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 Objections
Claims 13,19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13 line 2 “a anterior portion should read “an anterior portion”.
In claim 19 line 2 “a anterior portion should read “an anterior portion”.
Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, 13-17, 19-23, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (WO2018/102811 A1), in view of Wen (US 10,335,250 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a system (100) comprising: a surface shaped to match a shape of a patient’s palate and extending between first tooth engagement structures (103) shaped to engage teeth on a first side of a patient’s arch and second tooth engagement structures (103’) shaped to engage teeth on a second side of a patient’s arch (see Figures 1-4 and [0090-0093]); and
a reinforcement structure within the palatal portion, wherein the reinforcement structure includes at least one fiber fabricated of a second material, different than the first material ([0016], [0090-0093]; such that the reinforcement structure may be ribs, cross-beams, supports, struts and may be made of thermally active material or a spring).
Wu teaches the shape of the palatal expander may be created by creating a triangulated mesh grid during the modeling phase ([0127], [0152]), and the appliance can have variable thickness as desired as to achieve certain material properties and to adjust stiffness. In one instance, a central region of the palatal portion may be made thicker than other regions of the appliance or the palatal region have gradient thicknesses in different directions (see at least [0030-0033], [0091], [0138], [0147], [0153], [0155-0157], [0161-0163] and Figures 23C, 26B). Wu teaches the thickness of the anterior portion of the expander may be varied as compared to the thickness of posterior portion of the expander ([0146-0149]). However, it does not explicitly teach the reinforcement structure is a lattice structure and wherein a density of the lattice structure varies in the anterior-posterior direction.
Wen teaches an orthodontic appliance configured for applying orthodontic forces to the teeth (Col. 7 lines 53-67). Wen teaches the appliance has a free-form lattice structure or may have lattice zones, to modify the stiffness throughout the appliance (see Cols. 9-10). The stiffness of the lattice structure depends on factors such as the structure density, which depends on the unit cell geometry, the unit cell dimensions and the dimensions strips, bars, girders, beams, etc. of the framework (Col. 10 lines 62-65). This is advantageous because it allows having certain regions of the appliance with different stiffness by providing the lattice structure with locally varying unit cell geometries, dimensions, densities, thicknesses (Col. 11 lines 65-67 – Col. 12 lines 1-5). Wen further teaches varying the lattice density provides directional strength across the device (Col. 7 lines 53-67, Col. 8 lines 1-5) and different stiffness regions may be desired to vary the forces such in the molar teeth to provide added force (Col. 12 lines 50-67, Col. 13 lines 1-38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry and variation of the lattice density can provide the desired thickness and stiffness along the anterior and posterior regions as desired.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 1. Wu teaches wherein: the first and second tooth engagement structures are tooth receiving cavities (see Figures).
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Wen and Shanjani teaches the system of claim 1. Wen teaches wherein the lattice structure is a two-dimensional lattice structure (Col. 11 lines 13-25; such that the lattice may be only one layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claims 9-11, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 8 (see rejection above). Wen teaches wherein the two-dimensional lattice structure is formed of a plurality of a plurality of two-dimensional triangular lattice elements (see 70 in Figure 5A and Coll. 5 lines 60-67, Col. 17 lines 1-19) and wherein the plurality of two-dimensional triangular lattice elements include three edges and three vertices (see Fig. 5A), and wherein each edge of each of the plurality of two- dimensional triangular lattice elements is shared with an edge of an adjacent triangular lattice element (see Figure 5A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 1. Wen mentions that a region corresponding to the molar teeth can have different stiffness as to provide added force and that said stiffness can be achieved by varying the lattice geometry, unit cell density or dimensions (Col. 11 lines 65-67 and Col. 12 lines 1-9). Wu teaches the palatal expander having variable thickness to permit different stiffnesses and expansion properties ([0011-0012], [0018]) and specifically variation of the anterior portion of the expander as compared to the posterior portion of the expander ([0146-0149]). In figures 38-39, Wu shows the posterior region of the expander corresponds to the molars and the anterior region of the expander corresponds to at least one premolar.
Therefore, in light of the combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the density of the lattice structure to be greater at a posterior portion of the body than an anterior portion of the body, so as to increase stiffness of the region corresponding to the molars to provide added force at the molar region, if such force distribution is desired for a treatment plan.
Regarding claim 14, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 7 (see rejection above). Wen teaches wherein the lattice structure is a three-dimensional lattice structure (Col. 10 lines 28-35; such that the lattice may be multi-layered).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claims 15-17, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 14 (see rejection above). Wen teaches the lattice may have triangular cell pattern and may be multi-layered (Col. 17 lines 1-19). The lattice may be formed by a plurality of unit cells. The unit cell shape may depend on the required stiffness and can for example be triclinic, monoclinic, orthorhombic, tetragonal, rhombohedral, hexagonal or cubic (Col. 10 lines 28-35). In Figure 5A, Wen shows triangular lattice layers (70, 70’) a middle one of the layers being reconfigured.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the three-dimensional lattice structure to be formed of a plurality of three-dimensional tetrahedron lattice elements, the tetrahedral elements including four faces, and each face of each of the plurality of three-dimensional tetrahedron lattice elements is shared with a face of an adjacent tetrahedron lattice element, because a multilayered triangular cell lattice may be reconfigured to form a tetrahedral 3D pattern if intended, as to optimize stiffness and forces along the appliance.
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 14. wherein the density of the lattice structure is greater at a posterior portion of the body than an anterior portion of the body.
Wen mentions that a region corresponding to the molar teeth can have different stiffness as to provide added force and that said stiffness can be achieved by varying the lattice geometry, unit cell density or dimensions (Col. 11 lines 65-67 and Col. 12 lines 1-9). Wu teaches the palatal expander having variable thickness to permit different stiffnesses and expansion properties ([0011-0012], [0018]) and specifically variation of the anterior portion of the expander as compared to the posterior portion of the expander ([0146-0149]). In figures 38-39, Wu shows the posterior region of the expander corresponds to the molars and the anterior region of the expander corresponds to at least one premolar.
Therefore, in light of the combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the density of the lattice structure to be greater at a posterior portion of the body than an anterior portion of the body, so as to increase stiffness of the region corresponding to the molars to provide added force at the molar region, if such force distribution is desired for a treatment plan.
Regarding claim 20, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 14 (see rejection above). Wu teaches the palatal expander may have different layers and the layers may have different mechanical and/or chemical properties and include different thicknesses or regions of thickness ([0018]). Wu also discloses that the palate-facing surface of the expander may be designed to prevent discomfort and speech disruption as compared to the lingual-facing surface ([0138-0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the palatal expander to have a density of the lattice structure be greater at a palatal roof portion of the body, since it would make it less stiff in that area and therefore prevent discomfort in that region.
Regarding claim 21, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 1. Wen teaches wherein the lattice structure includes lattice elements and vertices, and wherein adjacent lattice elements are coupled together at the vertices (see at least Figures 15A-15D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claim 22, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 1. Wen/Shanjani teaches wherein the lattice elements and vertices define lattice cells having average cell sizes (see at least Figures 15A-15D of Wen) that vary in the anterior-posterior direction (see at least [0167], [0043], [0052], [0128] of Shanjani).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
It would have been further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to have variable properties along the anterior-posterior direction of the device, as taught by Shanjani, because it would accommodate for variation of forces along said regions, if necessary.
Regarding claim 23, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 22. Wen mentions that a region corresponding to the molar teeth can have different stiffness as to provide added force and that said stiffness can be achieved by varying the lattice geometry, unit cell density or dimensions (Col. 11 lines 65-67 and Col. 12 lines 1-9). Wu teaches the palatal expander having variable thickness to permit different stiffnesses and expansion properties ([0011-0012], [0018]) and specifically variation of the anterior portion of the expander as compared to the posterior portion of the expander ([0146-0149]). In figures 38-39, Wu shows the posterior region of the expander corresponds to the molars and the anterior region of the expander corresponds to at least one premolar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the average cell sizes of the lattice to be smaller at a posterior portion of the body than at an anterior portion of the body, since the smaller cell size would provide the posterior portion with increased mesh density, which would increase stiffness of the region corresponding to the molars to provide added force at the molar region, if such force distribution is desired for a treatment plan.
Regarding claim 24, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 21. Wen teaches the lattice elements have diameters of approximately 20 um to approximately 100 um (Col. 10 lines 47-50; such that the lattice elements may have a diameter of 0.1 mm (100 microns)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claim 25, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 21. Wen teaches wherein a diameter of the lattice elements changes along a length of the lattice elements (see at least Figures 15A-15D; such that the lattice elements have tapered geometry and there cross-sectional dimension changes along the length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claim 26, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 1. Wen teaches the first material fully encapsulates the lattice structure within the palatal portion (Col. 12 lines 18-38); such that the lattice structure can be encapsulated, embedded within or enclosed by the polymeric coating material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reinforcement feature be a lattice structure, as taught by Wen, because it would allow optimizing the properties of the appliance based on lattice geometry.
Regarding claim 27, Wu in view of Wen teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach 1, the density of the lattice structure at a posterior edge of the palatal portion is at least two times the density of the lattice structure at an anterior edge of the palatal portion.
Wu teaches the thickness of the anterior region can be 30% to 95% of the thickness of the posterior region ([0146]) and the thickness of the posterior region may be 4.5 mm while the thickness of the anterior region may be 1.5 mm ([0149]) and therefore the thickness of the posterior region may be at least 30% thicker than the anterior region and possibly, in one example, about three times thicker.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the posterior region lattice to be at least two times the density of the lattice at an anterior region, because it would be suitable alternative modification, as compared to thickness variation, for modifying the stiffness of the posterior region relative to the anterior region of the palatal expander.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, 13-17, 19-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same interpretation of the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Although Wen does not teach a specific direction for the lattice variation, Wu teaches variation of the palatal expander specifically in the anterior-posterior direction in order to modify the forces of each region. Moreover, Wen discloses greater force application applied to the molars (Col. 12 lines 50-67, Col. 13 lines 1-38).
Wu teaches controlled thickness/stiffness using reinforcement structures to select the necessary forces and Wen teaches controlled stiffness and thickness by modifying a lattice geometry (including density) to select the necessary forces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the lattice geometry to vary in the claimed direction, since Wu discloses variation of expander properties in that direction, and Wen discloses a variable lattice and possible increased orthodontic forces associated with the molars.
Please note that modifying Wu’s device to include the lattice structure as its reinforcement structure enforces the teachings of Wen regarding the lattice, such that density and cell size of the lattice structure is how the mechanical properties and forces of the device are controlled and varied and would be similarly applied to the modified palatal expander of Wu, and additionally in the directions that Wu discloses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights