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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 and 10/31/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,552. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because regarding claims 1-20,
18/806,587 (Instant application)
12,073,552 (US Patent)
Claims 1 and 15:
generate one or more images of a three-dimensional (3D) printed orthodontic appliance associated with a dental arch of a patient; and a computing device configured to: receive the one or more images of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance; process the one or more images of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance to determine probabilities of one or more types of manufacturing defects for the 3D printed orthodontic appliance; and determine whether to use the 3D printed orthodontic appliance for orthodontic treatment of the patient based on the probabilities of the one or more types of manufacturing defects.
Claim 1:
generating a plurality of images of the 3D printed mold for the orthodontic aligner using one or more imaging devices, wherein each image of the plurality of images depicts a distinct region of the 3D printed mold for the orthodontic aligner; processing the plurality of images by a processing device to identify one or more types of manufacturing defects of the 3D printed mold for the orthodontic aligner, wherein for each type of manufacturing defect a probability that an image comprises a defect of that type of manufacturing defect is determined; and classifying, by the processing device, the 3D printed mold for the orthodontic aligner as defective based on identifying the one or more types of manufacturing defects.
Claim 2:
determine that the 3D printed orthodontic appliance is defective based on the probabilities of the one or more types of manufacturing defects; classify the 3D printed orthodontic appliance as defective; and print a new 3D printed orthodontic appliance associated with the dental arch of the patient.
Claim 13:
determining that the mold is not usable to form the orthodontic aligner; classifying the mold as defective; and printing a new mold associated with the dental arch of the patient.
Claims 3, 10 and 16:
wherein a machine learning model trained to identify the one or more types of manufacturing defects of a 3D printing process is used to process the one or more images, wherein an output of the machine learning model comprises, for each type of manufacturing defect, a probability that the one or more images comprises a defect of that type of manufacturing defect.
Claim 2:
wherein the processing is performed using a machine learning model trained to identify one or more types of manufacturing defects of a 3D printing process, wherein an output of the machine learning model comprises, for each type of manufacturing defect, a probability that an image of the plurality of images comprises a defect of that type of manufacturing defect.
Claims 4 and 17:
determine that the 3D printed orthodontic appliance comprises one or more defects based on the probabilities of the one or more types of manufacturing defects; determine a severity of the one or more defects; and determine, based at least in part of the severity of the one or more defects, that the one or more defects alone or together will degrade a performance of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance.
Claim 9:
determining that the mold comprises one or more defects based on the quality-related properties; determining a severity of the one or more defects; and determining, based at least in part of the severity of the one or more manufacturing defects, that the one or more manufacturing defects alone or together will degrade a performance of the mold.
Claims 5 and 14:
Wherein the one or more types of manufacturing defect comprise at least one of a break or a hole in a wall of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance.
Claim 23:
Wherein the one or more types of manufacturing defect comprise at least one of a break or a hole in a wall of the 3D printed mold.
Claims 6 and 20:
A 3D printer configured to print the 3D printed orthodontic appliance based on a digital model of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance.
Claim 17:
A three-dimensional (3D) printer, to generate a 3D printed mold associated with a dental arch of a patient based on a digital model of the 3D printed mold; an image capture device, to generate one or more images of the 3D printed mold; and a processor, to: receive the one or more images of the 3D printed mold; process the one or more images of the 3D printed mold to determine one or more quality-related properties of the 3D printed mold; and determine whether to use the 3D printed mold to form an orthodontic aligner based on the one or more quality-related properties.
Claim 7
Wherein the one or more images comprise one or more two-dimensional (2D) images.
Claim 20:
an additional image capture device to generate one or more images of the orthodontic aligner; wherein the processor is further to determine whether the orthodontic aligner has a manufacturing defect based on processing the one or more images of the orthodontic aligner.
Claim 8:
Wherein the one or more images comprise one or more 3D images.
Claim 20:
An additional image capture device to generate one or more images of the orthodontic aligner; wherein the processor is further to determine whether the orthodontic aligner has a manufacturing defect based on processing the one or more images of the orthodontic aligner
Claims 9, 11 and 19
One or more light sources configured to illuminate the 3D printed orthodontic appliance during generation of the one or more images; wherein the computing device is configured to determine settings to use for the one or more light sources for illumination of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance.
Claim 7:
determining a digital file associated with the 3D printed mold; determining, from the digital file associated with the 3D printed mold, a geometry associated with at least one surface of the 3D printed mold; selecting a light source arrangement to provide illumination of the 3D printed mold based on the at least one surface; and providing the illumination of the 3D printed mold using the light source arrangement, wherein the illumination provided by the light source arrangement enhances one or more features of the 3D printed mold to facilitate capture of one or more features of the 3D printed mold.
Claim 12:
Wherein the computing device is configured to determine the settings based at least in part on a shape of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance.
Claim 10:
Wherein the thermoforming equipment is to thermoform the orthodontic aligner over the 3D printed mold responsive to a determination by the processor that the 3D printed mold is usable to form the orthodontic aligner
Claim 13
Wherein the 3D printed orthodontic appliance is an orthodontic aligner.
Claim 10:
Wherein the thermoforming equipment is to thermoform the orthodontic aligner over the 3D printed mold responsive to a determination by the processor that the 3D printed mold is usable to form the orthodontic aligner
Claim 18:
Wherein the one or more types of manufacturing defect comprise at least one of an internal volume defect within an internal volume of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance, a surface defect on a surface of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance, or an interface defect at an interface of an internal volume of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance and a surface of the 3D printed orthodontic appliance.
Claim 6:
Wherein the one or more types of manufacturing defect comprise at least an interface defect at an interface of an internal volume of the 3D printed mold and a surface of the 3D printed mold.
Related Prior Art
Wen (10,548,690) configured to generate one or more images of a three-dimensional (3D) printed orthodontic appliance associated with a dental arch of a patient (note col. 31 lines 15-25, 3D representation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
July 28, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights