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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimuta (US 20210169618 A1) in view of Boronkay (US 20190290399 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Nishimuta discloses a dental appliance occlusal element (Abstract; Fig. 9-10) comprising:
a lower surface forming a first recess (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 9);
an upper surface (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 9) configured to be disposed adjacent a distal inner surface of the hollow feature (It should be noted that the limitation reciting “to be disposed adjacent a distal inner surface of the hollow feature” is functionally claimed. It is fully capable that the upper surface can be configured to be disposed adjacent a distal inner surface of the hollow feature); and
one or more side surfaces (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 9) configured to be disposed against one or more side inner surfaces of the hollow feature (It should be noted that the limitation reciting “to be disposed against one or more side inner surfaces of the hollow feature” is functionally claimed. It is fully capable that the side surfaces are configured to be disposed against one or more side inner surfaces of the hollow feature).
However, Nishimutu is silent to a second recess and a substantially vertical structure between the first recess and the second recess, wherein the substantially vertical structure is configured to interface with a pick- and-place robot to cause the dental appliance occlusal element to be inserted into a hollow feature of a dental appliance. It should be noted that the limitation “configured to interface with a pick- and-place robot to cause the dental appliance occlusal element to be inserted into a hollow feature of a dental appliance” is functionally claimed and so long as the structure is met, the limitation is subsequently met.
Boronkay discloses a dental appliance system in the same field of endeavor and further discloses a dental appliance occlusal element (3002; Fig. 30) comprising a lower surface with a first and second recesses (3010/3012; Par. 259) to provide mounting to the dental appliance and provide a stronger hold. Further, by having the two recesses, it results in a substantially vertical structure between the two recesses as seen in Fig. 30.
It would have been obvious to someone before the effective filing date to have the lower surface of Nishimutu to have a second recess and a substantially vertical structure between the first recess and the second recess as taught by Boronkay to provide further securement to the dental appliance. As such the combination of Nishimutu and Boronkay would teach the substantially vertical structure is configured to interface with a pick- and-place robot to cause the dental appliance occlusal element to be inserted into a hollow feature of a dental appliance.
PNG
media_image1.png
681
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Re. Claim 2, Nishimutu and Boronkay discloses the dental appliance occlusal element of claim 1, wherein Nishimutu discloses the pick- and-place robot comprises a gripper comprising distal ends configured to secure the dental appliance occlusal element via the first recess and the second recess (It should be noted that the “pick-and-place robot” is functionally claimed and therefore the further limitation of the robot is functionally claimed (i.e. the pick-and-place robot comprises a gripper comprising distal ends). As such, the limitation reciting “the pick-and-place robot comprises a gripper comprising distal ends configured to secure the dental appliance occlusal element via the first recess and the second recess” can be met as the occlusal element of Nishimuta is similar structurally to applicant’s occlusal element).
Re. Claim 5, Nishimuta and Boronkay discloses the dental appliance occlusal element of claim 1, wherein Nishimuta discloses the upper surface and at least one of the one or more side surfaces comprise an identifying feature (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 9 where the upper surface has a curved feature that would identify the surface as the upper surface as the rest of the surfaces does not comprise such. Further, the side surfaces has recesses identical on either side which would allow for easy identification) configured to interface with a corresponding feature of the hollow feature (The limitation reciting “to interface with a corresponding feature of the hollow feature” is functionally claimed and the occlusal element if fully capable of the identifying feature to be configured to interface with a corresponding feature of the hollow feature).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
Re. Claim 6, Nishimuta and Boronkay discloses the dental appliance occlusal element of claim 1, wherein Nishimuta discloses: the upper surface is a curved surface (Annotated Figure B of Fig. 9). In the embodiment shown in Fig. 16, the one or more side surfaces comprise a lower side surface (1420), an upper side surface (1422); and the upper side surface is a chamfer (Annotated Figure C of Fig. 16; Par. 122-123).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the side surfaces shown in Fig. 9 to have a lower side surface and an upper side surface of Nishimuta and Boronkay to have the the upper side surface chamfered as taught by the embodiment shown in Fig. 16 to provide additional security.
PNG
media_image3.png
364
615
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure C
Re. Claim 7, Nishimuta and Boronkay discloses the dental appliance occlusal element of claim 6, wherein the lower side surface is from about 5 to about 9 degrees from vertical (Par. 122-123).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have the lower side surface of Nishimuta and Boronkay to be about 5 to about 9 degrees from vertical as taught by the embodiment shown in Fig. 16 to provide additional security.
Re. Claim 8, Nishimuta and Boronkay discloses the dental appliance occlusal element of claim 1, wherein Nishimuta discloses the dental appliance occlusal element is solid (Par. 80-81 discloses it can be made of thermoformed material and as such is solid).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
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 HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights