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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed September 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 18-22 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 23-31 have been canceled. Claims 1-17 are under examination.
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.
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 1-3, 6-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp et al. (US 2021/0045854) in view of Woratz (US 2022/0379402).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Culp et al. teach a method comprising causing a sheet of plastic to be thermoformed over a mold to form a dental appliance associated with a dental arch of a user (Abstract; Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 8; paragraphs [0002]-[0005], [0018], [0019], [0024]-[0030]; physical dental model); causing one or more preliminary laser operations to form a laser line in the dental appliance disposed on the mold (e.g. by trimming the cutline of the aligner with a laser while on the mold; paragraphs [0020], [0031], [0035]-[0042], [0048]-[0053], [0065] and [0066]). Culp et al. do not explicitly teach causing one or more post-processing laser operations to smooth at least a portion of the laser line in the dental appliance disposed on the mold wherein the post-processing laser operation raises a localized material temperature along the laser line to reduce a sawtooth or ridged profile of the laser line without removing material and without cutting through the dental application.
However, Woratz (Abstract; paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0017]-[0020], [0026], and [0060]), discloses an analogous laser trimming/cutting methods wherein a preliminary/first/primary laser cutting/trimming step is performed and this preliminary/first/primary laser cutter/trimming step is performed in conjunction with or followed by a post-processing/second/final laser cutting/trimming step to produce a smoothed/polished/improved quality cut item, wherein the post-processing laser operation raises a localized material temperature along the laser line to reduce a sawtooth or ridged profile of the laser line without removing material and without cutting through the dental application (Abstract “rough machining” corresponding to the claimed preliminary laser operation and “fine machining” corresponding to the claimed post-processing laser operation; [0010], [0020], [0022] – “molten material can be moved or removed from the cut edge…during fine machining”; paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0059]-[0062], [0071] and [0072] – teaching and suggesting control, as needed, to achieve the desired final cut/smoothed properties).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Culp et al. and Woratz and to have utilized a two-step/two-stage laser cutting method as claimed in the method of Culp et al., as suggested by Woratz, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of producing an improved final product quality cut for the laser trimmed/cut article in an art recognized suitable and efficient manner (Woratz: paragraph [0002] – improve quality; [0005] and [0059] - remove unwanted structures and produce a smooth surface finish). Culp et al. teach that an additional post-processing step of smoothing edges may be required after the laser cutting has taken place (paragraph [0066]). Woratz teaches that their two-step laser processing method can eliminate such additional post-processing steps (paragraphs [0010] and [0059]) while producing an improved refined/smoothed/rounded edge. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have combined the teaching of Culp et al. and Woratz and to have utilized the laser cutting method of Woratz as the laser cutting method of Culp et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of eliminating a post-processing step after laser cutting and rounding/smoothing the appliance on the mold.
Culp et al. teach and suggest trimming the material with a laser while on the mold to produce the article. Woratz provides additional and analogous details outlining a two-step laser cutting process to improve the quality and efficiency of the cutting process. In combination, the single step laser trimming process set forth by Culp et al. is replaced by/enhanced by/improved by the implementation of the laser trimming process set forth by Woratz. The combination suggests performing this modified laser trimming process at the same time as the laser trimming process is performed in the method of Culp et al. (i.e. while it is still on the mold). In addition to rationale G, as set forth above, and described in MPEP 2143, the conclusion of obviousness, as described above, is also reasonably supported by rationales A, B, C, D and/or F. In the combination, each and every limitation of the claims is taught and suggested.
Additionally, as to claim 17, Culp et al. further teach hardware, data processing and memory components can be utilized to practice the disclosed method (paragraph [0072]). This includes and/or renders prima facie obvious a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that executes the claimed steps of the process with a processing device. In combination with the secondary references, each and every step of the claimed process would be included on the storage medium as claimed.
As to claim 2, the laser line set forth above in Culp et al. corresponds with a gingival cut line of the appliance (Figures 2A and 7; paragraphs [0004], [0018], [0019], [0031], [0051]).
As to claims 3 and 6-12, Culp et al. suggest changing laser parameters, as needed, to produce the desired cut (paragraphs [0048]-[0051]) and Woratz also reasonably teaches and suggest adjusting the parameters as claimed, as desired, to produce the desired final cut. The combination suggests utilizing a two-step/two-stage laser cutting method to produce a desired final product cut. With this established, one having ordinary skill would have found it prima facie obvious to optimize the basic laser operating parameters, as required and as routine expedients or result effective variables. As to claim 7, Woratz teaches that the post-processing laser operation can be applied in a subsequent scanning pass over the same path as the laser line within the laser cutter (paragraphs [0013], [0026], and [0060]). The reason to combine the references is that same as that set forth above.
As to claim 13, the laser line is understood to correspond to the recited regions (Figures 2A and 7; paragraphs [0004], [0018], [0019], [0031], [0051]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp et al. (US 2021/0045854) in view of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-13 and 17 above, alone or further in view of any one of Lukacs et al. (US 2021/0178639), Mojdeh et al. (US 2020/0316856), Sirovskiy et al. (US 2018/0263730), or Hilliard (US 2008/0141534).
As to claim 4, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Culp et al. teach trimming with a laser, but do not explicitly teach a marking operation that marks the appliance with a character. However, each of Lukacs et al. (paragraph [0065]), Mojdeh et al. (paragraph [0103]), Sirovskiy et al. (paragraph [0010]), or Hilliard (paragraph [0097]) teach analogous methods wherein, in addition to trimming with a laser, the appliances are also marked.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Culp et al.,with any one of the secondary references and to have trimmed and marked the dental appliance of Culp et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of providing additional identifying information to the appliance. In the combination, the steps of heating/cutting with the general laser to trim and mark the appliance are replaced/enhanced/modified by the two-step/two-stage laser processing as set forth by combination of references set forth in the rejection of claim 1. As one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, laser cutting is known in the analogous art for both trimming and marking dental appliances. The two-step/two-stage laser processing of the secondary references would be reasonably applied to enhance/replace/modify single step laser processing in order to improve the quality of the cut and to reduce or eliminate the need for further processing after laser trimming/marking.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp et al. (US 2021/0045854) in view of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-13 and 17 above, and further in view of Cam et al. (US 2021/0113304).
As to claim 5, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Culp et al. do not teach bonding an object to the shell with the laser operation as claimed. However, Cam et al. teach an analogous object wherein an object is bonded to a shell with a laser (paragraphs [0053], [0062], [0102] and [0103]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Culp et al. and Cam et al. and to have further bonded an object to the shell with the laser operation as claimed in the method of Culp et al., as suggested by Cam et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of providing the additional functionality of the modified aligner with the bonded object. In the combination, the two-step/two-stage laser processing as set forth by the combination of references set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is utilized to further enhance/replace/modify single step/general laser bonding processing in order to improve the effectively bonding the additional object to the aligner/appliance with the same suggested laser technique suggested by the combination. It is also noted that Olsen makes clear that laser processing can be used for both cutting and welding materials (paragraph [0002]) and the modified method of Culp et al. includes the two-step/two-stage laser processing technique which is understood to be applicable to all the welding/cutting laser processing steps that may be required in forming the appliance/aligner of Culp et al.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp et al. (US 2021/0045854) in view of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), as applied to claims 1-3, 6-13 and 17 above, alone or further in view of any one of Cherkas et al. (US 2020/0311934), Wang et al. (US 2020/0100871), or Parpara et al. (US 2019/0102880).
As to claims 14-16, Culp et al. teach determining dental appliance data of the appliance and utilizing the data based on stored database information to determine the required cut and control the laser trimming process (Figure 1 (106) (110) (112) (124) (126) paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0018], [0019], [0025], [0028], [0031]-[0035], [0042], [0049], [0051], [0057], [0064], [0072]; claims 6 and 20). In combination with the secondary references, this is understood to teach and render prima facie obvious the claimed limitations, including utilizing historical data and predictive data based on a trained machine learning model/artificial intelligence. Alternatively, each of Cherkas et al. (paragraphs [0101] and [0102]), Wang et al. (Abstract; paragraphs [0056], [0063], [0078], [0084]-[0087, [0090], [0091], [0105], [0106], [0111]-[0130], [-155], [0160], [0249] and [0251]), and Parpara et al., ([0168]-[0171]) provide analogous teaching wherein dental appliance processes adopt historical data and predictive data based on a trained machine learning model/artificial intelligence.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Culp et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have performed the claimed steps set forth in claims 14-16 in the method of Culp et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of improving the consistency and efficiency of the final results. Each of the secondary references suggest implementing machine learning techniques in the formation of analogous devices. In combination with the modified trimming method suggested by the combination of Culp et al. with the secondary laser trimming methods, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have applied the same/similar machine learning techniques suggested by the references to the laser cutting operation taught and suggested by the combination of references set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 4, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the previous objections, section 112b rejections, and the prior art rejections that relied upon the secondary Mielke et al., Olsen, and Neumann references. As such, the objections, 112b rejections and the rejections relying upon those references have been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments regarding Woratz as a secondary reference have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Generally, applicant presents two arguments the Woratz reference. First, applicant argues that Woratz does not teach raising a localized material temperature along the laser line to reduce a sawtooth or ridged profile of the laser line without removing material and without cutting through the article. Second, applicant is understood to argue that Woratz is directed to metal workpieces (i.e. not plastic workpieces) with stated benefits that would not be applicable to a dental appliance (i.e. a plastic workpiece). These arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended limitation, applicant argues that Woratz teaches removing and reshaping the cut-edge including rounding, chamfering and beveling the edge and that this takes material away and therefore does not teach the limitation “without removing material”. This argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, the examiner agrees that the rough machining relied upon in Woratz is generally understood by the examiner to take material away/cut material away as this rough machining step is utilized in the rejection to correspond with the laser cutting step of Culp et al. which also takes material away and cuts through the dental appliance. The examiner also agrees that the fine machining step in Woratz is capable of removing additional material and in some instances does remove additional material from the rough machined edge of Woratz. However, and importantly, the examiner further submits that Woratz also teaches and suggests that the fine machining step may smooth/round the cut edge by simply moving the heated material. In paragraph [0022], the wording is that “molten material can be moved or removed from the cut edge in a targeted manner…during fine machining, thus optimizing the geometry of the cut edge”. The language “moved or removed” is understood to disclose two distinct options: 1) removing material from the rough cut edge to achieve the desired geometry of the final cut edge (e.g. paragraph [0020] with a rounded edge) or 2) moving the present material by softening/melting it to achieve the desired rounded geometry of the final edge. If the only wording in Woratz, properly understood in context, was “removed”, the examiner would agree that “without removing” is not taught by Woratz. However, the additional word “moved” in Woratz makes clear that more than “removing” is in view. One having ordinary skill can immediately recognize the applicability of both scenarios and the difference in scope between the words. A sharp peak can be dulled by cutting it off (i.e. removing material) or it can be dulled by moving material from the peak to, for example, a shoulder region, so that the peak is less sharp. As such, “moved or removed” makes clear that both scenarios are intended in Woratz. From this, Woratz teaches the argued limitation.
Similarly, applicant argues that Woratz cuts through the workpiece in paragraph [0056]. This argument is not persuasive to the extent it is applicable. The examiner agrees that the Woratz cuts through the workpiece with the rough machining cut. The examiner also agrees that Woratz can do additional cuts through the workpiece, if desired, during fine machining. Further, the examiner agrees that Woratz discloses that the rough machining and the fine machining can happen simultaneously. However, Woratz makes clear that rounding/smoothing of the cut edge can simply “move” material during the fine machining step (paragraph [0022]; see the discussion in the previous paragraph by the examiner above) and further teaches that the fine machining step can take place after the rough machining/cutting step (paragraphs [0013], [0026], and [0060]). As such, in the combination, a process is disclosed that cuts through the appliance in the first laser operation and moves material at an elevated temperature in the second laser operation to smooth the previously cut edge to reduce the roughed/ridged profile without removing or cutting through the appliance.
Applicant argues that Woratz is directed to metal pieces with the stated benefit of corrosion resistance and to facilitate painting (e.g. as set forth in paragraphs [0004], [0005] and [0010] of Woratz). This argument is not persuasive. While not fully articulated, the argument is understood to suggest that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to the teaching of Woratz as a source for modifying the teaching of Culp et al. based on the disclosed differences (e.g. metal vs plastic workpiece). This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that the combination is not introducing an unknown cutting technique to the method of Culp et al. or the cutting of plastic materials with a laser in general. Culp et al. explicitly cuts the plastic material with a laser to form the dental appliance. As such, it is generally observed by the examiner that laser cutting processes are analogous and applicable in this context. The laser cutting process of Culp et al. is utilized to remove excess material from the appliance (paragraphs [0050] and [0065]) and Culp et al. are also interested in producing an appliance with smooth edges (paragraph [0066]). From this starting point in Culp et al., the examiner turned to the teaching of Woratz who discloses a clear teaching that their combined rough machining and fine machining laser cutting/machining process provides notable advantages that allows for the production of smooth/rounded edges in cut/machined articles (paragraphs [0002], [0005], [0007], [0008] [0010], [0013], [0020], [0022], [0026], [0031], [0059] and [0060]). As set forth above, this is understood to establish a clear and appropriate foundation for a proper 103 rejection. As such, while the examiner agrees that metals are the only material specifically mentioned in Woratz (paragraphs [0004]), it is not agreed that the method of Woratz is only applicable to metals. In addition to the argued “corrosion” and “painting” improvements cited by Woratz, the cited paragraphs above also make clear that the method of Woratz improves the surface finish of the cut/trimmed/processed by smoothing/rounding the rough/ridged profile formed during the rough machining and this is of interest to Culp et al. Even further, paragraph [0083] of Woratz also suggests the applicability of their disclosed methods and system to other applications. The method and system of Culp et al. is understood to be one clearly applicable method and system.
While not explicitly argued, it is finally noted by the examiner that the laser processing of Culp et al. takes place while the appliance is on the mold. In the combination, this is still clearly the case as the laser processing disclosed by Woratz is used as a replacement/enhancement of the laser processing of Culp et al. Culp et al. also disclose utilizing a fume extraction system while the appliance remains on the mold to remove the fumes that are generated by lasers (paragraph [0041]). As such, the combination teaches and suggests each and every limitation set forth in the claims.
It is submitted that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. The examiner notes his availability to discuss the application via telephonic interview.
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 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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
