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 .
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, and Paragraph [0033] describes how the reaction surface is angled 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; however, the specification does not describe a portion of a reaction surface orientated more in a lingual direction than buccal direction. Further, while Fig. 5B shows a reaction surface that is orientated, it is not clear from this figure how the reaction surface with an acute angle formed between the plane and reaction surface is angled more in a lingual direction (refer to annotated Fig. 5B below and Paragraph [0033]).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0078], line 8, "the buccalizing reaction surface 579", should be, "the buccalizing reaction surface 578".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10, paragraph 5 should be corrected to the following, in line with Paragraphs [0078] and [0090] and Figs. 5B, 13 of the specification, which state that the maxillary dental appliance applies the maxillary supporting force, not the mandibular dental appliance:
wherein the palatal region of the maxillary dental appliance device is configured to resist compression such that the maxillary dental appliance device applies a maxillary supporting force against the reaction surface when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force
Claim 17, paragraph 5 should be corrected to the following, in line with the preceding paragraph that states the maxillary engagement projections are configured for engaging the maxillary dental appliance:
wherein the palatal region of the maxillary dental appliance device is configured to resist compression such that the pair mandibular engagement projections apply a maxillary supporting force against the mandibular dental appliance device when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force
Claim 18, lines 2-3 should be corrected to “…wherein the pair of maxillary engagement projections are configured to engage with the mandibular maxillary dental appliance device to apply the lateral expansion force”.
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_image2.png
269
619
media_image2.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),
wherein the palatal region of the maxillary dental appliance (104) device is configured to resist compression, such that the mandibular appliance device (100; Examiner understands this limitation as a maxillary appliance device) applies a maxillary supporting force (refer to Paragraph [0068]; the arch member can be formed of the first material and a structural reinforcement feature that increases the rigidity of a portion of the appliance or increases one or more force vectors (force provided in X, Y, and/or Z axial directions); this more rigid or stiffer structure of Kimura is consistent with how Applicant describes the palatal region configured for opposing compression by providing a maxillary supporting force (see Paragraphs [0064], [0066] [0078], [0090] of the specification), thus the more rigid palatal region of Kimura is also capable of this function).
PNG
media_image3.png
274
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
319
499
media_image4.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 an opening 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_image5.png
512
477
media_image5.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 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_image6.png
516
1032
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kimura is further silent to wherein the mandibular dental appliance device (understood as the maxillary dental appliance) applies a maxillary supporting force against the reaction surface when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force.
Falkel further teaches the maxillary dental appliance device (38a) applying a maxillary supporting force against the reaction surfaces (28a, 28b) when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force (refer to Paragraphs [0058], [0072]; the mandibular blocks 14 can be configured to engage the maxillary blocks 12 and slide forward along the guide surfaces 26 of the maxillary blocks 12 upon the application of a compressive force between two opposing maxillary and mandibular blocks 12, 14 (e.g., upon closing the jaw); the interaction of the blocks 12, 14 widens the mandibular dental arch).
As Kimura teaches the structure of the maxillary palatal region (104) as a rigid arch element (refer to Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]), capable of resisting compression while applying a maxillary expansion force, the combination of Kimura and Falkel teaches a maxillary dental appliance device capable of resisting compression while applying a maxillary supporting force when the patient closes their jaw.
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 device 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_image7.png
345
555
media_image7.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; 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 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 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 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_image8.png
778
1117
media_image8.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 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
Falkel further discloses the maxillary engagement projections (14a, 14b) each comprising a ramp surface (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_image9.png
298
615
media_image9.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);
wherein the palatal region of the maxillary dental appliance (104) device is configured to resist compression, such that the mandibular appliance device (100; Examiner understands this limitation as a maxillary appliance device) applies a maxillary supporting force (refer to Paragraph [0068]; the arch member can be formed of the first material and a structural reinforcement feature that increases the rigidity of a portion of the appliance or increases one or more force vectors (force provided in X, Y, and/or Z axial directions); this more rigid or stiffer structure of Kimura is consistent with how Applicant describes the palatal region configured for opposing compression by providing a maxillary supporting force (see Paragraphs [0064], [0066] [0078], [0090] of the specification), thus the more rigid palatal region of Kimura is also capable of this function).
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 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_image10.png
450
695
media_image10.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_image11.png
434
755
media_image11.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 is further silent to wherein the mandibular dental appliance device (understood as the maxillary dental appliance) applies a maxillary supporting force against the reaction surface when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force.
Falkel further teaches the maxillary dental appliance device (38a) applying a maxillary supporting force against the reaction surfaces (28a, 28b) when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force (refer to Paragraphs [0058], [0072]; the mandibular blocks 14 can be configured to engage the maxillary blocks 12 and slide forward along the guide surfaces 26 of the maxillary blocks 12 upon the application of a compressive force between two opposing maxillary and mandibular blocks 12, 14 (e.g., upon closing the jaw); the interaction of the blocks 12, 14 widens the mandibular dental arch).
As Kimura teaches the structure of the maxillary palatal region (104) as a rigid arch element (refer to Paragraphs [0047]-[0048]), capable of resisting compression while applying a maxillary expansion force, the combination of Kimura and Falkel teaches a maxillary dental appliance device capable of resisting compression while applying a maxillary supporting force when the patient closes their jaw.
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 first or second .
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 first or second 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_image7.png
345
555
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 10; Kimura further discloses wherein the lateral expansion 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_image12.png
434
522
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim [[14]] 10; 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_image2.png
269
619
media_image2.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);
wherein the palatal region of the maxillary dental appliance (104) device is configured to resist compression, such that the maxillary appliance device (100) applies a maxillary supporting force (refer to Paragraph [0068]; the arch member can be formed of the first material and a structural reinforcement feature that increases the rigidity of a portion of the appliance or increases one or more force vectors (force provided in X, Y, and/or Z axial directions); this more rigid or stiffer structure of Kimura is consistent with how Applicant describes the palatal region configured for opposing compression by providing a maxillary supporting force (see Paragraphs [0064], [0066] [0078], [0090] of the specification), thus the more rigid palatal region of Kimura is also capable of this function).
fabricating the mandibular dental appliance device (1100) from the (1100) and fabricating the maxillary dental appliance device (100) from the (100) (refer to Paragraph [0133]; the virtual model of the dental appliance is used to create a physical dental appliance).
PNG
media_image3.png
274
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
319
499
media_image4.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_image5.png
512
477
media_image5.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 to apply 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_image6.png
516
1032
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kimura is further silent to wherein the pair of maxillary engagement projections (Examiner understands this limitation as the pair of mandibular engagement projections) applies a maxillary supporting force against the mandibular dental appliance when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force.
Falkel further teaches the maxillary dental appliance device (38a) applying a maxillary supporting force against the mandibular dental appliance (38b) when the patient closes their jaws, thereby supporting the lateral expansion force (refer to Paragraphs [0058], [0072]; the mandibular blocks 14 can be configured to engage the maxillary blocks 12 and slide forward along the guide surfaces 26 of the maxillary blocks 12 upon the application of a compressive force between two opposing maxillary and mandibular blocks 12, 14 (e.g., upon closing the jaw); the interaction of the blocks 12, 14 widens the mandibular dental arch).
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 device 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_image7.png
345
555
media_image7.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 engagement projections are configured to engage with the maxillary dental appliance device to the lateral expansion force.
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]).
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 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).
Regarding claim 27, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim 1; Kimura further discloses wherein the occlusal side of the mandibular anterior tooth- receiving region is configured to fully cover occlusal surfaces of one or more anterior teeth, and the occlusal side of the each of the first and second posterior tooth-receiving regions is configured to fully cover occlusal surfaces of one or more posterior teeth (refer to Paragraph [0065], annotated Fig. 11 below; the shell can include an interior surface (e.g., adjacent to a surface of the teeth place therein) and an exterior surface configured to receive the teeth).
PNG
media_image13.png
397
587
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 3, 15 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_image14.png
402
956
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Kimura, Falkel and Domroese disclose the system of claim [[14]] 10; 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_image15.png
484
674
media_image15.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]).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding claim objections of claims 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 23 are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Falkel does not explain how the blocks can widen both the maxillary and mandibular dental arches, Examiner points to Paragraphs [0072] and [0082]-[0083], which detail how the transverse slopes interact to widen the maxillary and mandibular arches. The additional limitations in amended claims 1, 10, and 17 only require a palatal region capable of resisting compression, thus applying a restoring force to oppose the compressive forces. The remainder of the amended claim language is functional, stating the function of the palatal region, but does not require additional structures or for the prior art reference to teach the functional limitation. Examiner notes, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 17 relies on a combination of Kimura, Falkel and Domroese. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the argument that one would not modify Kimura because Kimura teaches the same application of devices (alignment and arch expansion) as Falkel, is why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kimura with Falkel. Falkel is in the same field of endeavor, teaches the same application of devices, with additional structures designed to apply outward forces for widening the mandibular arch, the same function of Applicant’s device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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