig. 1B below;); and
PNG
media_image1.png
269
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generating, from the digital model of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0108], [0120]; a virtual model of the lower jaw is used to form the virtual model of the appliance), a model of a mandibular dental appliance device (1100) having a second shell body (1102) comprising a lingual side, an occlusal side and a lateral side (refer to annotated Fig. 11 below), wherein the second shell body (1102) further comprises a mandibular anterior tooth-receiving region and a pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to annotated Fig. 11 below);
fabricating the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) from the digital model of the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) and fabricating the maxillary dental appliance device (100) from the digital model of the maxillary dental appliance device (100) (refer to Paragraph [0133]; the virtual model of the dental appliance is used to create a physical dental appliance).
PNG
media_image2.png
274
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
319
499
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kimura does not explicitly disclose the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the mandibular anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions forming an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough.
Although this is not explicitly disclosed, Kimura discloses that the same principles of appliance design described in relation to the upper arch designs can be applied in the lower arch to impart transverse force for mandibular dental expansion (refer to Paragraph [0079]). The principles of appliance design for the upper arch are shown in an alternative embodiment (1200), as comprising a portion of the occlusal side of the second shell body between the anterior tooth-receiving region and each of the posterior tooth-receiving regions that forms an opening to allow eruption of teeth therethrough (refer to Paragraph [0142], annotated Fig. 12C below; the structure is capable of allowing teeth to erupt through the opening). This embodiment (1200) incorporates the use of engagement structures (1212) analogous to a rim extending around the opening to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) with openings as taught by the alternative embodiment (1200) in order to make use of engagement structures (1212) extending around the openings to impart more force (refer to Paragraph [0178]).
PNG
media_image4.png
512
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kimura is silent to a pair of maxillary engagement projections extending from occlusal sides of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, wherein each of the pair of maxillary engagement projections is configured to engage with the mandibular dental appliance device (Examiner understands the maxillary engagement projections as engaging with a maxillary dental appliance, see objection above) to apply [[an]] a lateral expansion force between a patient's teeth received within the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Falkel discloses an oral appliance for reshaping the airway in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0025]). The oral appliance (10) comprises a maxillary dental appliance (38a) and a mandibular dental appliance (38b) (refer to Paragraph [0084]), wherein the mandibular dental appliance (38b) comprises posterior tooth receiving regions (22), a pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) extending from occlusal sides of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraph [0042], annotated Fig. 1 below) configured to engage with the maxillary dental appliance (38a) (refer to Paragraph [0035]; the blocks (12, 14) comprise paired guide surfaces (28a, 28b) to position the mandible), to apply a lateral expansion force between the patient's teeth received within the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraphs [0044], [0072]; the transverse slopes of the guide surfaces (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b) of blocks (12, 14) interact to widen the mandibular dental arch by applying an outward force, equivalent to a lateral expansion force). Widening the mandibular dental arch decreases tongue obstruction for improved breathing, while simultaneously moving the teeth into the desired configuration (refer to Paragraphs [0025], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) of Kimura with a pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) as taught by Falkel in order to simultaneously align the teeth while widening the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0025], [0072]).
PNG
media_image5.png
516
1032
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kimura discloses wherein the rim (1212) extends around the opening (refer to Paragraph [0177]; the tooth engagement structures (1212) extend around the entire side surfaces of the tooth to surround the tooth) to support the lateral expansion force (refer to Paragraph [0184]; the tooth engagement structures are arranged to impact a force to move the teeth while the appliance is adjusting the palate of the patient); however, Kimura and Falkel are both silent to wherein the mandibular dental appliance has a thickened rim, the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Domroese discloses a mandibular dental appliance (104) with gingival ridges (102A-102D) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0027]). The device (104) comprises a thickened rim (102A-102D) (refer to Paragraph [0032]; the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D)), where the thickened rim (102A-102D) is advantageous for facilitating difficult tooth movements by applying force vectors at the contact points (refer to Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]), the same function of the rim (1212) of Kimura, which is designed to contact the tooth and apply a force (refer to Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel with the thickened rim as taught by Domroese for facilitating difficult tooth movements by applying force vectors at the tooth contact points (refer to Paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Although Domroese does not explicitly teach the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, Domroese teaches the thickness of the thickened rim (102A-102D) as results effective variable. The thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D), to produce the required forces for tooth movement (refer to Paragraphs [0032], [0106]), where the shell of the appliance body (108) is in a thickness range of 0.1-2.0mm, and the rim (102A-102D) thickness Is between 0.05-2.0mm (refer to Paragraph [0098]). Thus, the range of thickness of the rim (102A-102D includes thicknesses greater than the thickness of the appliance body (108) to support the required force for tooth movement. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) to have a thickness in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel by making the thickness of the rim greater than the thickness of the shell body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image6.png
345
555
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the method of claim 17; Kimura further discloses wherein the lateral expansion force is 1 N or more (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]; embodiments of the present disclosure provide a force of 3 to 9 N for expansion); but is silent to wherein the pair of maxillary mandibular engagement projections are configured to engage with the mandibular dental appliance device to [[an]] the lateral expansion force (Examiner understands the maxillary engagement projections as engaging with a maxillary dental appliance, see objection above).
As stated in the rejection for claim 17 above, Falkel discloses a pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) configured to engage with the maxillary dental appliance (38a) (refer to Paragraph [0035]; the blocks (12, 14) comprise paired guide surfaces (28a, 28b) to position the mandible), to apply a lateral expansion force between the patient's teeth received within the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions (refer to Paragraphs [0044], [0072]; the transverse slopes of the guide surfaces (26a, 26b, 28a, 28b) of blocks (12, 14) interact to widen the mandibular dental arch by applying an outward force, equivalent to a lateral expansion force). The pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) enable widening of the mandibular dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0072]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kimura on the lateral expansion force of 1 N or more with the pair of maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) as taught by Falkel in order to enable widening of the mandibular dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0072]).
19. (Cancelled)
Regarding claim 20, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the method of claim 17; Kimura further discloses wherein fabricating comprises fabricating by a direct fabrication technique (refer to Paragraph [0133]; the dental appliance can be fabricated using a direct fabrication device).
Regarding claim 22, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the method of claim 17; Kimura further discloses receiving the digital model of the patient's teeth (refer to Paragraph [0126]; the input interface (438) receives data representing a virtual dental model of a patient’s dentition).
Regarding claim 23, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the method of claim 17; Kimura further discloses wherein generating the model of the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) and the maxillary dental appliance device (100) comprises generating a digital model of the mandibular dental appliance device and the maxillary dental appliance device (refer to Paragraph [0118], Fig. 3; a virtual model of the appliance is generated).
Regarding claim 24, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the method of claim 17; Kimura further discloses wherein generating the model of the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) and the maxillary dental appliance device (100) comprises configuring the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) and the maxillary dental appliance device (100) so that the patient's teeth are retained in a predetermined position following an orthodontic treatment (refer to Paragraph [0042]; expanding the arch of the patient using the disclosed appliances includes the use of retainers; by definition (Wikipedia), teeth retainers keep teeth in proper alignment after any method of realigning teeth).
Regarding claim 25, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the method of claim 17; Kimura and Falkel are silent to wherein the thickened rim has a thickness that is more than twice a thickness of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
As stated in the rejection for claim 17 above, Domroese does not explicitly teach the thickened rim having a greater thickness than a thickness of the pair of mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions, thus Domroese does not explicitly teach setting the thickened rim to a thickness that is more than twice a thickness of the mandibular posterior tooth-receiving regions.
However, Domroese teaches the thickness of the thickened rim (102A-102D) as results effective variable. The thickness of the rim (102A-102D) can be set to any suitable thickness, including a step change in thickness between the appliance body (104) and the rim (102A-102D), to produce the required forces for tooth movement (refer to Paragraphs [0032], [0106]), where the shell of the appliance body (108) is in a thickness range of 0.1-2.0mm, and the rim (102A-102D) thickness is between 0.05-2.0mm (refer to Paragraph [0098]). Thus, the range of thickness of the rim (102A-102D includes thicknesses that are greater than twice the thickness of the appliance body (108) to support the required force for tooth movement. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the rim (102A-102D) to have a thickness in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the rim of the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Falkel by making the thickness of the rim greater than twice the thickness of the shell body as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 26, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura is silent to wherein the at least a portion of each of the reaction surfaces is oriented more in a lingual direction than a buccal direction.
Falkel discloses the reaction surface (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 above); however, Falkel does not explicitly teach the reaction surfaces (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) as oriented more in a lingual direction than a buccal direction.
Although this is not explicitly taught, Falkel teaches that the orientation of the reaction surfaces (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) as a results effective variable, in that the orientation of the reaction surfaces (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) is customized to the orthodontic treatment, craniofacial structure and/or patient tolerance (refer to Paragraph [0033]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the orientation of the reaction surfaces (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) to be more lingually facing, than buccal facing, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the mandibular appliance of Kimura and Domroese by making the reaction surfaces (transverse sloped portion(s) of 28a, 28b) more lingually-facing than buccal facing, as taught by Falkel as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 3 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. (US 20160081769 A1), herein referred to as Kimura, in view of Falkel (US 20180078343 A1), and further in view of Domroese et al. (US 20220047358 A1), herein referred to as Domroese, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20180153649 A1), herein referred to as Wu.
Regarding claims 3 and 21, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1 and method of claim 17; Kimura teaches forming the dental appliance with a variation of thickness (refer to Paragraph [0117]);however, Kimura Falkel and Domroese do not explicitly teach wherein the palatal region is greater than twice as thick as a thickness of the maxillary anterior tooth-receiving region or either of the maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions.
Wu discloses a palatal expansion device (Fig. 35) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0086]). The thickness of the palatal expansion device (Fig. 35) is adjusted based on the region, with the palatal region (3503) is set to a thickness of 2.1mm-7mm, while the maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions (3507) have a thickness ranging from 1mm-3mm (refer to Paragraphs [0137], [0145]). The provided ranges include the palatal region as greater than twice as thick as a thickness of the maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions. Further, the thickness of the palatal expansion device (Fig. 35) is taught as a results effective variable, in that adjusting the thickness affects how the device withstands biting, chewing and eating, while being comfortable for the patient (refer to Paragraph [0035]-[0036]). Thus, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the palatal region (3503) and the maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions (3507) to have thicknesses in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of components disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the palatal region and maxillary posterior tooth receiving regions of Kimura, Falkel, and Domroese by making the thickness of the palatal region twice the thickness of the maxillary posterior tooth-receiving regions as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image13.png
402
956
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The outstanding claim objections of claims 4-6, 17 and 26 are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights