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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on April 21, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 17 recite “causing a one or more post-processing”. The recitation should be - - causing one or more post-processing - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “high curvature regions”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. The word “high” is a relative term which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. It is not clear how much curvature is required for the curvature to be considered “high”. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
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 any one of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), Mielke et al. (US 2013/0068736), Olsen (US 2010/0044353), or Neumann (US 6,155,757).
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.
However, each of Woratz (Abstract; paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0017]-[0020], [0026] and [0060]), Mielke et al. (paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0019]-[0028], [0035], [0044], [0050], and [0056]), Olsen (Abstract; Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0009], [0013]-[0016], [0021]-[0026], [0054], [0055], [0072], [0097] and [0099]) and Neumann (Abstract; Figures 1-3, col. 1, lines 1-47; col. 2, lines 1-44; in Neumann, a post-processing laser operation is used to remove burrs by using a laser in combination with a deburring tool; the claimed language is reasonably met by using a laser in combination with a deburring tool as it is reasonably understood to be a laser operation that causes the article to be smoothed to the extent required by the claim) disclose 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/followed by a post-processing/second/final laser cutting/trimming step to produce a smoothed/polished/deburred/improved quality cut of the item.
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 utilized a two-step/two-stage laser cutting method as claimed 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 producing an improved final product quality cut for the laser trimmed/cut article in an art recognized suitable and efficient manner.
Culp et al. teach and suggest trimming the material with a laser while on the mold to produce the article. Each of the secondary references provide additional and analogous details outlining a two-step/two-stage 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 the secondary references. 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.
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 the secondary references, as cited above, also reasonably teach 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 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 any one of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), Mielke et al. (US 2013/0068736), Olsen (US 2010/0044353) or Neumann (US 6,155,757), 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 any one of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), Mielke et al. (US 2013/0068736), Olsen (US 2010/0044353) or Neumann (US 6,155,757), 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 any one of Woratz (US 2022/0379402), Mielke et al. (US 2013/0068736), Olsen (US 2010/0044353) or Neumann (US 6,155,757), 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Culp (US 9,403,238) discloses analogous an analogous laser cutting method.
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
Prosecution Insights