3DETAILED 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 03/26/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 03/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell (US 20210177549 A1) in view of Lv Peijun (US 20160367336 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Connell discloses a laser processing method for a dental article (Abstract and Figure 9), comprising: a laser processing system, performing the laser processing steps on the surface of the dental article to form a laser processed structure on the surface of the dental article (since the processing could be performed using laser ablation [0036]), wherein the laser processed structure includes a plurality of micro grooves and a plurality of micro bumps between the micro grooves (Figure 4B and [0070]). However, Connell discloses that the dental article could be aligner or retainer), a night guard, a mouth guard, a treatment tray, complete or partial dentures, a tooth cap, or the like ([0025]), but fails to specifically disclose that the dental article is a tooth. Also, it fails to disclose “performing a preliminary inspection on the tooth to obtain dental information and determine whether the tooth is suitable for laser processing steps; selecting a laser processing system according to the dental information, and selecting and loading a laser parameter according to position and degree of processing required on a surface of the tooth”.
Lv Peijun discloses a laser processing method for a tooth (Abstract), comprising: performing a preliminary inspection on the tooth to obtain dental information and determine whether the tooth is suitable for laser processing steps (since a 3D scan of the target tooth is performed [0009] and automatically generating parameters [0011]); selecting a laser processing system according to the dental information ([0011]), and selecting and loading a laser parameter according to position and degree of processing required on a surface of the tooth (since the parameters include a focal spot diameter and a spot motion path [0011]; additionally, the system is laser tooth preparation CAM software [0013]); and by using the laser processing system, performing the laser processing steps on the surface of the tooth to form a laser processed structure on the surface of the tooth (see targeted tooth in Figure 2 and [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Connell’s a laser processing method in order to make it a laser processing method for a tooth, since such modification would create the same advantageous results, such as having a surface with increased microorganism (e.g., bacteria) removal when cleaned [0031], in the surface of a tooth. Also, it would have been obvious to modify Connell’s a laser processing method in order to incorporate the steps of “performing a preliminary inspection on the tooth to obtain dental information and determine whether the tooth is suitable for laser processing steps; selecting a laser processing system according to the dental information, and selecting and loading a laser parameter according to position and degree of processing required on a surface of the tooth”, as taught by Lv Peijun, since such modification would take advantage of a Cam system, which reduces material waste and simulation capabilities to eliminate errors before cutting.
Regarding claim 2, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the tooth includes an artificial denture ([0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Lv Peijun discloses wherein the surface of the tooth includes a tooth crown surface (Figure 2 and [0012]).
Regarding claim 4, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses wherein the laser processed structure is formed a top side surface (Connell: Figure 4B and [0070]), but fail to specifically disclose “wherein the laser processed structure is formed on an outer side surface and an inner side surface of the surface of the tooth”.
On the other hand, Lv Peijun further discloses wherein the laser processed structure is formed on an outer side surface, a top side surface and an inner side surface of the surface of the tooth (Figure 2 and [0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to further modify Connell’s a laser processing method in order to incorporate the laser processed structure formed on an outer side surface an inner side surface of the surface of the tooth, since such modification would add the advantageous results to the entire tooth, such as having surfaces with increased microorganism removal when cleaned.
Regarding claim 5, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the micro grooves are formed by using a laser beam of the laser processing system (since the processing could be performed using laser ablation [0036]); the micro grooves comprise a plurality of first micro grooves and a plurality of second micro grooves formed on the surface of the tooth, and the first micro grooves interlace with the second micro grooves ([0070]).
Regarding claim 6, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the micro grooves have a pitch between 0.5 μm and 500 μm (see dimensions in table 1).
Regarding claim 7, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the micro grooves have a groove width between 0.5 μm and 500 μm (see dimensions in table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the micro grooves have a groove depth between 0.5 μm and 500 μm (see dimensions in table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the micro grooves have a side wall inclined angle between 1° and 80° (see sidewall angles in table 1 and [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses further comprising forming a micro-nano processed structure on the micro grooves and the micro bumps (since Connell discloses that its microstructured may further comprise nanostructures provided on the microstructured surface [0056]). Even though Connell does not specifically disclose “wherein the micro-nano processed structure includes a plurality of micro-nano grooves and a plurality of micro-nano bumps between the micro-nano grooves”. The Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, to modify Connell/Lv Peijun’s laser processed micro-nano structure to make it comprising a plurality of micro-nano grooves and a plurality of micro-nano bumps between the micro-nano grooves, since such modification would merely require a duplication of parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 11, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein a groove width of the micro-nano groove is smaller than a groove width of the micro groove (since dimensions of the nanostructures do not exceed 1 micron or are less than 1 micro [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Connell and Lv Peijun, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Connell discloses wherein the laser processing steps include a combined step for simultaneously forming the laser processed structure and the micro-nano processed structure (since the laser processing step can be done by laser ablation [0036] or laser itching [0121] and the microstructures may further comprise nanostructures provided on the microstructured surface [0055]-[0056]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bommarito (US 20130211310 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST).
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 on (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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights