DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dental appliance body is further provided with at least one eruption portion and a respective eruption portion of the at least one eruption portion is configured to accommodate a respective tooth of the at least one tooth”. It is unclear what the difference is between the at least one eruption portion and a respective eruption portion, such that it is unclear what each one is structurally referring to. For examining purposes, it was understood that the eruption portion is a cavity corresponding to an unerupted tooth and “a respective eruption portion” is referring to the eruption portion of each dental appliance body of the plurality of shell-like dental appliances. Additionally, claim 1 recites “column structure”, it is unclear how the eruption portion is columnar, such that it appears that the eruption portion is a bubble or cavity that has a shape generally similar to the shape of a tooth and is not necessarily columnar. Clarification is required.
Claims 3-13, 15 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2016/0135924 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an orthodontic system comprising a plurality of shell-like dental appliances configured to gradually adjust teeth other than at least one tooth not grown to preset eruption parameters from an initial position to a target orthodontic position according to an orthodontic plan while allowing natural growth of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters ([0004], [0022-0024]);
wherein each of the plurality of shell-like dental appliances comprises a dental appliance body comprising a geometric structure for accommodating a plurality of maxillary teeth or a plurality of mandibular teeth, the dental appliance body is further provided with at least one eruption portion, and a respective eruption portion of the at least one eruption portion is configured to accommodate a respective tooth of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters (see at least [0006], [0020], [0057-0058], [0070], [0092]);
eruption portions on plurality of shell-like dental appliances for accommodating the respective tooth have a constant column structure to be consistent with each other in shape, size, position, and orientation (see at least [0020], [0038-0040] and see Figure 1; the eruption pocket 101 is formed as a columnar bubble and may be designed according to a patient’s predicted geometry, see fig. 2), and
the respective eruption portion is configured to form a gap between an inner surface of respective eruption portion and an outer surface of the respective tooth when the respective tooth is accommodated the respective eruption portion (see Figure 1 and [0092], [0095]; such that an eruption pocket is slowly filled by the tooth as it erupts and a gap remains between the tooth and the pocket when it’s partially erupted. Additionally, the pocket can be sized such that the unerupted tooth will not contact the pocket as it erupts);
wherein the preset eruption parameters comprise a size, a position, a shape and an orientation of a tooth or teeth formed after full eruption of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters ([0052], [0092], [0095]; an estimation of a scaling factor of the non-erupted/partially erupted tooth when in a fully erupted state is used to determine the projected dimension of the cavity/space corresponding to the non-erupted tooth as it erupts).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the constant column structure is configured to be arranged based on the size, the position, the shape and the orientation of the tooth or teeth formed after full eruption of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters ([0092]; the cavity is sized based on the predicted parameters of the tooth to erupt).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 3 (see rejection above), wherein the constant column structure is further configured to be arranged based on a size, a position, a shape and an orientation of a tooth or teeth on an opposite jaw corresponding to the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters, so that the constant column structure does not interfere with a maxillomandibular occlusal relationship ([0020], [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the column structure is configured to have a maximum height, a maximum buccolingual dimension and a maximum mesial-distal dimension determined based on both first preset parameters of a mesial adjacent tooth and second preset parameters of a distal adjacent tooth of the respective tooth ([0026], [0069]; adjacent teeth are considered when creating the cavity).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the first preset parameters comprise following parameters of the mesial adjacent tooth: a maximum buccolingual dimension, a maximum mesial- distal dimension, and a maximum height of the mesial adjacent tooth; wherein the second preset parameters comprise the following parameters of the distal adjacent tooth: a maximum buccolingual dimension, a maximum mesial-distal dimension, and a maximum height of the distal adjacent tooth ([0026], [0029] and see Figures; the designing involves consideration of the adjacent teeth and each adjacent cavity within the appliance comprises a maximum height, occlusal length/diameter, and mesial-distal dimensions).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 7 (see rejection above), wherein the column structure comprises a labial/buccal surface, a lingual surface and an occlusal surface, wherein the labial/buccal surface is a flat surface or a curved surface configured to have a smooth transition to a labial/buccal surface of the mesial adjacent tooth and the distal adjacent tooth, the lingual surface is a flat surface or a curved surface configured to have a smooth transition to a lingual surface of the mesial adjacent tooth and the distal adjacent tooth, and the occlusal surface is a flat surface or a curved surface configured to have a smooth transition to an occlusal surface of the mesial adjacent tooth and the distal adjacent tooth (see Figures, specifically fig. 2; the cavity is within the aligner shell and has surfaces that match and conform the tooth surfaces).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the column structure is further configured to be arranged based on a size, a position, a shape, and an orientation of teeth on an opposite jaw corresponding to the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters, so that the constant column structure does not interfere with a maxillomandibular occlusal relationship ([0020], [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the column structure is configured to have a maximum height, a maximum buccolingual dimension and a maximum mesial-distal dimension determined based on first preset parameters of a distal adjacent tooth and a mesial adjacent tooth of the respective tooth ([0026], [0069]; adjacent teeth are considered when creating the cavity).
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 10 (see rejection above), wherein the first preset parameters comprise: a maximum buccolingual dimension and a maximum medial-distal dimension of the distal adjacent tooth, and a maximum height of the mesial adjacent tooth ([0026], [0029] and see Figures; the designing involves consideration of the adjacent teeth and each adjacent cavity within the appliance comprises a maximum height, occlusal length/diameter, and mesial-distal dimensions). .
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 10 (see rejection above), wherein the constant column structure comprises a labial/buccal surface, a lingual surface and an occlusal surface, wherein the labial/buccal surface is a flat surface or a curved surface configured to have a smooth transition to a labial/buccal surface of the mesial adjacent tooth and the distal adjacent tooth, the lingual surface is a flat surface or a curved surface configured to have a smooth transition to a lingual surface of the mesial adjacent tooth and the distal adjacent tooth, and the occlusal surface is a flat surface or a curved surface configured to have a smooth transition to an occlusal surface of the mesial adjacent tooth and the distal adjacent tooth (see Figures; the cavity is within the aligner shell and has surfaces that match and conform the tooth surfaces).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 10 (see rejection above), wherein the constant column structure is further configured to be arranged based on a size, a position, a shape, and an orientation of teeth on an opposite jaw corresponding to the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters, so that the constant column structure does not interfere with a maxillomandibular occlusal relationship ([0020], [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the geometric structure on each of the plurality of shell-like dental appliances other than the eruption portion is configured to gradually adjust the teeth other than the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters from the initial position to the target orthodontic position ([0074]).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US2016/0135924 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches the orthodontic system according to claim 3 (see rejection above). Choi is silent to explicitly wherein the column structure is configured to have a size 1.02 to 1.05 times of a size of the tooth or teeth formed after the full eruption of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters; the column structure is configured to be oriented at an angle of 0 to 5 degrees to a long axis of the tooth or teeth formed after the full eruption of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters; the column structure is configured to be positioned at an offset of 0 to 1 mm from a coordinate value in a spatial three-dimensional coordinate system of each of vertices that constitute a position of the tooth or teeth formed after the full eruption of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters; the column structure is configured to be shaped at an offset of 0 to 1 mm from a coordinate value in the spatial three-dimensional coordinate system of each of vertices that constitute a shape of the tooth or teeth formed after the full eruption of the at least one tooth not grown to the preset eruption parameters.
Although Choi does not explicitly teach the claimed dimensions, Choi teaches the cavity is sized, shaped and angled as to not contact the erupted tooth by predicting the geometry of the tooth to erupt and considering said geometry in the designing of the cavity (see Fig. 1 and [0038], [0092], [0095]). Applicant discloses in paragraphs 91-94 of the specification that said dimensions are set to ensure that the cavity within the appliance will not contact the tooth when it fully erupts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claimed dimensions because they may vary depending on many factors including tooth type and the anatomy of the patient.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the drawings and claims overcome the objections to the drawings claim set forth in the previous office action.
With regards to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, please note new rejections in light of the amendments.
Cancellation of claims 16-19 overcomes the 101 rejections of the previous office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 with respect to Choi (US 2016/0135924 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Choi does not teach or suggest the amended claim 1 such that the eruption portions of the appliances are for accommodating a respective tooth to be sized and positioned corresponding to the respective tooth and to form a gap between the eruption portion and the respective tooth and states that all eruption portions for the same tooth of the plurality of appliances have the same size, position, shape and orientation in different stages. This is not persuasive. In paragraph 24, Choi discloses that “the second shell having a cavity that corresponds with the cavity for accommodating an unerupted or erupting tooth of the first shell and wherein the cavities for accommodating an unerupted or erupting tooth are sized, shaped, located, and/or oriented based upon a prediction of the size, shape, location, and/or orientation of the unerupted or erupting tooth according to each shell’s respective treatment stage”, therefore the cavities are generally sized and shaped according to the predicted parameters but may be the same between two shells of two respective stages. In paragraphs 23-28, Choi discusses a system may comprise the plurality of appliances and the eruption cavity may be adjusted in some embodiments but does not teach away from two appliances having the same parameters if the prediction remains the same. Additionally, in paragraph 26, Choi discloses that the eruption cavities may be sized, shaped, located, according to a same type tooth (i.e., canine, premolar, etc.), indicating that there may be a constant tooth type dataset corresponding to a tooth type. Therefore, the system of Choi is fully capable of including a plurality of appliances where the predicted cavity dimensions and position is the same in successive stages, a same tooth type parameter is applied consistently, or where an appliance stage is repeated if necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
4/23/2026
Prosecution Insights