DETAILED ACTION
Claim 2 is previously cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending in the application.
Claim 1 is independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This action is final.
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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding rejections directed to amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but respectfully found not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance that:
1) Gi teaches pinching the lower portion of device to form the contact prevention unit 124 and the whitening agent acting part 122, therefore Gi does not teach a trench between one of more teeth and a gingiva region of the teeth scan data.
2) Gi does not teach the trench is adapted to match the shape and location of each one or more tooth and corresponding gingiva.
Regarding 1), While the examiner agrees that Gi teaches pinching the lower portion of device to form the contact prevention unit 124, however, the examiner respectfully submit that applicant has overlooked the fact that the pinching the lower portion of device to form the contact prevention unit 124 actually formed trench as shown in Fig. 4, the 124 is a trench formed. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
266
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4
Regarding 2), the examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Figs. 2 & 4, for the front portion of the device, except the whitening agent acting part 122, the rest of the portion of the device is conformal to the tooth and the gingiva shape with tight contact, and the trench 124 is above the gum line ([0071] [0072]), i.e. “the bleaching material barrier is adapted to be manipulated to match the shape and location of each one or more teeth and each corresponding gingiva”. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The teachings of Fisker, Gi, Wu and Gardner as disclosed in the previous office action are hereby incorporated by references to the extent applicable to the amended claims.
Another iteration of claim analysis has been made. Referring to the corresponding sections of the claim analysis below for details.
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, 4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker US 20230049287 A1 in view of Gi KR 102139071 B11.
Regarding claim 1, Fisker teaches a system comprising:
a computing device ([0072] processor) configured to access teeth scan data associated with a patent’s mouth ([0015] obtaining 3D digital representation of a patient’s dentition, [0023] the 3D digital representation of a patient’s dentition is scanned data);
a software module, stored in the computing device, including executable instructions configured to generate a digital model of the patient’s mouth based on the teeth scan data, including executable instructions adapted to digitally manipulate the teeth scan data during the generation of the digital model to form: a bleaching material reservoir on a surface of each of the one or more teeth of the teeth scan data (Figs. 1-3 [0015] – [0022] [0080] – [0082] [0087] – [0089] [0094] the 3D digital representation of a patient’s dentition is generated and presented, a modified 3D digital representation is generated to include receptables to receive the bleaching agent – bleaching material reservoir, a virtual model of a dental tray is generated based on the modified digital presentation); and
a three-dimensional (3D) printer in communication with the computing device and configured to build, based on the digital model, a physical bleaching tray that includes the bleaching material reservoir and a bleaching material barrier based on the trench ([0019] [0097] the virtual model of the dental tray is manufactured by direct 3D printing).
Fisker does not explicitly teaches the formed bleaching material reservoir including a trench between one or more teeth and a gingiva region of the teeth scan data and a bleaching material barrier based on the trench; and
the bleaching material barrier is adapted to be manipulated to match the shape and location of each one or more teeth and each corresponding gingiva.
Gi explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the formed bleaching material reservoir including a trench between one or more teeth and a gingiva region of the teeth scan data and a bleaching material barrier based on the trench (Fig. 4 [0067] [0068] [0072] the lower portion of device is pressed down to form a trench 124 acting as the contact prevention unit 124 and the whitening agent acting part 122, the whitening agent contact prevention part 124 is formed to prevent agent contacting gums); and
PNG
media_image1.png
266
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4
the bleaching material barrier is adapted to be manipulated to match the shape and location of each one or more teeth and each corresponding gingiva (Gi: Figs. 2&4 [0067] [0068] [0071] [0072] for the front portion of the device, except the whitening agent acting part 122, the rest of the portion of the device is conformal to the tooth and the gingiva shape with tight contact, and the trench 124 is above the gum line, the whitening agent contact prevention part 124 is adapted to provide tight seal on the surface of tooth 1 and bottom part is adapted to conformal with the gum line, i.e. “the bleaching material barrier is adapted to be manipulated to match the shape and location of each one or more teeth and each corresponding gingiva”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fisker to incorporate the teachings of Gi, because they all directed to bleaching tray design, to make the system wherein the formed bleaching material reservoir including a trench between one or more teeth and a gingiva region of the teeth scan data and a bleaching material barrier based on the trench; and the bleaching material barrier is adapted to be manipulated to match the shape and location of each one or more teeth and each corresponding gingiva. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to prevent agent contacting gums, as Gi teaches in [0072].
Regarding claim 4, Fisker further teaches an intraoral scanner in communication with the computing device configured to generate and provide the teeth scan data of the patent’s mouth ([0023] the 3D digital representation of a patient’s dentition is scanned data using intraoral scanner).
Regarding claim 6, Fisker further teaches shell an outline of a surface of the one or more teeth of the teeth scan data at a set thickness in order to form the bleaching material reservoir (Fig. 3 [0089] raising surface area of each tooth to form the receptacles).
Regarding claim 11, Fisker further teaches a digital repositioning of the one or more teeth (Fig. 3 [0089] raising surface area of each tooth to form the receptacles) and/or of the gingiva region (Fig. 2 [0086] the virtual boundary 8-5 is defined by offsetting boundary line 8-1 which is the gingiva line).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker in view of Gi as applied to claims 1, 4, 6 and 11 above, further in view of Wu US 20210238328 A12.
Regarding claim 3, neither Fisker nor Gi explicitly further teaches a thermoforming device configured to apply a thermoforming process to the physical bleaching tray.
Wu explicitly teaches in an analogous art that a thermoforming device configured to apply a thermoforming process to the physical bleaching tray (Figs. 1-3 [0255] [0260] [0267] an aligner tray is 3D printed and thermal cured in post cure ovens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fisker and Gi to incorporate the teachings of Wu, because they all directed to dental tray, to make the system wherein a thermoforming device configured to apply a thermoforming process to the physical bleaching tray. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to further cure the material, as Wu teaches in [0267].
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker in view of Gi as applied to claims 1, 4, 6 and 11 above, further in view of Gardner US 20210401546 A13.
Regarding claim 5, neither Fisker nor Gi explicitly teaches modifying a gingiva boundary in accordance with one or more movements of each of one or more teeth in relation to the gingiva region of the teeth scan data to form the trench.
Gi and Gardner together explicitly teach in analogous arts that modifying a gingiva boundary in accordance with one or more movements of each of one or more teeth (Gi: [0051] [0076] [0077] , performing teeth whitening at the same time at any stage during the calibration, the models of aligner trays with both whitening and correction functions are created at stages of the correction with different target teeth positions, that means a gingiva boundary is modified at stages of correction to accommodate the different target teeth positions for the correction in accordance with one or more movements of the of one or more teeth; Fig. 4 [0067] [0068] [0072] the whitening agent contact prevention part 124 to prevent agent contacting gums is defined according to the modified gingiva boundary of the teeth model) in relation to the gingiva region of the teeth scan data to form the trench (Gardner: Figs. 3 & 7-8 [0059] - [0061] [0080] adjusting each tooth to target position including mesial, distal and buccal movements of the one or more teeth in relation to the gingiva region of the teeth scan data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fisker and Gi to incorporate the teachings of Gi and Gardner, because they all directed to dental tray, to make the system wherein modifying a gingiva boundary in accordance with one or more movements of each of one or more teeth in relation to the gingiva region of the teeth scan data to form the trench. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to prevent agent contacting gums, as Gi teaches in [0072].
Regarding claim 7, Gardner further teaches move a position of the one or more teeth in relation to a gingiva region on the teeth scan data (Figs. 3 & 7-8 [0059] - [0061] [0080] adjusting each tooth to ideal setting including mesial, distal, and buccal movements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fisker and Gi to incorporate the teachings of Gardner, because they all directed to dental tray, to make the system wherein move a position of the one or more teeth in relation to a gingiva region on the teeth scan data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to achieve ideal arrangement of the teeth, as Gardner teaches in [0061].
Regarding claim 8, Gardner further teaches moving one or more of the teeth buccally; applying a mesial movement to the one or more teeth; and applying a distal movement to the one or more teeth (Figs. 3 & 7-8 [0059] - [0061] [0080] adjusting each tooth to ideal setting including mesial, distal, and buccal movements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fisker and Gi to incorporate the teachings of Gardner, because they all directed to dental tray, to make the system wherein moving one or more of the teeth buccally; applying a mesial movement to the one or more teeth; and applying a distal movement to the one or more teeth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to achieve ideal arrangement of the teeth, as Gardner teaches in [0061].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depends on claim 1, Fisker and Gi teaches the claim elements of claim 1. Gi and Gardner further teach modify a gingiva boundary in accordance with one or more movements of the of one or more teeth in relation to the gingiva region on the teeth scan data to form the trench (Gi: Fig. 4 [0067] [0068] [0072] the whitening agent contact prevention part 124 to prevent agent contacting gums is defined according to the gingiva boundary of the teeth model, [0051] [0076] [0077] the models of aligner trays with both whitening and correction functions are created at stages of the correction with different target teeth positions; Gardner: Figs. 3 & 7-8 [0059] - [0061] [0080] adjusting each tooth to ideal setting including mesial, distal, and buccal movements for aligner tray).
However, Fisker, Gi and Gardner do not individually or in combination, teach or suggest these additional limitations in the context of other limitations of the claim:
receive the digital model of a patient’s mouth, the digital model including an initial tooth model and an initial gingiva model;
move at least one tooth in the initial tooth model and a corresponding gingiva portion in the initial gingiva model buccally, distally, and/or medially to form a moved tooth model and a moved gingiva model;
separate the moved tooth model from the moved gingiva model to form a separated moved gingiva model;
place the initial tooth model onto the separated moved gingiva model to form the trench between the at least one tooth in the initial tooth model and the corresponding gingiva portion in the moved gingiva model to form an updated digital model, and
produce the physical bleaching tray, by three-dimensionally (3D) printing and/or applying thermoforming process, corresponding to the updated digital model of the patient’s mouth, the physical bleaching tray includes the bleaching material reservoir at an inner surface that corresponds to a buccal surface of the at least one tooth in the initial tooth model and a bleaching material barrier, wherein the bleaching material barrier is formed based on the trench.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends on claim 1, Fisker and Gi teaches the claim elements of claim 1. Gi and Gardner further teach modify a gingiva boundary in accordance with one or more movements of the of one or more teeth in relation to the gingiva region on the teeth scan data to form the trench (Gi: Fig. 4 [0067] [0068] [0072] the whitening agent contact prevention part 124 to prevent agent contacting gums is defined according to the gingiva boundary of the teeth model, [0051] [0076] [0077] the models of aligner trays with both whitening and correction functions are created at stages of the correction with different target teeth positions; Gardner: Figs. 3 & 7-8 [0059] - [0061] [0080] adjusting each tooth to ideal setting including mesial, distal, and buccal movements for aligner tray).
However, Fisker, Gi and Gardner do not individually or in combination, teach or suggest these additional limitations in the context of other limitations of the claim:
receive the digital model of the patient’s mouth, the digital model including an initial tooth model and an initial gingiva model;
separate the initial gingiva model from the initial tooth model to form a separated gingiva model;
move a first gingiva portion in the separated gingiva model buccally, distally, and/or medially to form a moved gingiva model;
place the initial tooth model onto the moved gingiva model to form the trench between at least one tooth in the initial tooth model and the first gingiva portion in the moved gingiva model to form an updated digital model, and
produce the physical bleaching tray, by three-dimensionally (3D) printing and/or applying thermoforming process, corresponding to the updated digital model of the patient’s mouth, the physical bleaching tray includes the bleaching material reservoir at an inner surface that corresponds to a buccal surface of the at least one tooth in the initial tooth model and a bleaching material barrier, wherein the bleaching material barrier is formed based on the trench.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on (571)272-2279. 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.
/M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Fisker and Gi are the prior arts of record
2 Wu is the prior art of record
3 Gardner is the prior art of record
Prosecution Insights