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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Mason et al. (2017/0007386) in view of Gupta et al. (2013/0020297).
Regarding claim 1 Mason discloses a method including identifying a surface of a dental appliance (abstract; fig. 1), the surface having a first portion configured to interface with buccal and lingual regions of a patient (e.g. tray, aligner ([0030])), the surface including a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities to receive a corresponding plurality of teeth and to exert one or more orthodontic repositioning forces on the plurality of teeth (e.g. aligner); identifying a target marking area configured to receive a laser mark from a laser (e.g. 310 is lasered); identifying a laser access area to be formed on a second portion of the surface (multilayered tray with different colors [0096]), the laser access area configured to provide the laser with access to the target marking area (e.g. appliance is 300 is laser marked), but fail to teach forming the first portion of the surface with a first polymeric material having a first surface texture; and forming the second portion of the surface with a second polymeric material, the second polymeric material having a second surface texture different than the first surface texture, the second surface texture configuring the laser access area to disperse laser energy from the laser when the laser energy is received at the laser access area; however, Gupta teaches forming a textured surface (e.g. forming pillars/patterns for texturing via laser or etching chemically) which increases light/laser absorption ([0006], [011] [0084]). 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 method of Mason by providing textured surface on layers that needs laser as taught by Gupta because textured surface increases laser absorption, thus enhancing marking of the appliance.
Regarding claims 2-10, Mason discloses the target marking area is defined between an interior surface and an exterior surface of the dental appliance, and wherein the laser access area is on at least one of the interior or exterior surfaces (e.g. multilayered appliance with various colors).
Mason further discloses the second polymeric material comprises particulate matter interspersed with the first polymeric material (e.g. dye or pellets ([0099]). Mason discloses forming a laser mark (e.g. 310) in the target marking area by directing laser light through the second surface texture of the laser access area and into the target marking area. Mason discloses the dental appliance comprises an aligner configured to incrementally reposition a patient’s teeth from a first position toward a second position ([0030]); forming an appliance body from at least one material, at least a portion of the body being transparent to laser energy, and wherein the body is formed such that a target area for laser marking is defined between an interior surface and an exterior surface of the appliance body (e.g. the appliance is polymeric similar to the applicant’s polymeric appliance).
Regarding claim 11, Mason/Gupta discloses laser and etching for forming textured surface, but abrasive materials; however, usage of abrasive particles such as sandblasting is well known in the art. Therefore, form textured surface with any known method would be within one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed.
Regarding claims 13, 14 Gupta teaches applying a random shape against the laser access surface that interacts with the material forming the body to create the rougher surface texture ([0084]); roughing at least a portion of the laser access area includes applying a shaped material against the laser access surface that interacts with the material forming the body to create the rougher surface texture (e.g. pillars) and wherein the method further includes heating (e.g. applying lasers) the material forming the body to conform the exterior surface to a shape of a surface of the shaped material.
Regarding claims 15-16, Mason discloses a process of forming a dental appliance, including forming an appliance body from at least one transparent material (e.g. clear aligner), at least a portion of the body being transparent to laser energy, and wherein the body is formed such that a target area for laser marking (e.g. 310) is defined between an interior surface and an exterior surface of the appliance body but fail to teach applying a roughing material to at least one of the interior surface and the exterior surface to rough at least a portion of the at least one surface; however, Gupta teaches etching chemically to form textured surface. 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 method of Mason by providing textured surface as taught by Gupta because textured surface increases laser absorption, thus enhancing marking of the appliance.
Regarding claim 17-18, Mason/Gupta discloses laser and etching for forming textured surface, but abrasive materials; however, usage of abrasive particles such as sandblasting is well known in the art. Therefore, form textured surface with any known method would be within one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed.
Regarding claims 19/20 Mason discloses the appliance is thermoformed and is 3d Printed ([0047]).
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 Bosques Edelmira, at (571) 270-5614.
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
Prosecution Insights