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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
122b in Figure 4A
Examiner suggests either adding reference number 112b in the Specification or removing the reference number 122b from Figure 4A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel (DE 102004007008 A1 and translated PDF) in view of Cam et al (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0000564 A1, hereinafter “Cam”).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
393
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
417
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
437
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Scheffel discloses a system for a mandibular relocation (paras. 0004-0005), comprising:
a first occlusal block (6 in Fig. 1; blocks are occlusal as they extend occlusally; elements 2 and 3 also may serve as part of the blocks and fit over occlusal surfaces of the teeth) comprising an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 2), a first engagement surface (9 in Fig. 2) capable of engaging with a surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) of a second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1, para. 0017), a first side surface (1st side surface in annotated Fig. 5, surface of the interior block), and a second side surface (2nd side surface in annotated Fig. 5, surface of the interior block), wherein the first and second side surfaces are buccal or lingual facing surfaces (Fig. 5) and the first engagement surface is a distal facing surface (Fig. 2), the first and second side surfaces capable of being between lingual and buccal sides (cavity lingual side and cavity buccal side in annotated Fig. 5) of tooth receiving cavities (cavity in annotated Fig. 5) on which the first occlusal block is located (Fig. 5);
the first side surface including an upper portion (upper portion in annotated Fig. 5) and a lower portion (lower portion in annotated Fig. 5);
wherein the lower portion of the first side surface of the first occlusal block forms a first undercut extending from a base (base in annotated Fig. 5, para. 0020) of the first occlusal block towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at a first draft angle (1st draft angle in annotated Fig. 5, paras. 0020-0021) and the upper portion of the first side surface of the first occlusal block forms a chamfer extending from the occlusal surface towards the lower portion of the first side surface (Fig. 5, para. 0020-0021).
Scheffel does not disclose wherein a second undercut formed in the second side surface of the first occlusal block extends from the base of the first occlusal block towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at a second draft angle.
Cam teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising an occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) comprising a first side surface and a second side surface (first and second surface in annotated Fig. 4), wherein an undercut (undercut in annotated Fig. 4) formed in the second side surface of the occlusal block extends from the base (base in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block towards an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block at a draft angle (angle in annotated Fig. 4, paras. 0058-0059).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first occlusal block of Scheffel by adding a second undercut formed in the second side surface which extends from the base towards the occlusal surface at a second draft angle as taught by Cam in order to allow the block to conform to the unique shape of a patient’s tooth (Cam para. 0059).
In regard to claim 2, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 1. Scheffel further discloses further comprising: the second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1), the second occlusal block comprising a second engagement surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) to engage the first engagement surface (Fig. 1) and a side surface (side surface in annotated Fig. 1); and a third undercut (not shown but similar to that of the undercut of first block 6 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021) formed in the side surface of the second occlusal block (paras. 0020-0021).
In regard to claim 3, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 2. Scheffel further discloses wherein: the first undercut extends from the base (base in annotated Fig. 5) of the first occlusal block (6 in Fig. 1) only partially towards the occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 5) of the first occlusal block at the first draft angle (1st draft angle in annotated Fig. 5) with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane (Fig. 5).
Scheffel does not disclose that the second undercut extends from the base of the first occlusal block only partially towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at the second draft angle with respect to the line perpendicular to an occlusal plane.
Cam teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising an occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) comprising a first side surface and a second side surface (first and second surface in annotated Fig. 4), wherein an undercut (undercut in annotated Fig. 4) extends from the base (base in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block only partially towards an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block at the draft angle (draft angle in annotated Fig. 4, paras. 0058-0059) with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane (Fig. 4).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second undercut of Scheffel in view of Cam by specifying that the second undercut extends from the base of the first occlusal block only partially towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at the second draft angle with respect to the line perpendicular to an occlusal plane as taught by Cam in order to allow the block to conform to the unique shape of a patient’s tooth (Cam para. 0059).
In regard to claims 4 and 5, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 1. Scheffel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first draft angle is between about 1 degree and about 45 degrees, wherein the first draft angle is about 25 degrees.
The instant disclosure describes the undercut of the first draft angle above as being for providing the benefits of a retaining feature to allow additional mechanical connections between the occlusal block and the thermoformed material of the appliance (Specification paras. 0082 and 0084). Because Scheffel discloses that the undercut of the first draft angle (1st draft angle in annotated Fig. 5) is also for providing the benefits of a retaining feature to allow mechanical connection between the occlusal block and the thermoformed material of the tray (para. 0020), it would work equally well with the angle of the prior art. Further, the instant disclosure (Specification paras. 0082 and 0084) does not describe this parameter as contributing any unexpected result to the applicator device and the container. As such, the specific angle range and specific angle is deemed matter of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
In regard to claim 6, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 2. Scheffel further discloses the second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1) comprising the second engagement surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) to engage the first engagement surface (9 in Fig. 2) and a third side surface (not shown, lingual side of block 4). Scheffel does not disclose further comprising: a first keyway formed in one of the first and second side surfaces of the first occlusal block and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction; and a second keyway formed in the third side surface of the second occlusal block and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction.
Cam teaches a keyway (422 in Fig. 4, para. 0058) formed in the second side surface (second surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction (Fig. 4); wherein the keyway has a height that is less than a height of the occlusal block (Fig. 4) and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction (Fig. 4).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second side surface and third side surface of Scheffel in view of Cam by adding a first keyway and a second keyway, respectively, extending in a gingival-occlusal direction and having a height that is less than a height of the respective occlusal block as taught by Cam in order to allow for the use of the keyways as registration features to enable alignment of the blocks with the teeth during manufacturing of the device (Cam para. 0058).
In regard to claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 6. Scheffel does not disclose wherein the third side surface has a third side surface lower portion and a third side surface upper portion,
wherein the third side surface lower portion extends from a base of the second occlusal block towards an occlusal surface of the second occlusal block,
wherein the third side surface upper portion extends from the occlusal surface of the second occlusal block towards the base of the second occlusal block,
wherein the third side surface upper portion meets the third side surface lower portion along a mesial-distal line between the occlusal surface of the second occlusal block and the base of the second occlusal block,
wherein the third side surface lower portion forms the fourth undercut by extending from the base of the second occlusal block towards the third side surface upper portion at a third draft angle with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane.
Cam teaches a block wherein the side surface (second surface in annotated Fig. 4) has a side surface lower portion (lower portion in annotated Fig. 4) and a side surface upper portion (upper portion in annotated Fig. 4),
wherein the side surface lower portion extends from a base (base in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block towards an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block,
wherein the side surface upper portion extends from the occlusal surface of the occlusal block towards the base of the occlusal block (Fig. 4),
wherein the side surface upper portion meets the side surface lower portion along a mesial-distal line (line in annotated Fig. 4) between the occlusal surface of the occlusal block and the base of the occlusal block (Fig. 4),
wherein the side surface lower portion forms the undercut by extending from the base of the occlusal block towards the side surface upper portion at a draft angle (draft angle in annotated Fig. 4) with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane (Fig. 4).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third side surface of the second occlusal block of Scheffel in view of Cam by specifying that the third side surface has a lower portion and an upper portion, wherein the lower portion extends from a base towards an occlusal surface of the occlusal block, wherein the upper portion extends from the occlusal surface towards the base of the occlusal block, wherein the upper portion meets the lower portion along a mesial-distal line between the occlusal surface and the base of the occlusal block, wherein the lower portion forms a fourth undercut by extending from the base of the occlusal block towards the upper portion at a third draft angle with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane as taught by Cam in order to allow the block to conform to the unique shape of a patient’s tooth (Cam para. 0059).
In regard to claim 15, Scheffel discloses system comprising: first and second orthodontic trays (3 and 2 in annotated Fig. 1, para. 0017), each of the trays having tooth receiving cavities (Fig. 1), the first orthodontic tray having: a first occlusal block (6 in Fig. 1) comprising an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 2), a first engagement surface (9 in Fig. 2) capable of engaging with a surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) of a second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1, para. 0017) on second orthodontic tray (Fig. 1), a first side surface (1st side surface in annotated Fig. 5), and a second side surface (2nd side surface in annotated Fig. 5), wherein the first side surface includes an upper portion (upper portion in annotated Fig. 5) and a lower portion (lower portion in annotated Fig. 5), wherein the first and second side surfaces are buccal or lingual facing surfaces (Fig. 5) and the first engagement surface is a distal facing surface (Fig. 2), the first and second side surfaces capable of being between lingual and buccal sides (cavity lingual side and cavity buccal side in annotated Fig. 5) of tooth receiving cavities (cavity in annotated Fig. 5) on which the first occlusal block is located (Fig. 5); wherein the lower portion of the first side surface of the first occlusal block forms a first undercut extending from a base (base in annotated Fig. 5, para. 0020) of the first occlusal block towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at a first draft angle (1st draft angle in annotated Fig. 5, paras. 0020-0021) and the upper portion of the first side surface of the first occlusal block forms a chamfer extending from the occlusal surface towards the lower portion of the first side surface (Fig. 5, para. 0020-0021);
Scheffel does not disclose a plurality of first and second orthodontic aligners for a plurality of stages of treatment, each of the plurality of first and second orthodontic aligners having: tooth receiving cavities for incrementally repositioning a patient's teeth from an initial position towards a final position,
wherein the second side surface of the first occlusal block forms a second undercut extending from the base of the first occlusal block towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at a second draft angle.
Cam teaches a system (Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of orthodontic aligners for a plurality of stages of treatment (para. 0035), each of the plurality of orthodontic aligners having: tooth receiving cavities for incrementally repositioning a patient's teeth from an initial position towards a final position (para. 0035), the plurality of aligners having: an occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) comprising a first side surface and a second side surface (first and second surface in annotated Fig. 4), wherein the second side surface of the occlusal block forms an undercut (undercut in annotated Fig. 4) extending from the base (base in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block towards an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block at a draft angle (angle in annotated Fig. 4, paras. 0058-0059).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second orthodontic trays of the system of Scheffel by adding replacing the trays with aligners and providing a plurality of those orthodontic aligners, each with the occlusal blocks of the primary reference, for a plurality of stages of treatment, each of the plurality of orthodontic aligners having: tooth receiving cavities for incrementally repositioning a patient's teeth from an initial position towards a final position as taught by Cam in order to allow for movement of one or more teeth from a first arrangement to a second arrangement (Cam para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second side surface of the first occlusal block of Scheffel by adding a second undercut extending from the base towards the occlusal surface of the block at a second draft angle as taught by Cam in order to allow the block to conform to the unique shape of a patient’s tooth (Cam para. 0059).
In regard to claim 16, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 15. Scheffel further discloses further comprising: the second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1), the second occlusal block comprising a second engagement surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) to engage the first engagement surface (Fig. 1) and a third side surface (side surface in annotated Fig. 1); and a third undercut (not shown but similar to that of the undercut of first block 6 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021) formed in the third side surface of the second occlusal block (paras. 0020-0021).
In regard to claim 17, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 16. Scheffel further discloses wherein: the first undercut extends from the base (base in annotated Fig. 5) of the first occlusal block (6 in Fig. 1) only partially towards the occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 5) of the first occlusal block at the first draft angle 1st draft angle in annotated Fig. 5) with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane (Fig. 5).
Scheffel does not disclose that the second undercut extends from the base of the first occlusal block only partially towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at the second draft angle with respect to the line perpendicular to an occlusal plane.
Cam teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising an occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) comprising a first side surface and a second side surface (first and second surface in annotated Fig. 4), wherein an undercut (undercut in annotated Fig. 4) extends from the base (base in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block only partially towards an occlusal surface (occlusal surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block at the draft angle (draft angle in annotated Fig. 4, paras. 0058-0059) with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane (Fig. 4).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second undercut of Scheffel in view of Cam by specifying that the second undercut extends from the base of the first occlusal block only partially towards the occlusal surface of the first occlusal block at the second draft angle with respect to the line perpendicular to an occlusal plane as taught by Cam in order to allow the block to conform to the unique shape of a patient’s tooth (Cam para. 0059).
In regard to claims 18 and 19, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 15. Scheffel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first draft angle is between about 1 degree and about 45 degrees, wherein the first draft angle is about 25 degrees.
The instant disclosure describes the undercut being for providing the benefits of a retaining feature to allow additional mechanical connections between the occlusal block and the thermoformed material of the appliance (Specification paras. 0082 and 0084). Because Scheffel discloses that the undercut of the first draft angle (1st draft angle in annotated Fig. 5) is also for providing the benefits of a retaining feature to allow mechanical connection between the occlusal block and the thermoformed material of the tray (para. 0020), it would work equally well with the angle of the prior art. Further, the instant disclosure (Specification paras. 0082 and 0084) does not describe this parameter as contributing any unexpected result to the applicator device and the container. As such, the specific angle range and specific angle is deemed matter of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam and Stenberg et al (WO 2013191626 A1, hereinafter “Stenberg”).
PNG
media_image5.png
402
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 20, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 16. Scheffel further discloses the second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1) comprising the second engagement surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) to engage the first engagement surface (9 in Fig. 2) and a third side surface (side surface in annotated Fig. 1). Scheffel does not disclose further comprising: a first keyway formed in the first side surface of the first occlusal block; and a second keyway formed in the third side surface of the second occlusal block and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block.
Stenberg teaches a first keyway (1st keyway in annotated Fig. 1) formed in a first side surface (1st side surface in annotated Fig. 1) of a first block (40b in Fig. 1); and a second keyway (2nd keyway in annotated Fig. 1) formed in a third side surface (3rd side in annotated Fig. 1) of a second block (40a in Fig. 1) and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block (Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first side surface of the first block and the third side surface of the second block of Scheffel in view of Cam by adding a first keyway formed in the first side surface of the first occlusal block; and a second keyway formed in the third side surface of the second occlusal block and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block as taught by Stenberg in order to allow the block to engage with additional attachment elements (Stenberg para. 0031) to attach the block to the aligner.
In an alternate rejection, claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam.
PNG
media_image6.png
505
717
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
402
458
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 1. Scheffel further discloses further comprising: the second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1), the second occlusal block comprising a second engagement surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) to engage the first engagement surface (Fig. 1) and a side surface (not shown, lingual side of second occlusal block 4, see similar Fig. 5).
Scheffel does not disclose a third undercut formed in the side surface of the second occlusal block.
Cam teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising an occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) comprising a side surface (second surface in annotated Fig. 4), wherein an undercut (undercut in annotated Fig. 4) is formed in the side surface of the occlusal block (Fig. 4, paras. 0058-0059).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the side surface of the second occlusal block of Scheffel by adding a third undercut formed in the side surface of the second occlusal block as taught by Cam in order to allow the block to conform to the unique shape of a patient’s tooth (Cam para. 0059).
In an alternate rejection, claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam and Sternberg.
In regard to claim 6, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 2. Scheffel further discloses the second occlusal block (4 in Fig. 1) comprising the second engagement surface (2nd engagement surface in annotated Fig. 1) to engage the first engagement surface (9 in Fig. 2) and a third side surface (third side surface in annotated Fig. 1). Scheffel does not disclose further comprising: a first keyway formed in one of the first and second side surfaces of the first occlusal block and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction; and a second keyway formed in the third side surface of the second occlusal block and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction.
Cam teaches a keyway (422 in Fig. 4, para. 0058) formed in the second side surface (second surface in annotated Fig. 4) of the occlusal block (block in annotated Fig. 4) and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction (Fig. 4).
Stenberg teaches a second keyway (2nd keyway in annotated Fig. 1) formed in a third side surface (3rd side in annotated Fig. 1) of a second block (40a in Fig. 1) and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block (Fig. 1) and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction (Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandibular repositioning devices.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second side surface of Scheffel in view of Cam by adding a first keyway formed in the second side surface of the occlusal block and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction as taught by Cam in order to allow for the use of the keyways as registration features to enable alignment of the blocks with the teeth during manufacturing of the device (Cam para. 0058).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the third side surface of the second block of Scheffel in view of Cam by adding a second keyway formed in the third side surface of the second occlusal block and having a height that is less than a height of the second occlusal block and extending in a gingival-occlusal direction as taught by Stenberg in order to allow the block to engage with additional attachment elements (Stenberg para. 0031) to attach the block to the aligner.
In regard to claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Scheffel in view of Cam and Sternberg discloses the invention of claim 6. Scheffel further discloses wherein the third side surface (third side surface in annotated Fig. 1) has a third side surface lower portion and a third side surface upper portion (not shown but similar to upper portion and lower portion of first block 6 of annotated Fig. 5 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021),
wherein the third side surface lower portion extends from a base of the second occlusal block towards an occlusal surface of the second occlusal block (not shown but similar to base and occlusal surface of first block 6 of annotated Fig. 5 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021),
wherein the third side surface upper portion extends from the occlusal surface of the second occlusal block towards the base of the second occlusal block (not shown but similar to upper portion and occlusal surface of first block 6 of annotated Fig. 5 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021),
wherein the third side surface upper portion meets the third side surface lower portion along a mesial-distal line between the occlusal surface of the second occlusal block and the base of the second occlusal block (not shown but similar to upper and lower portions of first block 6 of annotated Fig. 5 as both blocks include shaped body 7, mesiodistal line in and out of page between the upper and lower portions, paras. 0020-0021),
wherein the third side surface lower portion forms the fourth undercut by extending from the base of the second occlusal block towards the third side surface upper portion at a third draft angle with respect to a line perpendicular to an occlusal plane (not shown but similar to draft angle of first block 6 in annotated Fig. 5 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021).
In regard to claim 12, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 11. Scheffel further discloses wherein the third side surface (third side surface in annotated Fig. 1) is a buccal side surface (Fig. 1), the buccal side surface of the second occlusal block extending from the base of the second occlusal block at the third draft angle (similar to that of the draft angle of first block 6 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021).
In regard to claims 13 and 14, Scheffel in view of Cam discloses the invention of claim 12. Scheffel does not explicitly disclose wherein the third draft angle is between 1 degree and 45 degrees, wherein the third draft angle is about 5 degrees.
The instant disclosure describes the undercut being for providing the benefits of a retaining feature to allow additional mechanical connections between the occlusal block and the thermoformed material of the appliance (Specification paras. 0082 and 0084). Because Scheffel discloses that the undercut of the third draft angle (not shown but similar to that of the draft angle of first block 6 as both blocks include shaped body 7, paras. 0020-0021) is also for providing the benefits of a retaining feature to allow mechanical connection between the occlusal block and the thermoformed material of the tray (para. 0020), it would work equally well with the angle of the prior art. Further, the instant disclosure (Specification paras. 0082 and 0084) does not describe this parameter as contributing any unexpected result to the applicator device and the container. As such, the specific angle range and specific angle is deemed matter of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the Drawings Objections, Applicant amended the Specification paragraph [0064] to add the reference number 122a.
Examiner notes that this amendment does not overcome the Drawings Objections of 24 June 2025 as the reference number 122b, which appears in Figure 4A, is not present in the description.
In regard to the rejections of Claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam, Applicant argues that the Scheffel and Cam do not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1 and similarly amended claim 15 as Fig. 5 of Scheffel shows the "1st side surface" and "2nd side surface" as being buccal of the entire tooth, and argues that Fig. 4 of Cam does not disclose the amended limitation. Applicant argues that the rejection does not allege that the "first surface" is "configured to be between lingual and buccal sides of tooth receiving cavities on which the first occlusal block is located” and that Scheffel in view of Cam have not been shown to teach or suggest the subject matter of amended claim 1. Applicant argues that Claims 2-14 and 16-19 depend from one of claims 1 and 15 and are therefore allowable over Scheffel in view of Cam for at least the same reasons as claims 1 and 15 and on their own merits, and requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-19. Applicant argues that in regard to the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Scheffel in view of Cam and in further view of Stenberg, claim 20 depends from claim 15, and Stenberg does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Scheffel in view of Cam, and is therefore allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 15. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 20 is allowable over Scheffel in view of Cam and Stenberg and requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Scheffel in view of Cam and Stenberg.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 1-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam and Stenberg, and in an alternate rejection, claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam, and in an alternate rejection, claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheffel in view of Cam and Sternberg. Examiner notes that Scheffel discloses the limitation of amended claim 1 and amended claim 15, as the first and second side surfaces (1st and 2nd side surfaces in annotated Fig. 5) are capable of being between lingual and buccal sides (cavity lingual side and cavity buccal side in annotated Fig. 5) of tooth receiving cavities (cavity in annotated Fig. 5) on which the first occlusal block is located (Fig. 5). Examiner notes that the first and second side surfaces of the block 6 are capable of being between the lingual and buccal sides of the tooth receiving cavity of annotated Fig. 5, the cavity extending between the lingual side of the splint 3 and the buccal side of the splint 3. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations as the limitations do not exclude the side surfaces of the block from being buccal of the entire tooth. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772