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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodkin, et al. (US 6,322,728) in view of Sun,et al. (WO 2014/078537 using US 2014/0131908 for translation and reference numbers).
In reference to Claim 1, Brodkin discloses three-dimensional printing dental restoration (3:32-33) (a system for manufacturing a dental prosthesis), the design of the patient’s optical impression (3:34-45) (said system comprising: a computer configured to receive data associated to one or more optical properties of a tooth), and instructions for each layer are created using information from each slice (4:5-12) (for combining said data with a layered numerical representation of said dental prosthesis, so as to link numerical optical property values representative of each of said one or more optical properties of said tooth to each layer of said layered numerical representation); and using a stereolithography machine (2:66-3:20) (a stereolithography machine configured to be controlled by said computer); light curable compositions (6:52-7:3) (said stereolithography machine comprising: a container adapted to contain a light sensitive liquid substance, wherein said light sensitive liquid substance includes at least a first light sensitive material suitable to polymerize upon exposure to a predefined light radiation).
Brodkin does not disclose a first tank, which is in communication with said container and is adapted to contain said first light sensitive material; one or more second tanks, which are in communication with said container and are adapted to contain a corresponding modifier material having optical properties different from the optical properties of said first light sensitive material; a feeding device adapted to cause selective and controlled outflow of said first light sensitive material and/or of one or more of said modifier materials toward said container; and an irradiation device adapted to cause the selective solidification of said light sensitive liquid substance, when said light sensitive liquid substance is present in said container; wherein said computer is configured to control said feeding device based on the optical property values of any of the layers of said layered numerical representation, so as to adjust a composition of said liquid substance present in said container to the optical properties of said tooth.
Sun discloses a stereolithographic method for dental products ([0046]-[0047]) using a reservoir of flowable liquid ([0051]) (a first tank, which is in communication with said container and is adapted to contain said first light sensitive material); additional reservoirs with modified material ([0088]-[0101]) (one or more second tanks, which are in communication with said container and are adapted to contain a corresponding modifier material having optical properties different from the optical properties of said first light sensitive material); the controller loads the materials into the reservoirs ([0087]-[0101]) (a feeding device adapted to cause selective and controlled outflow of said first light sensitive material and/or of one or more of said modifier materials toward said container); and irradiating the composition to polymerize the liquid ([0022]) (an irradiation device adapted to cause the selective solidification of said light sensitive liquid substance, when said light sensitive liquid substance is present in said container); controlling with a computer a layer-wise process for creating a patient’s dental device ([0087]-[0101]) (wherein said computer is configured to control said feeding device based on the optical property values of any of the layers of said layered numerical representation, so as to adjust a composition of said liquid substance present in said container to the optical properties of said tooth).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the manufacturing system of Brodkin using the mutli-reservoir system of Sun because Sun uses the reservoirs for more than one type of material ([0088]-[0101]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the manufacturing system of Brodkin with the multi-reservoir system of Sun because the mutli-reservoirs allow for multiple materials which allow for varied material properties for the patient’s dental product ([0089]-[0101]). The reasonable expectation of success is a processed dental product made of various materials and having the properties strong enough for a patient’s use.
In reference to Claim 2, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses traditional computer aided scanning of a tooth and digital data concerning the dental restoration being sent to a method is well known in the art (1:36-52) and using CAD data in their process (2:40-63) (an optical device configured to scan the tooth, in order to provide said data associated to one or more optical properties of said tooth to the computer).
In reference to Claim 3, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses CAD information in layers for the tooth formation (2:40-63) (said layered numerical representation further comprises a group of data representing a shape, a thickness and/or a position of each layer of said dental prosthesis to be produced).
In reference to Claim 4, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses executing the layers as described in the CAD information (2:40-63) (said computer, for each layer of said layered numerical representation, is configured for controlling said irradiation device in order to selectively solidify said light sensitive liquid substance contained in said container, so as to obtain a sheet having a geometry which corresponds to a geometry of said layer of said layered numerical representation).
In reference to Claim 5, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses adjusting color, translucency, fluorescence, etc. (5:58-62) (said optical properties comprise one or more properties including colour, transparency and/or reflectance).
In reference to Claim 6, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses pigments added (5:58-62) (said one or more modifier materials comprise a dye).
In reference to Claim 7, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Sun discloses several materials with different colors in different reservoirs ([0048]) (said one or more modifier materials comprise a second light sensitive material suited to polymerize upon the exposure to said predefined light radiation and having a colour different from that of said first light sensitive material).
In reference to Claim 8, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses modifying translucency (5:58-62) (said one or more modifier materials comprise an at least partially transparent material).
In reference to Claim 9, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Sun discloses more than one separate reservoirs within one printer ([0089]-[0101]) (said container, said first tank and said one or more second tanks are constructed in a single body so as to create a cartridge, said cartridge comprising removable connection elements to a housing pertaining to said stereolithography machine).
In reference to Claim 10, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Brodkin discloses laser deposition or sintering (3:10-11) (said irradiation device comprises a laser source, a digital micromirror device and/or a selective masking device).
In reference to Claim 11, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Sun discloses material is loaded into reservoirs and projected into the liquid resin in a layer-wise manner controlled by a computer ([0087]-[0101]) (said feeding device comprises a pumping device and/or one or more shut-off valves adapted to cause said selective and controlled outflow of said first light sensitive material and/or of one or more of said modifier materials toward said container).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 4, as described above.
Brodkin discloses slice by slice sintering (4:20-22) (the irradiation device is arranged above said container and the layer of said liquid substance that is solidified is adjacent to a surface of said liquid substance).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodkin, et al. (US 6,322,728) in view of Sun,et al. (WO 2014/078537 using US 2014/0131908 for translation and reference numbers) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Pomerantz, et al. (US 5,263,130).
In reference to Claim 12, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Modified Brodkin does not disclose said stereolithography machine is provided with a mixing device configured for mixing said first light sensitive material coming from said first tank with said one or more modifier material coming from a corresponding one of the second tank, inside said container.
Pomerantz discloses mixing two different liquids to adjust the properties of the final product (4:7-12) a mixing tool is used to combine the materials (13:8-9) (said stereolithography machine is provided with a mixing device configured for mixing said first light sensitive material coming from said first tank with said one or more modifier material coming from a corresponding one of the second tank, inside said container).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the system of Brodkin using the mixing system of Pomerantz because the mixing tool combines the materials (13:8-9). One would have been motivated to combine the systems to achieve the mixing of Pomerantz (4:7-12). The reasonable expectation of success would be a product built from the selected properties (4:7-12).
Claims 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brodkin, et al. (US 6,322,728) in view of Sun,et al. (WO 2014/078537 using US 2014/0131908 for translation and reference numbers) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasukochi, et al. (US 8,113,813).
In reference to Claim 13, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 1, as described above.
Modified Brodkin does not disclose said container is provided with a transparent bottom.
Yasukochi discloses a transparent substrate (4:37-58, 9:1-2) (said container is provided with a transparent bottom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the system of Brodkin using the transparent substrate of Yasukochi because the light source is coming from below (Fig. 1). One would have been motivated to combine the systems to build the unit from the bottom (Fig. 1). The reasonable expectation of success would be a product built from beneath the transparent substrate (Fig. 1).
In reference to Claim 14, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 13, as described above.
Yasukochi discloses optical system 40 below container 10 with the beam passing through the bottom (Fig. 1) (said irradiation device is arranged below said container and a beam of said predefined light radiation emitted by said irradiation device passes through said bottom).
In reference to Claim 15, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 4, as described above.
Yasukochi discloses moving the plate vertically while curing the resin (5:53-67) (said stereolithography machine comprises a modelling plate which is carried in a movable manner along a vertical direction and is adapted to support a first solidified sheet of said light sensitive liquid substance).
In reference to Claim 16, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 15, as described above.
Yasukochi discloses the first solidified portion is the top of the product (Figs 8) (said first solidified sheet corresponds to a top of said dental prosthesis).
In reference to Claim 18, modified Brodkin discloses the system of Claim 17, as described above.
Modified Brodkin does not disclose the stereolithography machine comprise a modelling plate, which is carried in a movable manner along a vertical direction, is configured to be arranged below the free surface of said liquid substance contained in said container and is adapted to support a first solidified sheet of said light sensitive liquid substance, so as to make an upper surface of said modeling plate available or a previously solidified sheet of said light sensitive liquid substance at a depth equal to a thickness of the sheet to be created below the surface of said liquid substance.
Yasukochi discloses moving the plate vertically while curing the resin (5:53-67) (the stereolithography machine comprise a modelling plate, which is carried in a movable manner along a vertical direction, is configured to be arranged below the free surface of said liquid substance contained in said container and is adapted to support a first solidified sheet of said light sensitive liquid substance), corresponding to a thickness of one cured layer (11:50-52) (so as to make an upper surface of said modeling plate available or a previously solidified sheet of said light sensitive liquid substance at a depth equal to a thickness of the sheet to be created below the surface of said liquid substance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to complete the system of Brodkin using the transparent substrate of Yasukochi because the light source is coming from below (Fig. 1). One would have been motivated to combine the systems to build the unit from the bottom (Fig. 1). The reasonable expectation of success would be a product built from beneath the transparent substrate (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Brodkin does not disclose to modify, layer by layer, the composition of the powder bed to be solidified on the basis of the data acquired from the three-dimensional model of the tooth to the produced in order to vary the optical properties of the same tooth. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Instructions are being derived from a CAD representation in a sliced manner (4:5-12).
Applicant argues Sun does not disclose the reservoir in which the resin is stored before being poured within the tank. Examiner respectfully would state the argument is not supported by the claim language. The claim language, as currently presented, requires a container to hold a substance, a first tank in communication with said container to contain material, and one or more second tanks in communication with said container to contain modifier material, however, nothing in the current claim language requires storing the liquid prior to containment.
Applicant argues Brodkin fails to disclose the computer, a stereolithography machine, second tanks, feeding device, and computer configured to control the feeding machine. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Brodkin and Sun disclose a computer (Brodkin 3:4-7), a stereolithography machine (Brodkin 3:7-14), second tanks (Sun [0087]-[0101]), a feeding (loading) device (Sun [0087]-[0101]), and the computer configured to control the feeding machine (Brodkin 3:4-7).
Applicant argues Brodkin fails to disclose a layered numerical representation of the prosthesis to be made. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Instructions are being derived from a CAD representation in a sliced manner (4:5-12).
Applicant argues Brodkin fails to disclose modifying the composition of the liquid substance after having solidified the previous layer of powder and before solidifying the subsequent layer of powder, so as to modify the optical properties of the powder to be solidified. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Brodkin discloses layers are hardened as each is laid (4:40-46).
Applicant argues Pomerantz does not disclose the requirement of controlling a feeding device interposed between the reservoirs storing the liquid substance and the modified materials and the container in which such material mixing and solidification actually occurs. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Pomerantz discloses a brush for mixing (13:7-12).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KELSEY C GRACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST, Friday 7:00 AM - 11:00 AM 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
KELSEY C. GRACE
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights