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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5-6 and 8 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 change “Microcapsule” to “microcapsule”.
Claim 1, line 3 change “plastic or glass or ceramic” to “plastic, glass or ceramic”.
Claim 2, change “the filled liquid is/ colored upon release” to “the filled liquid is colored upon release”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilliard et al (US 7,147,466) in view of Roberts (US 3,469,439).
Regarding claim 1, Hilliard discloses a microcapsule (microsphere composition-first smaller 60 and second larger 60’) for use in the treatment of dental malocclusions using plastic splints or aligners (see figures 1-8, see abstract), comprising:
a shell made of a plastic, glass or ceramic (col 7, lines 11-14 discloses the microsphere being an edible polymer with a rupturable hollow construction) and filled with a secondary composition (see figure 6A-D and 7A-D), the shell breaks open when it experiences a defined force and releases the second composition (col 1, lines 30-36), which can be detected optically preferably by a color change or illumination with UV light (col 1, lines 35-37), wherein the microcapsule has a size of 0.5 to 200 micron (col 7, lines 24-26 discloses smaller microspheres 0.25 mm and larger spheres 1.25 mm).
Hillard fails to disclose the shell is filled in the interior with a liquid.
Roberts teaches microcapsule (col 1, line 13-24) having shell (“wall”) made of plastic, glass or ceramic (col 4, line 37 discloses the wall material being a polymer) and the shell is filled in the interior with a liquid (col 2, lines 10-11 discloses the internal phase being liquid) for the purpose of providing microcapsules that respond to the application of pressure by breaking and provide a responding color (col 1, lines 19-24).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hillard to have the interior shell filled with a liquid as taught by Roberts for the purpose of providing microcapsules that respond to the application of pressure by breaking and provide a responding color.
Regarding claim 2, Hillard/Roberts discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Hillard teaches the filled composite being colored upon release (col 7, lines 1-4 discloses the rupture causing a chemical reaction that results in a change of color). Roberts teaches the filled composition is liquid (col 2, lines 10-11 discloses the internal phase being liquid), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, Hillard/Roberts discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Hillard discloses the combination of microcapsules have a composition with different colors on release and each microcapsule of the combination of microcapsules break open at differently defined forces (col 7, lines 15-23 discloses different sized microcapsules with different colors that rupture at different pressure points). Roberts teaches the filled material of the microcapsule being a liquid (col 2, lines 10-11 discloses the internal phase being liquid), for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillard in view of Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guay et al (US 5,941,256).
Regarding claim 4, Hillard/Roberts disclose the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1. Hillard discloses the application of a composition for use in the treatment of dental malocclusions by plastic splints or aligners (col 1, lines 29-36 which discloses the incorporation of rupturable spheres into a get composition to view pressure applied to an aligner during repositioning), but fails to disclose the microcapsules being in a spray wherein the spray comprises a type or combination of different types of microcapsules
Guay further teaches the microcapsules being in a spray wherein the spray comprises a type or combination of different types of microcapsules (col 4, lines 1-11 which discloses a spray application of microcapsules, col 6 lines 49-60 discloses the active ingredient being spray coated with the microcapsule and see figure 4)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hillard/Roberts to have the microcapsules being in a spray wherein the spray comprises a type or combination of different types of microcapsules as taught by Guay for the purpose of applying the microcapsule to the oral appliance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799