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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e)). The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63218232, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Amended claims 1, 5-6, 18, previously presented/original claims 2, 4, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, and new claims 22-23 are not supported by the provisional application. While the provisional application discloses the general idea of using the features of the claims to apply forces to the teeth, the application of these features to an aligner is not explicitly disclosed.
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-8, 10-19, and 22-23 is 07/05/2022, as all claims depend from claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2, the “reinforce portion” should be corrected to “reinforcement portion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopelman et al. (US 20200170757 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman.
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman discloses an orthodontic device (2630) for repositioning teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0125], [0166]; orthodontic appliances of the present disclosure exert appropriate forces on the teeth in order to achieve the desired positioning), comprising:
an integral piece of orthodontic appliance (2630) defining a target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0122], [0125]; the orthodontic appliance employs elastics directly coupled to the shell, forming an integral appliance (2630); the appliances disclosed area all designed as part of a tooth repositioning system for repositioning an initial tooth arrangement to a target tooth arrangement) and having at least a reinforcement portion (2632) (refer to Paragraphs [0216]-[0217]; Examiner understands a reinforcement portion being any structure that supports or reinforces the shell portion in applying repositioning forces to the teeth; as part of the orthodontic appliance (2630), the biasing features (2632) defines a location where desired deformation occurs when appropriate forces are applied), wherein:
the orthodontic appliance (2630) is configured to hug a plurality of teeth and resiliently reposition the plurality of teeth from a current tooth arrangement to the target tooth arrangement gradually within an extended duration of time (refer to Paragraphs [0122], [0125]; the shell is shaped to receive the patient’s teeth to exert forces on the teeth, progressively repositioning the teeth over time to achieve the desired position);
the reinforcement portion (2632) has a first stiffness level (refer to Paragraph [0216]; the biasing member (2632) is formed as part of the shell, having a stiffness level defined by the increased local compliance) and includes a beading structure (2632) (refer to Paragraph [0216]; Examiner understands a beading structure as a projecting rim or band of material (Merriam-Webster), such as the groove or engraved shape of the biasing feature(s) (2632)), wherein the beading structure (2632) is configured to modify stiffness of the integral piece (2630) locally (refer to Paragraphs [0216]-[0217]; the biasing features (2632) define a region of increased compliance); and
the shell portion (refer to annotated Fig. 26D below) is extended from the reinforcement portion (2632) (refer to annotated Fig. 26D below) and has a second stiffness level, the second stiffness different from the first stiffness level (refer to Paragraphs [0216], [0217]; the biasing feature (2632) forms a region of increased compliance compared to the shell portion (refer to annotated Fig. 26D below), thus the shell portion (refer to annotated Fig. 26D below) has lower compliance, or increased stiffness.).
Kopelman does not disclose the beading structure (2632) being formed by folding a sheet material having a substantially uniform thickness. This portion of the claim is interpreted as a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I. Thus, as Kopelman discloses the beading structure (2632), claim 1 is anticipated by Kopelman regardless of the process used to form the beading structure.
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (2630) of claim 1, the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (2630) further comprising:
one or more openings (2634), each opening (2634) being surrounded by at least one of the reinforcement portion (2632) and the shell portion (refer to annotated Fig. 26D below; the shell portion surrounds the opening (2634)), wherein the orthodontic appliance (2630) is configured to expose part of the plurality of teeth to an oral environment via the respective opening (2634) (refer to Paragraph [0217], annotated Fig. 26D of Kopelman below; a discontinuity (2634) is depicted as an aperture).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (2630) of claim 1, the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (2630) further comprising one or more slits (2634) formed on the shell portion (refer to annotated Fig. 26D below), wherein the one or more slits (2634) are configured to modify the stiffness of the orthodontic appliance level locally around the one or more slits (2634) (refer to Paragraphs [0125], [0216]-[0217]; the discontinuity (2634) is a cut or aperture, is shaped to adjust the local compliance of the device).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Alternative Embodiment Interpretation)
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman discloses an orthodontic device (1600) for repositioning teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0125], [0166]; orthodontic appliances of the present disclosure exert appropriate forces on the teeth in order to achieve the desired positioning), comprising:
an integral piece of orthodontic appliance (1600) defining a target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0122], [0125]; the orthodontic appliance employs elastics directly coupled to the shell, forming an integral appliance (1600); the appliances disclosed area all designed as part of a tooth repositioning system for repositioning an initial tooth arrangement to a target tooth arrangement) and having at least a reinforcement portion (1610) (refer to Paragraphs [0194]; Examiner understands a reinforcement portion being any structure that supports or reinforces the shell portion in applying repositioning forces to the teeth; as part of the orthodontic appliance (1600), the elastic member (1610) exerts a force on the curved portion of the appliance (1606), transmitting this force to the tooth (1612)), wherein:
the orthodontic appliance (1600) is configured to hug a plurality of teeth and resiliently reposition the plurality of teeth from a current tooth arrangement to the target tooth arrangement gradually within an extended duration of time (refer to Paragraphs [0122], [0125]; the shell is shaped to receive the patient’s teeth to exert forces on the teeth, progressively repositioning the teeth over time to achieve the desired position);
the reinforcement portion (1610) has a first stiffness level (refer to Paragraph [0164]; the elastic member (1610) has a stiffness level defined by its configuration) and includes a beading structure (1610) (refer to Paragraphs [0158], [0194]; Examiner understands a beading structure as a projecting rim or band of material (Merriam-Webster), such projecting band of the elastic member (1610)), wherein the beading structure (1610) is configured to modify stiffness of the integral piece (1600) locally (refer to Paragraph [0125]; the elastic member (1610) is configured to control the magnitude and direction of the applied force by adjusting the local compliance of the orthodontic device (1600)); and
the shell portion (1604) is extended from the reinforcement portion (1610) (refer to annotated Fig. 16C below) and has a second stiffness level, the second stiffness different from the first stiffness level (refer to Paragraph [0125]; the elastic member (1610) adjusts the local compliance of the appliance (1600), meaning the stiffness at the location of the elastic member (1610) is different from the remaining portions of the appliance (1600) defined by the shell portion (1604)).
Kopelman does not disclose the beading structure (1610) being formed by folding a sheet material having a substantially uniform thickness. This portion of the claim is interpreted as a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I. Thus, as Kopelman discloses the beading structure (1610), claim 1 is anticipated by Kopelman regardless of the process used to form the beading structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
334
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 1, the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (1600) further comprising an attachment structure (1606) configured to grab a surface of a first tooth (1612) and apply a force on the surface of the first tooth (1612) along a shear direction tangent to the surface of the first tooth (1608) (refer to Paragraphs [0161]- [0162], [0194], annotated Fig. 16C below; when the appliance (1600) receives a tooth (1612) a force is applied from the elastic member (1610) to the tooth (1612) via the curved portion (1606); the curved portion (1606) is shown “grabbing” the tooth surface in Fig. 16C; the interaction of the elastic member (1610) with the curved portion (1606) in the shell (1604) transmits forces to the underlying tooth (1612) to elicit movement such as extrusion, intrusion, rotating, torquing, tipping and/or translating, therefore the attachment structure (1606) is capable of applying a shear force to the tooth (1612)).
PNG
media_image4.png
334
440
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 4, wherein the attachment structure (1606) is attached to an internal surface of one of the reinforcement portion (1610) and the shell portion (1604) (refer to annotated Fig. 16C above; the attachment (1606) is connected to the internal surfaces of the reinforcement (1610) and shell (1604)) and configured to be in contact with a respective subset of teeth (1712) when the orthodontic appliance is worn to hug the plurality of teeth (1712) (refer to Paragraph [0194]; as the appliance (1600) receives a tooth (1612), the attachment (1606) contacts the tooth (1612)).
Regarding claim 7, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 4, wherein the attachment structure (1606) extends from, and includes the same type of material as, a body of the reinforcement portion (1610) or the shell portion (1604) (refer to Paragraph [0194], annotated Fig. 16C above; the internal surface profile of the appliance (1600) forms the protrusion (1602) implemented as the curved portion (1606) of the shell (1604)), the reinforcement portion (1610) has an extended arm (refer to annotated Fig. 16C below) and the attachment structure (1606) is located at a tip area of the extended arm (refer to annotated Fig. 16C below).
PNG
media_image5.png
334
549
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 4, wherein the attachment structure (1606) includes a first attachment structure (1602).
This embodiment (1600) does not further disclose the first attachment structure (1602) being physically coupled to a second attachment structure via one of the reinforcement portion (1610) and the shell portion (1604).
Kopelman discloses an alternative embodiment (1800), wherein the first attachment structure (1802) is physically coupled to a second attachment structure via one of the reinforcement portion (1810) and the shell portion (1808) (refer to Paragraph [0196]; an alternative embodiment of utilizing the curved surface (1606) is disclosed, where a pair of protrusions (1802) are positioned at two contact points on the shell (1808) and physically coupled by the shell (1808)). Kopelman teaches this alternative embodiment (1800) as a suitable means of applying force to the tooth (1804) via two separate attachments (1802), which can be used for rotational movement (refer to Paragraph [0196]).
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 original orthodontic appliance embodiment (1600) with the attachment structure (1802) as taught by alternative embodiment (1800) in order to apply rotational movement (refer to Paragraph [0196]).
PNG
media_image6.png
424
529
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 9- Canceled
PNG
media_image7.png
203
341
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement portion (1610) includes a first appliance material and the shell portion (1604) includes a second appliance material distinct from the first appliance material (refer to Paragraph [0155]; in some embodiments, the shell (1604) is fabricated from a first material and the elastic member (1610) is fabricated from a second material).
Claim 21 - canceled
Claim(s) 1, 4 ,11, 14-17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Domroese et al. (WO 2020099990 A1), herein referred to Domroese (refer to the provided translation).
Regarding claim 1, Domroese discloses an orthodontic device (100) for repositioning teeth (refer to Paragraphs [0024]-[0026]; the removable dental appliance (100) applies force to reposition a patient’s teeth), comprising:
an integral piece of orthodontic appliance (100) defining a target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraphs [0033], [0051]; the removable dental appliance (100) is formed to correspond to a desired position of the teeth (106), with the interproximal reinforcements (102) being formed with the appliance body (104) to create the integral body (100)) and having at least a reinforcement portion (102) (refer to Paragraphs [0022], [0034]; Examiner understands a reinforcement portion being any structure that supports or reinforces the shell portion in applying repositioning forces to the teeth; the interproximal reinforcements (102) enable the appliance body (104) to apply directed forces for tooth movement) and a shell portion (104), wherein:
the orthodontic appliance (100) is configured to hug a plurality of teeth and resiliently reposition the plurality of teeth from a current tooth arrangement to the target tooth arrangement gradually within an extended duration of time (refer to Paragraph [0033]; the removable dental appliance (100) receives a patient’s teeth and applies forces to reposition the teeth to a desired position);
the reinforcement portion (102) has a first stiffness level (refer to Paragraph [0050]; the interproximal reinforcements (102) are formed of a material of a relatively higher modulus of elasticity compared to the appliance body (104); modulus of elasticity inherently reflects a material’s stiffness) and includes a beading structure (102) (refer to Paragraph [0031]; Examiner understands a beading structure as a projecting rim or band of material (Merriam-Webster), such as the projecting interproximal reinforcement (102)), wherein the beading structure (102) is configured to modify stiffness of the integral piece (2630) locally (refer to Paragraph [0050]; as the interproximal reinforcements (102) have a higher stiffness than the appliance body (104), their presence locally modifies the stiffness); and
the shell portion (104) is extended from the reinforcement portion (102) (refer to Paragraph [0051], annotated Fig. 1A below; Fig. 1A shows the shell portion (104) extending from the reinforcement portion (102)) and has a second stiffness level, the second stiffness different from the first stiffness level (refer to Paragraph [0050]; the appliance body (104) has a lower modulus of elasticity or stiffness, compared to the interproximal reinforcements (102)).
Domroese does not disclose the beading structure (102) being formed by folding a sheet material having a substantially uniform thickness. This portion of the claim is interpreted as a product by process claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I. Thus, as Domroese discloses the beading structure (102), claim 1 is anticipated by Domroese regardless of the process used to form the beading structure.
PNG
media_image8.png
584
792
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Domroese discloses the orthodontic device (100) of claim 1, the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (100) further comprising an attachment structure (110, 116 of 102A, 102B) configured to grab a surface of a first tooth (106A) and apply a force on the surface of the first tooth (106A) along a shear direction tangent to the surface of the first tooth (refer to Paragraph [0039], annotated Fig. 1C; the interproximal reinforcements (102A, 102B) are shaped to distribute forces across the facial surface of a tooth by contacting or grabbing the tooth at a gingival portion (110, 116), where the contact region of the reinforcement (102) forms the attachment structure).
PNG
media_image9.png
444
620
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Domroese discloses the orthodontic device (100) of claim 4, wherein the attachment structure (110, 116 of 102A, 102B) includes a first attachment structure (110 of 102A) (refer to annotated Fig. 1C below; the contact region (110) of the reinforcement (102A) forms the attachment structure), the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (100) further comprising:
a second attachment structure (116 of 102B) (refer to annotated Fig. 1C below; the contact region (116) of the reinforcement (102B) forms the attachment structure) configured to grab a surface of a second tooth (106B) (refer to annotated Fig. 1C below) immediately adjacent to the first tooth (106A) (refer to annotated Fig. 1A below), both the first (110 of 102A) and second attachment structures (116 of 102B) extending from the reinforcement portion (102) and configured to pull the first and second teeth towards each other (refer to Paragraphs [0039], [0041]-[0042]; the interproximal reinforcements (102A, 102B) are shaped according to the desired tooth movement, such as translation and are therefore capable of moving one or more teeth toward each other).
PNG
media_image10.png
461
545
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
444
621
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
584
771
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Domroese discloses the orthodontic device (100) of claim 1, wherein:
the reinforcement portion (102) is configured to be aligned with and come into contact with a first tooth (102A) when the orthodontic appliance (100) is worn to hug the plurality of teeth (102) (refer to Paragraph [0031]; the interproximal reinforcements (102) are positioned on the interior and/or the exterior of the shell (104));
the reinforcement portion (102) is located at a first position on the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (100) (refer to annotated Fig. 1A above); and
the first position and first stiffness level are configured to generate a force applied onto the first tooth (102A), thereby facilitating repositioning of the plurality of teeth (102) from the current tooth arrangement to the target tooth arrangement (refer to Paragraph [0039]; interproximal reinforcements are shaped to distribute forces to teeth for repositioning).
Regarding claims 15-17, Domroese discloses the orthodontic device (1000) of claim 1, wherein:
the reinforcement portion (102) has a first area (refer to annotated Fig. 1A above);
the shell portion (104) has a second area that is larger than the first area (refer to annotated Fig. 1A above); and
the shell portion (104) entirely overlaps the reinforcement portion (102) (refer to Paragraph [0031], annotated Fig. 1A above; the shell (104) overlaps the interior and/or exterior interproximal reinforcements (102)) and the reinforcement portion (102) is configured to be separate from or in contact with a respective subset of teeth (102) when the orthodontic appliance (100) is worn to hug the plurality of teeth (102) (refer to Paragraph [0031]; the interproximal reinforcements (102) are positioned on the interior and/or the exterior of the shell (104)).
Regarding claim 22, Domroese discloses the orthodontic device of claim 1, wherein the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (100) extends along a first direction among the plurality of teeth (106), and the reinforce portion (102) has an extended length substantially following the first direction (refer to annotated Fig. 1A below).
PNG
media_image13.png
500
582
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al. (US 20200170757 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman, in view of Khouri (US 20180221111 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kopelman discloses the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (1600) of claim 4, but is silent to the attachment structure (1602) including a plurality of attachment teeth on a micron level, with porosity on a nanometer level.
Khouri discloses an orthodontic assembly in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0002]). The orthodontic assembly (refer to annotated Fig. 18A below) comprises an attachment structure (1813) configured to grab the patient’s tooth, wherein the attachment structure (1813) includes a plurality of attachment teeth on a micron level (refer to Paragraph [0320], annotated Fig. 18A below; a saw tooth microstructure (1813) is shown), and a surface of the plurality of attachment teeth of the attachment structures is porous on a nanometer level (refer to Paragraphs [0223], [0320], [0335], annotated Figs. 2I, 18A below; bristles can be combined with the saw tooth microstructure (1813) and the bristles (1811) are further shown positioned on the surface of the saw tooth microstructure (1813); the bristles (1811) comprise a number of nanostructures, with the space between the nanostructures being nanoporous). The arrangement of the micro and nano structures improves the contact area between the aligner (1800) and tooth, thereby improving the functionality of the device (refer to Paragraph [0223]).
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 attachment structure (102) of Kopelman with a plurality of attachment teeth on a micron level (refer to Paragraph [0320], annotated Fig. 18A below) and the saw tooth microstructure and bristle nanostructure (refer to Paragraphs [0223], [0320], [0335], annotated Figs. 2I, 18A below) as taught by Khouri in order to improve aligner functionality (refer to Paragraph [0223]).
PNG
media_image14.png
357
481
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
322
665
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10, 12 , 19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al. (US 20200170757 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman.
Regarding claim 10, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 4, wherein the attachment structure (1606) includes a first attachment structure (1602), and the surface of the first tooth (1612) includes a first surface (refer to annotated Fig. 16C below). This embodiment (1600) of Kopelman does not disclose using a second attachment structure configured to apply a second pull force on the second surface of the first tooth.
PNG
media_image16.png
325
340
media_image16.png
Greyscale
An alternative embodiment (1900) of Kopelman teaches the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (1900) further comprising:
a second attachment structure (1902) configured to grab a second surface of the first tooth (1904) opposite to the first surface on the first tooth (1904) (refer to Paragraph [0196], annotated Fig. 19 below; a pair of protrusions (1902), equivalent in structure to the curved surface attachment (1606), are positioned on different sides of the tooth (1904));
wherein the second attachment structure (1902) is configured to apply a second pull force on the second surface of the first tooth (1904) along a second shear direction tangent to the second surface of the first tooth (1904), the first and second pull forces configured to rotate the first tooth (1904) gradually within the extended duration of time (refer to Paragraph [0196]; the positioning of the protrusions (1902) can be used to elicit a rotational tooth movement). Kopelman teaches this alternative embodiment (1900) as a suitable means of applying force to the tooth (1904) via two separate attachments (1902), which can be used for rotational movement (refer to Paragraph [0196]).
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 original orthodontic appliance embodiment (1600) with the attachment structure (1902) as taught by alternative embodiment (1902) in order to apply rotational movement (refer to Paragraph [0196]).
Regarding claim 12, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reinforcement portion (1610) and the shell portion (1604) include a first appliance material, and the reinforcement portion has a first thickness greater than a second thickness of the shell portion.
Although these limitations are not explicitly disclosed, Kopelman discloses that the appliance (1600) can be formed as a polymeric shell (refer to Paragraph [0121]), the elastic member (1610) can be fabricated from a polymer (refer to Paragraph [0158]), and the elastic member can be concurrently fabricated with the polymeric shell via a direct fabrication technique (refer to Paragraphs [0146]-[0147]). The material(s) of the shell (1604) and elastic member (1610) are chosen based on the desired magnitude and direction of forces (refer to Paragraphs [0158], [0242]). Thus, the material(s) of the shell (1604) and elastic (1610) is a results effective variable in that changing the material affects the forces applied to the patient’s teeth. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in choosing a single material for the shell (1604) and elastic member (1610), as this material choice is beneficial for ease of manufacturing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the reinforcement portion (1610) and the shell portion (1604) of a first appliance material, as a matter of routine optimization
Kopelman also discloses that the thickness of the elastic member (1610) is based on the desired resultant forces applied by the elastic member (1610) (refer to Paragraph [0158]); thus, the thickness of the elastic member (1610) is a results effective variable in that changing the thickness affects the applied force. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the thickness of the elastic member (1610) in the instance that the shell (1604) and elastic member (1610) are made of the same material, as an increased material thickness correlates to a greater stiffness (second moment of area) or force, which is desirable for resisting the displacement of the tooth (1612) and exerting a force on the curved portion (1606) (refer to Paragraph [0194]).
Therefore, 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 appliance (1600), such that the reinforcement portion (1610) has a first thickness greater than a second thickness of the shell portion (1604).
Regarding claim 19, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 1, but is silent to this embodiment (1600) comprising a polygonal structure attached to a surface of one of the plurality of teeth that has a plurality of receiving surfaces substantially perpendicular to the surface of the one of the plurality of teeth, the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (1600) further comprising one or more attachment structures, configured to grab, and apply a pull or push force on, a respective one of the plurality of receiving surfaces of the polygonal structure.
Kopelman further discloses an alternative embodiment (600), wherein a polygonal structure (604) is attached to a surface of one of the plurality of teeth (refer to Paragraph [0179]; an attachment (604) mounted on the tooth) that has a plurality of receiving surfaces substantially perpendicular to the surface of the one of the plurality of teeth (refer to Paragraph [0179] , annotated Fig. 6 below; the attachment (604) is shown as having a surface opposite the tooth surface that is substantially perpendicular) is shaped to engage the channel (602) to elicit tooth movement, the attachment inherently possesses surfaces perpendicular to the teeth to engage the channel (603)), the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (600) further comprising:
one or more attachment structures (602) each of which is configured to grab, and apply a pull or push force on, a respective one of the plurality of receiving surfaces of the polygonal structure (refer to Paragraph [0179]; the geometry of the channel (602) is shaped to guide the movement of the tooth by engaging the attachment (604) and applying repositioning forces). The use of attachment channel pairs increases the efficiency and accuracy of tooth positioning (refer to Paragraph [0179]).
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 original embodiment (1600) with a polygonal structure (604) and attachment structure (602) as taught by the alternative embodiment (600) in order to increase the efficiency and accuracy of tooth positioning (refer to Paragraph [0179]).
PNG
media_image17.png
320
471
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Kopelman discloses the orthodontic device (1600) of claim 1, wherein the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (1600) further includes an opening (1608), but is silent to the opening (1608) comprising a grid pattern configured to expose a subset of a tooth and modify a force applied locally by the orthodontic appliance.
Kopelman further discloses an alternative embodiment (2000) wherein the opening (2010) comprises a grid pattern (2004) configured to expose a subset of a tooth and modify a force applied locally by the orthodontic appliance (refer to Paragraphs [0125], [0197], annotated Fig. 20C below; the mesh (2004) is coupled to the shell (2008), covering the aperture (2010); the aperture (2010) modifies the local compliance of the device (2000)).
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 original embodiment (1600) to include an opening (2010) comprising a grid pattern (2004) in order to modify the local compliance of the device (refer to Paragraphs [0125], [0197]).
PNG
media_image18.png
400
733
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domroese et al. (WO 2020099990 A1), herein referred to Domroese (refer to the provided translation) in view of Kopelman et al. (US 20200170757 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman.
Regarding claim 18, Domroese discloses the orthodontic device (100) of claim 1, wherein the reinforcement portion (102) includes one or more of: a solid piece (102), a skeleton having a plurality of ribs, a frame, a grid, and a ring;
the first stiffness level is greater than the second stiffness level (refer to Paragraph [0050]; as the interproximal reinforcements (102) have a higher stiffness than the appliance body (104));
a material and a structure of the reinforcement portion (102) are selected to store a strain associated with a force to be delivered onto one or more corresponding teeth (refer to Paragraph [0050]; the material of the interproximal reinforcement (102) is chosen to improve the control of the direction of force; the force exerted onto the teeth by interproximal reinforcements (102) is caused by the stored strain); and
Domroese is silent to the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (100) further including an opening that is configured to expose at least a top portion of the tooth including all tips of the tooth.
Kopelman discloses an orthodontic appliance (2100) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0120]), wherein the integral piece of orthodontic appliance (2100) further including an opening (2104a) that is configured to expose at least a top portion of the tooth (2106) including all tips of the tooth (2106) (refer to Paragraph [0209], annotated Fig. 21D below; the cuts (2104A) are located primarily on the occlusal surface; thus, the cuts (2104A) are capable of exposing all tips of the tooth). The cuts (2104A) elicit tooth movements to reduce the space between teeth (refer to Paragraph [0029]).
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 orthodontic device (100) of Domroese with the openings (2104a) as taught by Kopelman in order to reduce the space between teeth (refer to Paragraph [0029]).
PNG
media_image19.png
367
608
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The outstanding drawing objections of reference signs 3050, 4302, and 4410 is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted drawing amendment(s).
The outstanding specification objections are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted specification amendment(s).
The outstanding claim objection of claim 6 is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment(s).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the priority arguments, the claims are not supported by the figures. The figures alone are not sufficient to support the detailed claim language. Further, the figures alone are not sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, which requires the specification to contain a written description of the invention in full, clear, concise and exact terms to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same invention.
In response to amended claim 1, the process of forming the beading structure is considered a product-by-process limitation. As highlighted in the rejection above, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I. As Kopelman discloses the now broader limitation of “a beading structure” (2632, 1610), this claim is anticipated by Kopelman.
Further, Domroese discloses the broader limitation of “a beading structure” (102) as disclosed in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Khouri and Kopelman does not teach the limitation of claim 5 of “a plurality of teeth on a micron level”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is the teaching of the attachment structure (1813) and bristles (1811) that is relied upon, and this teaching demonstrates the benefits of using the micro and nano structures (refer to Paragraph [0223]).
In response to the arguments that Kopelman and/or Domroese do not teach the limitations of new claims 22 and 23, Examiner points to the above rejection of claim 22 by Domroese (annotated Fig. 1A) and rejection of claim 23 by Kopelman (Paragraphs [0125], [0197], annotated Fig. 20C)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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