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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Derakhshan et al 20190125497.
With regard to claim 1, Derakhshan et al discloses a shell-shaped dental instrument configured to be worn over a set of teeth attached to gingiva in a mouth having labial muscle and buccal muscle, comprising:
a shell-shaped body 900 having a plurality of tooth receiving cavities, wherein the shell-shaped body 900 has a labial side and a buccal side, and includes a screen block 974, and wherein the screen block 974 includes:
a blocking portion 902 disposed on at least one of the labial side and the buccal side of the shell- shaped body 900 and being protruded in a direction away from the plurality of tooth receiving cavities; and
a contact portion 970 (see below annotated figure) connected with the blocking portion 902, wherein the blocking portion 902 is configured to be in contact with at least one of the labial muscle and the buccal muscle, and the contact portion 970 has a structure configured to be in stable contact with the gingiva when the shell-shaped dental instrument is worn over the set of teeth; and
when the shell-shaped dental instrument is worn over the set of teeth, such that force exerted by at least one of the labial muscle and the buccal muscle on the blocking portion 902 is at least partially transmitted to the gingiva through the contact portion 970.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Blocking portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact portion contacts gingiva)]
PNG
media_image1.png
383
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, note that each of at least one of the plurality of tooth receiving cavities has a geometric structure (shaped to fit the teeth), and the geometric structure is configured to allow a respective received tooth to be moved from a corresponding first position to a corresponding second position. See paragraphs 42 and 103 which describes how the device can be an aligner.
With regard to claim 3, note that a side surface of the contact portion 970 close to the gingiva has a shape substantially consistent with a shape of the gingiva. In other words, the side of the contact portion 970 is linear, and a patient’s gingiva is also linear.
With regard to claim 4, note that the blocking portion 902 is protruded from at least one of a labial side and a buccal side of at least one tooth receiving cavity of the plurality of tooth receiving cavities in the direction away from the plurality of tooth receiving cavities (see above figure); and
wherein an inner surface of the blocking portion 902 is at least partially not in contact with an outer surface of at least one tooth adjacent to the inner surface of the blocking portion 232 when the shell-shaped dental instrument is worn over the set of teeth. See above figure.
With regard to claim 5, note that the blocking portion 902 is protruded in the direction away from the plurality of tooth receiving cavities and disposed on gingiva corresponding to at least one of the labial side and the buccal side of the shell-shaped body 900. See above annotated figure.
With regard to claim 6, note that the blocking portion 902 is a bubble structure protruding in the direction away from the plurality of tooth receiving cavities, in response to the blocking portion and the contact portion being integrally formed. Blocking portion 902 is integrally formed with contact portion 970 (see above annotated figure).
With regard to claim 7, note that the blocking portion 902 has a cross section in a shape of one of or a combination of two or more of an ellipse, a water droplet, and a polygon in a direction of a length axis of a corresponding tooth; and wherein there is a filler disposed inside the blocking portion for enhancing strength of the blocking portion. See above annotated figure, where the cross section of blocking portion 902 appears to be polygonal in cross section.
With regard to claim 12, note that the blocking portion 902 has a length equal to a total width of 1 to 6 teeth in a dental arch direction. See above annotated figure, as the length of blocking portion 902 appears to be at least as long as the width of one tooth held in a tooth receiving cavity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derakhshan et al.
With regard to claim 11, Veis does not disclose the maximum height of the blocking portion being in a range of 3mm to 8mm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the blocking portion of Derakhshan et al with a maximum height in a range of 3mm to 8mm as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is clear that the Derakhshan et al device would not perform differently than the instant claimed device, if the Derakhshan et al blocking portion were formed with a maximum height from 3mm to 8mm.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derakhshan et al in view of Veis 20170135850.
With regard to claim 17, the shell-shaped body of Derakhshan et al does not include an arch expanding device cooperated with the blocking portion 902, and wherein the arch expanding device and the shell-shaped body are integrally formed; and wherein one end of both ends of the arch expanding device is connected to a gingival margin or an adjacent gingival margin of a lingual surface in a posterior tooth region on one side of the shell-shaped body, and another end of both ends of the arch expanding device is connected to a gingival margin or an adjacent gingival margin of a lingual surface in a posterior tooth region on another side of the shell-shaped body.
Veis discloses a shell-shaped body 202 that further includes an arch expanding device 216, and wherein the arch expanding device 216 and the shell-shaped body 202 are integrally formed; and wherein one end of both ends of the arch expanding device 216 is connected to a gingival margin or an adjacent gingival margin of a lingual surface in a posterior tooth region on one side of the shell-shaped body 202, and another end of the both ends of the arch expanding device is connected to a gingival margin or an adjacent gingival margin of a lingual surface in a posterior tooth region on another side of the shell-shaped body 202.
PNG
media_image2.png
273
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the arch expanding device of Veis, with the shell-shaped dental instrument of Derakhshan et al, such that the shell-shaped body 202 and the expanding device are integrally formed; and wherein one end of both ends of the arch expanding device is connected to a gingival margin or an adjacent gingival margin of a lingual surface in a posterior tooth region on one side of the shell-shaped body, and another end of the both ends of the arch expanding device is connected to a gingival margin or an adjacent gingival margin of a lingual surface in a posterior tooth region on another side of the shell-shaped body, in view of the teaching of Veis that an expanding device may be incorporated with an oral device that accommodates the teeth, to expand the arch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7,11,12,17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights