DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 Information Disclosure Statement, filed 17 January 2025 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment to the claims filed on 07 October 2024, and the application is being examined on the basis of the amended disclosure.
Claims 2-21 are pending.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are objected to for containing allowable subject matter in improper dependent form.
Claims 2-6, 9-16, and 19-21 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of Application 17/827,507 (now US patent # 12,070,369) and has been accorded the benefit of the original priority date.
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) 2-3, 6, 9-11, 13-14, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin III, et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/328493 in view of Pospisil, et al., US Pg-Pub 2009/017411.
Regarding Claim 2, Griffin teaches:
A method of manufacturing customized orthodontic [appliances] for patients, the method comprising: obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) model of one or more teeth of a patient; (see fig. 1, steps 102, 104; “construct 3D CAD model of teeth”)
generating a 3D model of an orthodontic [appliance] structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth of the patient ([0051] “[0051] In 108, the bracket (or brackets) is designed by the software based on the input 3D CAD model of the measured teeth, the model of the desired treatment outcomes, and the input additional information. The output of the design process may be a 3D CAD model.”)
at least in part by: determining a polymerization pattern ([0010] “The ceramic slurry-based AM machine may comprise a vat adapted to hold the bracket during manufacturing, a horizontal build platform adapted to be held at a settable height above the vat bottom, an exposure unit, adapted to be controlled for position selective exposure of a surface on the horizontal build platform with an intensity pattern with predetermined geometry”) to be applied by an additive manufacturing device during manufacturing, ([0010] “The ceramic slurry-based AM machine may comprise a molding compartment comprising a platform and a plunger to directly produce the bracket by layer manufacturing”)
the polymerization pattern indicating a varying level of polymerization across a plurality of locations in the orthodontic [appliance]; (e.g. “intensity pattern”, see also [0071] “PDCs structured using light in a stereolithographic or mask exposure process may also be used as a ceramic AM method for bracket fabrication.”)
and using an additive manufacturing device ([0073] “layering additive manufacturing (AM) methodology of the labial/lingual orthodontic brackets by lithography-based DLP”) to produce a customized orthodontic [appliance] based on the 3D model of the orthodontic [appliance] structure at least in part by applying polymerization at the plurality of locations in the orthodontic tube structure according to the polymerization pattern. ([0074] “ a light-polymerizable material, the material being located in at least one trough, having a particularly light-transmissive, horizontal bottom, is polymerized by illumination on at least one horizontal platform, the platform having a pre-specified geometry and projecting into a trough, in an illumination field, wherein the platform is displaced vertically to form a subsequent layer, light-polymerizable material is then added to the most recently formed layer, and repetition of the foregoing steps leads to the layered construction of the orthodontic bracket in the desired prescription/mold, which arises from the succession of layer geometries determined from the CAD software.”)
Griffin differs from the claimed invention in that Griffin is directed to an orthodontic bracket, not an orthodontic tube. However Pospisil teaches [0005] “End sections of the archwire are typically captured in appliances known as buccal tubes that are affixed to the patient's molar teeth. After installation in the patient's mouth, the brackets, archwires, and buccal tubes are typically referred to collectively as "braces".”
Pospisil is analogous art because it is representative of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would have had prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element etc.) with other components – the teachings of Griffin, which differ by the substitution of orthodontic brackets for the claimed orthodontic tubes; 2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; - as exemplified by e.g. Pospisil which discusses that buccal tubes are part of the overall assemblage of orthodontic appliances that are collectively referred to as “braces”, along with brackets and archwires. 3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable at least because these are each related appliances as taught by Pospisil. (see [0005]).
Regarding Claims 13, 20, and 21, Griffin teaches the further features of the processor, ([0076] “Computer system 700 includes one or more processors (CPUs)” ) non-transitory readable media ([0101] “the present invention are capable of being distributed in the form of a computer program product including a computer readable medium of instructions”), and the additive manufacturing device ([0054] “the 3D CAD bracket structure model is transmitted to or imported into a 3D production machine, such as a ceramic slurry-based AM machine and the ceramic brackets are produced”). These claims recite substantively the same subject matter discussed with respect to claim 1, except embodied as a System, a System, and a non-transitory computer readable media, respectively; Mutatis mutandis these claims are accordingly also obvious over Griffin in view of Pospisil.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 13, respectively;
Griffin further teaches:
(claim 3 representative) configuring the polymerization pattern to indicate that polymerization is to be activated at a first subset of the plurality of locations and deactivated at a second subset of the plurality of locations. ([0011] “controlling the exposure unit so as to selectively expose” “the machine may use a X-Y pixel resolution from about 5 to about 100 μm.”; nb. that is, the machine selectively exposes a first subset of pixels (e.g. representing the present layer of the .stl part, which are to be cured) and does not polymerize a second subset of pixels (e.g. representing the remainder of the vat of slurry which is not part of the present layer of the .stl part.)
Regarding Claim 6, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Griffin further teaches:
further comprising integrating the polymerization pattern into the 3D model of the orthodontic tube structure. ([0053] “3D CAD bracket structure models are processed to generate manufacturing control data for use by the production equipment. For example, where the ceramic slurry-based AM equipment is used to produce the brackets, the software slices the 3D CAD bracket structure models to separate it into thin layers and get the horizontal section model for each layer. Based on this section model, the DLP equipment can directly produce ceramic brackets, ensuring the shape of each layer is consistent to the 3D CAD structure data.”)
(nb. Pospisil relied upon to teach specifically an orthodontic tube)
Regarding Claim 9, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Griffin further teaches:
wherein applying polymerization at the plurality of locations in the orthodontic tube structure according to the polymerization pattern results in a reduction of overpolymerization relative to polymerization without adherence to the polymerization pattern. (see fig. 9 and [0084] “Also shown are the desired slot wall position 908 and a compensation angle 910 for the walls 912 of slot 906, which may be utilized to counteract shrinkage due to over-polymerization and achieve parallel slot walls 912 of a desired dimension.” Nb. by changing the surface geometry of the to be exposed CAD model (i.e. changing the polymerization pattern of the region near the surface geometry) results in a reduction of overpolymerization in the hollow region of the part.)
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 13,
Griffin further teaches:
(Claim 10 representative) determining the polymerization pattern based on specifications of the additive manufacturing device. (see e.g. [0055] “The higher resolution of this process is made possible by the LED light's digital mirror device (DMD) chip and optics used. (Stereo-)Lithography-based ceramic manufacturing (LCM) has improved this process making it more accurate with higher resolution (40 μm) and rigidity.” Discussing varying the resolution of the procedure based on the specifications of the AM device (e.g. type of device))
(nb. examiner notes this feature is recited in the alternative in claim 19, see MPEP 2173.05(h))
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 2 and 13,
Griffin further teaches:
(Claim 11 representative) determining the polymerization pattern based on dimensions of the orthodontic structure. (see fig. 9 and [0084] “Also shown are the desired slot wall position 908 and a compensation angle 910 for the walls 912 of slot 906, which may be utilized to counteract shrinkage due to over-polymerization and achieve parallel slot walls 912 of a desired dimension.”)
(nb. examiner notes this feature is recited in the alternative in claim 19, see MPEP 2173.05(h))
Claim(s) 4-5, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Pospisil, further in view of Morovic et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0318186.
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 3 and 14,
Griffin in view of Pospisil differs from the claimed invention in that:
Neither reference clearly articulates: (Claim 4 representative) configuring the polymerization pattern to indicate alternating between activating polymerization and deactivating polymerization across the plurality of locations.
However, Examiner notes that this is a well-known practice in the art of 3D manufacturing, referred to as “half-toning”, exemplified by Morovic, ([0009] “For sharp contours the discreet approach may be ideal, but if more detailed objects are to be created or even if solid material structures are to be generated, means for creating areas of intermediate density have to be applied, such as halftoning or dithering.”) which involves alternating between active and inactive pixels. ([0015] “The halftone matrix may be any suitable halftone or threshold matrix as used in 2D halftoning, which may be a dispersed-dot type matrix, such as white-noise or void-and-cluster, or clustered-dot type matrix, such as green-noise, AM-screen like patterns, or others.”)
Morovic is analogous art because it is representative of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application regarding additive manufacturing techniques.
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” – the teachings of Griffin, upon which the claimed alternating pattern may be viewed as an improvement; 2) the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, product, etc.) – the teachings of Morovic which describe a technique of half-toning in additive manufacturing to control the resulting density of the manufactured product. 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results (i.e. control of density) and resulted in an improved system at least because Morovic expressly teaches the technique is suitable for realizing density control in additive manufacturing; ([0009] “Objects are typically represented using continuous values or nearly continuous values, such as floating point numbers, in order to define structure, contours and other material properties of the object. However, additive manufacturing or printing typically is a binary or bi-level process: the process can either deposit material or ink on a given layer to define a discrete structure, or deposit no material or ink to leave the structure void. For sharp contours the discreet approach may be ideal, but if more detailed objects are to be created or even if solid material structures are to be generated, means for creating areas of intermediate density have to be applied, such as halftoning or dithering.”) and accordingly the use of the technique would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application (See MPEP 2143.I.D)
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Griffin in view of Pospisil and Morovic teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 4 and 15,
Morovic further teaches:
configuring the polymerization pattern to indicate that polymerization is to be activated at a first set of pixels and deactivated at one or more pixels adjacent to the first set of pixels. ([0015] “The halftone matrix may be any suitable halftone or threshold matrix as used in 2D halftoning, which may be a dispersed-dot type matrix, such as white-noise or void-and-cluster, or clustered-dot type matrix, such as green-noise, AM-screen like patterns, or others.”)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Pospisil, further in view of Kerekes, et al., US Pg-Pub 2008/0054531.
Regarding Claim 12, Griffin in view of Pospisil teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 2,
Griffin further teaches:
wherein the plurality of locations in the orthodontic tube structure are represented by a plurality of pixels ([0013] “The 3D CAD model may be saved as an .stl file or other 3D vector file. The thickness of the manufactured layers may be from about 5 to about 100 micrometers (μm), and the machine may use a X-Y pixel resolution from about 5 to about 100 μm. )
Griffin in view of Pospisil differs from the claimed invention in that:
and the polymerization pattern indicates a level of polymerization to be applied at each of the plurality of pixels.
However, Examiner notes that this is a well-known practice in the art of 3D manufacturing, referred to as “greyscaling”, exemplified by Kerekes ([0034] “utilizing the inherent fuzziness of pixels and employing gray scale exposure levels for each boundary pixel to vary the level of light intensity during exposure of a photocurable solidifiable build material, such as a liquid resin formulation, permits the gray scale value of a projected boundary pixel to control the polymerization boundary of the solidifiable photopolymer build material forming the object in that pixel in a single exposure to achieve much greater build object accuracy”) where the exposure pattern represents a level of exposure to be applied to each pixel ([0044] “FIG. 12 shows boundary pixels covered by a straight line boundary of an object in an image area with the levels of gray scale values being 0 outside of the object boundary, ranging from 90 to 240 along the boundary pixels and being 255 inside the object.”)
Accordingly, Examiner finds 1) the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” – the teachings of Griffin, upon which the claimed alternating pattern may be viewed as an improvement; 2) the prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, product, etc.) – the teachings of Kerekes which describe a technique of grey scaling in additive manufacturing to control the resulting smoothness of a surface of the manufactured product. 3) one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results (i.e. surface smoothness) and resulted in an improved system at least because Kerekes expressly teaches the technique is suitable for realizing more accurate control in additive manufacturing; ([0038] “the gray scale value of a projected boundary pixel to control the polymerization boundary of the solidifiable photopolymer build material forming the object in that pixel in a single exposure to achieve much greater build object accuracy and wall smoothness of the solid image or three-dimensional part being built.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, 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: while Griffin III, Pospisil, Morovic, and Kerekes teach many of the limitations and features of the claimed invention as set forth in the rejections above, none of the references alone or in reasonable combination appear to teach or fairly suggest all of the limitations of the claimed invention, particularly:
(Claim 7)
adding a plurality of mortises into the 3D model of the orthodontic tube structure based on the polymerization pattern, the plurality of mortises indicating areas in the 3D model of the orthodontic tube structure at which to stop polymerization.
(excerpted)
…in combination with the remaining features and limitations of the claim, the parent claim, and any intervening claim(s).
Dependent Claim 17 recites substantively the same subject matter identified with respect to claim 7 above. Accordingly, mutatis mutandis, these claims are likewise persuasive for the above noted reason(s).
Dependent Claims 8 and 18, being definite, fully enabled, further limiting, and dependent upon the above noted claim(s) are likewise persuasive for at least the above noted reason(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishibe et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0370149 – describing a half-toning technique which rapidly toggles the on/off status of an individual pixel to achieve an intermediate radiation intensity for that pixel.
Das et al., US Pg-Pub 2010/003619 – describing an Additive manufacturing system where each layer is encoded/transmitted to the machine as a bitmap image comprised of pixels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights