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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I – IV are patentably indistinct and form a single inventive concept and therefore should be examiner together in a single application. Upon further review, the examiner has combined the groups I, II, IV (as new Group I, which includes claims 1-17 and 20) as it pertains to method of 3D printing and post-processing the printed object. The product and process of using the product (Group II, claims 18-19) are further restricted and remains withdrawn.
The common technical feature between the Groups I and II, includes 3D printing a dental prosthesis and post-processing using pressurizing water stream with glass beads. The primary reference Hutchinson et al. (US 2019/0322898 A1) discloses 3D printing an article and post-processing using pressurizing water stream with glass beads (see paragraphs ([0002], [0003]-[0006]), however, Hutchinson et al. fails to teach printing specifically a dental prosthesis. Secondary reference, Sun et al. (US 2014/0131908 A1), teaches 3D printing dental prosthesis (see abstract; claim 9). It is noted that since the common technical feature is taught over the combination of references, Hutchinson et al. (US 2019/0322898 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0131908 A1), this common technical feature cannot be a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8, 10-11, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, the term “a dental prosthesis” in line 3 should be --the dental prosthesis--.
Furthermore, claim 8 appears to be a method of forming rather than post forming as applied in claim 1, therefore is suggested to rewrite the claims into independent form.
Claim 10, the term “a dental prosthesis” in line 3 should be --the dental prosthesis--.
Furthermore, claim 10 appears to be a method of forming 3D printed dental prosthesis rather than post forming as applied in claim 1, therefore is suggested to rewrite the claims into independent form.
Regarding claim 11, the term “radiation” in line 4 is repeated twice.
Claim 20 is objected as it fails to properly claim each limitation separately by using semicolon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US 2019/0322898 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0131908 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hutchinson et al. teach a method of finalizing a 3D printed object (see [0003]-[0009]), said method comprising subjecting the 3D printed article to a pressurized water stream comprising glass beads ([0003]-[0011], discloses finishing mediums and media particles, also known as “finishing suspensions” used for removing support material and/or for surface finishing of an objected created by additive manufacturing techniques; see Figures; [0006], [0044] discloses media particle includes glass beads). However, Hutchinson et al. do not teach specifically forming a dental prosthesis via 3D printing as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Sun et al. teach 3D printing dental prosthesis and post treating the prosthesis similar to the applicant’s instant claimed invention (see abstract; claim 9 which recites “A method for making a three-dimensional dental prosthesis comprising the steps of a. loading a polymerizable liquid resin material or heated resin material as a liquid into a resin bath of a 3D printer; b. applying sequential voxel planes into the liquid resin or heated resin to form a first layer of material, which polymerizes into a solid; c. applying one or more successive layers of the polymerized material until a predetermined is formed; d. washing and/or transferring the formed shape into a separate resin bath, which has different shade or/and different physical properties, to build additional layer of materials on the surface of formed shape layer by layer according to step a) to c). e. optionally, repeat step d) as needed”.). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to combine the process as such as having a 3D printed article and post-processing taught by Hutchinson et al. with further including specific 3D printing a 3D dental prosthesis, as taught by Sun et al., for the benefit of producing a materially different article with desired surface properties and dimensional stability (see abstract; [0041]). There is sufficient motivation/suggestion provided by above combination to have a dental prosthesis that is formed via 3D printing and then post-processing such article as necessary to arrive at the surface properties taught by Hutchinson et al.
As for claim 2, Hutchinson et al. further teach wherein the pressurized water operates at a pressure of 10-200 pound per square inch (60 psi, para [0020]).
As for claims 3 - 5, Hutchinson et al. further teach the media particles (glass beads) being any size, such as diameter or radius ranging between 0.1 – 1000 microns or any shape may be used (see [0006]), and using 1 to 100 pounds of media particle (glass particles) ([0044], thus, based on the surface finishing desired, it would have been obvious to choose desired size (~0.0015 to 0.0040 inch) and amount of glass beads for the purpose of providing desired surface finishing. It would have been within the level of one ordinary skilled in the art to further rinse in water after treating with the pressurized water stream comprising the glass beads (see [0044]- [0060]).
As for claim 6 - 7, Hutchinson et al. further teach not involve polishing with abrasive materials (see [0006] states purpose of using finishing suspension is either to remove support material and or portion of the object being finished, therefore, it does not have to include polishing). It is noted that since Hutchinson et al. teach removing support or portion of the object being finished, one ordinary skilled in the art have options to carry out in such a way that the post-printing dimensions of the 3D printed dental prosthesis are substantially unchanged from pre-printing calculated dimensions by subjecting the dental prosthesis to the pressurized water stream comprising glass beads ([0006]-[0010]).
As for claim 10, Hutchinson et al. fail to explicitly teach 3D printing dental prosthesis or a component of dental prosthesis using a polymerizable resin ink with layer-by-layer curing with light, however, Sun et al. teach of dental prosthesis using a polymerizable resin ink with layer-by-layer curing with light (see [0015]-[0022], [0025]), for the benefit of producing a materially different article with desired surface properties and dimensional stability (see abstract; [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Hutchinson et al. teach a method of finalizing a 3D printed object (see [0003]-[0009]), said method comprising subjecting the 3D printed article to a pressurized water stream comprising glass beads ([0003]-[0011], discloses finishing mediums and media particles, also known as “finishing suspensions” used for removing support material and/or for surface finishing of an objected created by additive manufacturing techniques; see Figures; [0006], [0044] discloses media particle includes glass beads). Hutchinson et al. further teach wherein the pressurized water operates at a pressure of 10-200 pound per square inch (60 psi, para [0020]). Additionally, Hutchinson et al. teach the media particles (glass beads) being any size, such as diameter or radius ranging between 0.1 – 1000 microns or any shape may be used (see [0006]), and using 1 to 100 pounds of media particle (glass particles) ([0044], thus, based on the surface finishing desired, it would have been obvious to choose desired size (~0.0015 to 0.0040 inch) and amount of glass beads for the purpose of providing desired surface finishing.
Hutchinson et al. further teach not involve polishing with abrasive materials (see [0006] states purpose of using finishing suspension is either to remove support material and or portion of the object being finished, therefore, it does not have to include polishing). It is noted that since Hutchinson et al. teach removing support or portion of the object being finished, one ordinary skilled in the art have options to carry out in such a way that the post-printing dimensions of the 3D printed object are substantially unchanged from pre-printing calculated dimensions as a result of subjecting the printed object to the pressurized water stream comprising glass beads ([0006]-[0010]).
However, Hutchinson et al. do not teach forming a dental prosthesis via 3D printing as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Sun et al. teach 3D printing dental prosthesis and post treating the prosthesis (see abstract; claim 9 which recites “A method for making a three-dimensional dental prosthesis comprising the steps of a. loading a polymerizable liquid resin material or heated resin material as a liquid into a resin bath of a 3D printer; b. applying sequential voxel planes into the liquid resin or heated resin to form a first layer of material, which polymerizes into a solid; c. applying one or more successive layers of the polymerized material until a predetermined is formed; d. washing and/or transferring the formed shape into a separate resin bath, which has different shade or/and different physical properties, to build additional layer of materials on the surface of formed shape layer by layer according to step a) to c). e. optionally, repeat step d) as needed”.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to combine the process as such as having a 3D printed article and post-processing taught by Hutchinson et al. with further including specific 3D printing a 3D dental prosthesis, as taught by Sun et al., for the benefit of producing a materially different article with desired surface properties and dimensional stability (see abstract; [0041]).
Claim(s) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US 2019/0322898 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0131908 A1) in further view of SCHWITALLA et al. (US 2019/0307534 A1).
Regarding claim 8 - 9, Hutchinson et al. and Sun et al. teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the 3D printed dental prosthesis is prepared by a method comprising: (a) 3D printing a dental prosthesis or a component of a dental prosthesis by extruding a material through a heated nozzle to yield melted material; (b) depositing the melted material on a build platform along a predetermined path to form the dental prosthesis; and (c) allowing the melted material to cool and solidify…wherein the material is nylon.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, SCHWITALLA et al. teach implants made of polymer materials including nylon fibers ([0052]), using fused deposition modeling technique (which requires heating of a nozzle and melting, then solidifying) (see [0162]) to produce a dental implant (see [0172]). SCHWITALLA et al. teach that any type of 3D printer can be used as device for producing the customized implant based on the calculated model, particularly such printers which use fused deposition modeling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA), multi-jet modeling (MJM), selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), selective electron beam melting (SEBM), and/or 3-dimensional printing (3DP by Zcorp.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to modify above with including fused deposition modeling as the 3D printing alternative technique, as taught by SCHWITALLA et al., for the benefit of efficiently producing a dental prosthesis from desired nylon fiber, having desired modulus elasticity (see [0001] – [0007]).
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US 2019/0322898 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0131908 A1) in view of Shimko (US 2021/0022867 A1).
Regarding claim 11- 14, Hutchinson et al., and Sun et al. teach all the limitations to the claimed invention as discussed above, however, fail to explicitly teach subjecting the dental prosthesis to ionizing radiation…and using gamma radiation or curing using UV rays or using methacrylate monomer as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to implantable composition, Shimko teaches polymerizable resin ink comprises polymerizable methacrylate polymer (see [0184]) and curing to form the 3D printed implant using UV light (see [0142]), thus alternatively using monomer of methacrylate as claimed, would have been within the level of ordinary skilled in the art for producing similar types of dental implant. Shimko further teaches gamma radiation is used in the terminal sterilization step, which involves utilizing ionizing energy from gamma rays that penetrate deeply into the implant. Shimko further teaches using “Gamma rays are highly effective in killing microorganisms; they leave no residues nor have sufficient energy to impart radioactivity to the bone graft. Gamma rays can be employed when the bone graft is in the package and gamma sterilization does not require high pressures or vacuum conditions, thus, package seals and other components are not stressed. In addition, gamma radiation eliminates the need for permeable packaging materials” (see [0233]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify above with further step of using UV curing light for curing desired materials, as taught by Shimko, for the benefit of forming a 3D object having desired functional properties in the dental prosthesis, and using gamma rays for sterilization of the implants thereby effectively killing un-wanted microorganism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art Hutchinson et al. (US 2019/0322898 A1) in view of Sun et al. (US 2014/0131908 A1) in further view of SCHWITALLA et al. (US 2019/0307534 A1) and Shimko (US 2021/0022867 A1), fails to teach either alone or in combination which further comprises after step (a): (b) subjecting the dental prosthesis or component thereof obtained in (a) to ionizing radiation…including gamma radiation that is Cobalt-60. The dependent claim 16-17 which further depends upon claim 15 are objected for the same reason as disclosed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0342995 A1 - additive manufacturing techniques include for forming dental appliance, but are not limited to, the following: (1) vat photopolymerization, in which an object is constructed from a vat or other bulk source of liquid photopolymer resin, including techniques such as stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), continuous liquid interface production (CLIP), two-photon induced photopolymerization (TPIP), and volumetric additive manufacturing; (2) material jetting, in which material is jetted onto a build platform using either a continuous or drop on demand (DOD) approach; (3) binder jetting, in which alternating layers of a build material (e.g., a powder-based material) and a binding material (e.g., a liquid binder) are deposited by a print head; (4) material extrusion, in which material is drawn though a nozzle, heated, and deposited layer-by-layer, such as fused deposition modeling (FDM) and direct ink writing (DIW); (5) powder bed fusion, including techniques such as direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), electron beam melting (EBM), selective heat sintering (SHS), selective laser melting (SLM), and selective laser sintering (SLS); (6) sheet lamination, including techniques such as laminated object manufacturing (LOM) and ultrasonic additive manufacturing (UAM); and (7) directed energy deposition, including techniques such as laser engineering net shaping, directed light fabrication, direct metal deposition, and 3D laser cladding.
US 12,194,684 B2 – 3D printing dental appliance and post-curing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743