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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 28, 112, 113, 116,117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2008/0233528).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim discloses an indirect bonding (IDB) tray (figure 17) configured/capable to be seated on a single tooth of a patient to position a single orthodontic bracket on the single tooth, the IDB tray comprising: an occlusal portion comprising a first material (e.g. stop member 70 made of first matrix material); a gingival portion disposed on and extending gingivally from a gingival end of the occlusal portion, the gingival portion configured to be disposed proximate gums of the patient and comprising a second material (e.g. 86); and a well (see figure 17 where bracket is placed) configured to receive the single orthodontic bracket therein; wherein the IDB tray is configured/capable to be seated on the single tooth of the patient irrespective of a relative positioning of the single tooth with respect to other teeth of the patient.
Regarding claim 2, the well comprising a periphery that includes the second material (see fig. above).
Regarding claim 28 an indirect bonding (IDB) tray (above) configured to be seated on a plurality of teeth of a patient to position a plurality of orthodontic brackets, the IDB tray comprising: an occlusal portion (e.g 70) comprising a first material; a gingival portion (e.g. 86) extending gingivally from a gingival end of the occlusal portion, the gingival portion configured/capable to be disposed proximate gums of the patient (fig. 16-17) and comprising a second material; and a plurality of wells (e.g. for bracket holding) configured to receive the plurality of orthodontic brackets therein.
Regarding claim 112, first material is more rigid than the second (abstract). Regarding claim 113, the first material comprises a tensile strength that is greater than a tensile strength of the second material ([0109], [0114], [0115], [0116]). Regarding claim 116, first material is less flexible than the second material ([0109], [0114], [0115], [0116]).
Regarding claim 117, the first material comprises a percent elongation that is less than a percent elongation of the second material ([0109], [0114], [0115], [0116]).
Regarding claims 118-120, the first material comprises a percent elongation of 10-25%, the second material comprises a percent elongation of 45-55% ([0109], [0114], [0115], [0116]), the first material comprises a hardness that is greater than a hardness of the second material ([0116]).
Regarding claims 121, the first material comprises a Shore D hardness of greater than 75 which includes hardness of 83-86 as claimed ([0116]).
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) 3-5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 21-23, 114-115, 165 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 or 28 above, and further in view of Suh et al. (2021/0128275).
Kim discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the first material and the second material are photopolymers; however, Suh discloses indirect bonding trays that is made from photopolymers ([0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim by providing photopolymers as materials for making the trays as taught by Suh in order to 3D print the tray for bonding accuracy.
Regarding the flexible and rigid photopolymer materials, Suh discloses photopolymer materials for different strength, toughness and flexibilities and elasticities ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim by providing photopolymers with rigid first material and flexible for the second material for making the trays as taught by Suh in order to 3D print the tray for bonding accuracy.
Regarding claim 6, Kim fail to teach the limitation, but Suh teaches the first material comprises a first color and the second material comprises a second color that is different than the first color ([0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim by providing different color materials as claimed as taught by Suh in order to provide color markings for indicators of tooth position.
Regarding claim 7, Suh teaches transparent materials for bonding trays ([0061]), polycarbonate, polyurethan are known transparent materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim by providing transparent materials as claimed as taught by Suh in order to allow the visibility thru the appliance for proper positioning.
Regarding claim 19, 20, 21, 22, 165 Suh discloses an orientation indicia (e.g. 14, 202, 102 in occlusal-gingival direction, also disposed within tray, also on a surface of the tray; [0047]) capable to indicate if the IDB tray is properly seated on the single tooth to position the single orthodontic bracket. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim by providing indicia as claimed as taught by Suh for providing indicia for proper location on the patient’s teeth.
Regarding claim 23, Kim and Suh both discloses the gingival portion extends from a gingival-most edge of the IDB tray to a position that is % of a distance between the gingival-most edge and an occlusal-most point of the IDB tray, but silent about the specific; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim/Suh by providing gingival portion extends to a distance sufficient enough to place the bracket at a desired location and prevent unnecessary extension of the gingival portion.
Regarding tensile strength of the first and the second material as in claim 114 and 115, Suh teaches two or more resin can have different toughness or strength; different flexibilities or elasticities ([0039]), but silent about the specific strength as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention was made to select necessary strength since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skills in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 122 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Kim discloses shore A hardness of the first material is greater than 90 but fail to disclose second material Shore A hardness of 73-77; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Kim by providing shore A harness of less than 90 including range of 73-77, since it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skills in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Patel Yogesh whose telephone number is (571) 270-3646. The examiner can normally be reached between 9 AM – 5:30 PM on Monday, Thursday and Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, SPE Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH P PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772