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 .
Claims 1-4, 7-12 are pending.
Claims 5-6 are cancelled.
Claims 13-23 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “(d) 3D printing” should read “(d) 3 Dimensional (3D) printing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mouth of the patient”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shivapuja et al, US Patent Pub US 20190388189 A1 (hereinafter Shivapuja).
Claim 1
Shivapuja discloses a process for producing a dental aligner (Shivapuja, para 69, Fig. 37 ref (3702) – A process for producing dental aligners.), wherein the process comprises: (a) making a scan of teeth of a patient (Shivapuja, para 151, 206 – Scanning a patient’s teeth.); (b) developing a treatment plan based on the scan of the teeth for moving at least one tooth of the teeth from a first position to a second position (Shivapuja, para 205-218, Fig. 37 ref (3702) – Planning a case for treatment based on the digital scan of the patient’s teeth to move teeth into a desired position.); (c) developing a force vector matrix based on the developed treatment plan, wherein the force vector matrix comprises a plurality of variables that are known to contribute to force generation of an orthodontic appliance on a patient's tooth (Shivapuja, para 209 – A virtual model/”force vector matrix” simulates and represents the various forces and vectors involved with the modeled tooth movements.); and (d) 3D printing a dental aligner via a 3D printer and based one or more inputs from the scan of the teeth, the developed treatment plan, and/or the developed force vector matrix and comprising a force augmentation geometry, wherein, when the 3D printed dental aligner is worn in the mouth of the patent, the force augmentation geometry applies force(s) onto the at least one tooth of the teeth such that the forces applied by the force augmentation geometry moves the at least one tooth from the first position to the second position. (Shivapuja, para 10, Fig. 37 ref (3702) – 3D printing the dental aligners based on the input scans of the patient’s teeth and the virtual models developed based on the scans, the determined case for treatment including the force to be applied using novel force geometries imparted to the aligners to act upon each tooth when worn in the patient’s mouth)
Claim 3
Shivapuja discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shivapuja further discloses moving the at least one tooth from the first position to the second position according to the developed treatment plan with the force(s) applied to the at least one tooth by the force augmentation geometry. (Shivapuja, para 70, 74-75 – Moving a tooth from a first to second position according to a treatment plan using applied force.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shivapuja et al, US Patent Pub US 20190388189 A1 (hereinafter Shivapuja) as applied to claims 1, 3, above, and in view of Hilliard, US Patent Pub US 20050048433 A1 (hereinafter Hilliard).
Claim 2
Shivapuja discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Shivapuja further discloses the 3D printed dental aligner comprises one or more exterior surfaces and one or more interior surfaces opposite with respect to the one or more exterior surfaces (Shivapuja, para 25, 231, Fig. 10 – The 3D dental aligner has interior and exterior surfaces opposite each other.), and the force augmentation geometry for applying the force(s) onto the at least one tooth comprises at least one selected from: the one or more interior surfaces of the 3D printed dental aligner (Shivapuja, para 193 – Interior surface of the dental aligner applies force to the tooth.); and
But Shivapuja fails to specify a force augmentation generator disposed on the one or more exterior surfaces of the 3D printed dental aligner. -Shivapuja does not disclose this
However Hilliard teaches a force augmentation generator disposed on the one or more exterior surfaces of the 3D printed dental aligner. (Hilliard, para 46 – Mounting tacks/”force augmentation generator” on the exterior surface of a 3D printed aligner.)
Shivapuja and Hilliard are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to dental aligners.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hilliard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a method to exert adjustment force on sections of an aligner covering multiple teeth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hilliard (para 46).
Claim 4
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hilliard further teaches the force augmentation geometry comprises at least the force augmentation generator for applying the force(s) onto the at least one tooth. (Hilliard, para 46 – Mounting tacks/”force augmentation generator” on the exterior surface of a 3D printed aligner.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja and Hilliard, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hilliard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a method to exert adjustment force on sections of an aligner covering multiple teeth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hilliard (para 46).
Claim 7
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard further teaches integrally-forming a receptacle on the one or more exterior surfaces of the 3D printed dental aligner via the 3D printer. (Shivapuja, para 251-252 – Using the 3D printer to form openings/receptacle in the dental aligner.)
Hilliard further teaches the receptacle is sized and/or shaped to receive the force augmentation generator such that the force augmentation generator is removably attached to the 3D printed dental aligner via the receptacle. (Hilliard, para 43, 119-121, Figs 8-9 refs (30, 30a, 30b) – Holes/receptacles are sized and shaped to receive the aligner auxiliaries/”force augmentation generator” that are threaded/removable.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja and Hilliard, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hilliard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a method to exert adjustment force on sections of an aligner covering multiple teeth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hilliard (para 46).
Claim 8
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hilliard further teaches the force augmentation generator is in a form of at least insertable one bar, at least one insertable band, at least insertable one spring, or at least one insertable wire. (Hilliard, para 46-48, 118-119 – Tack/”force augmentation generator” that have attached elastic bands, rectangular wires/bar, wires, or springs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja and Hilliard, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hilliard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a method to exert adjustment force on sections of an aligner covering multiple teeth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hilliard (para 46).
Claim 9
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hilliard further teaches the integrally-formed receptacle is a tunnel and the force augmentation generator is in the form of at least one insertable spring or at least one insertable wire. (Hilliard, para 46-48, 118-119, 121 – Tack/”force augmentation generator” that have attached wires or springs mounted in a round/tunnel shaped hole.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja and Hilliard, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hilliard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a method to exert adjustment force on sections of an aligner covering multiple teeth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hilliard (para 46).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shivapuja et al, US Patent Pub US 20190388189 A1 (hereinafter Shivapuja) as applied to claims 1, 3, above, and in view of Hilliard, US Patent Pub US 20050048433 A1 (hereinafter Hilliard) as applied to claims 2, 4, 7-9 above, and in view of Benarouch et al, US Patent Pub US 20210137644 A1 (hereinafter Benarouch).
Claim 10
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard fails to specify integrally-forming one or more fasteners on or with the one or more exterior surfaces of the 3D printed dental aligner via the 3D printer, wherein the force augmentation generator is extendible around or over the integrally-formed one or more fasteners such that the force augmentation generator is removable attached to the 3D printed dental aligner via the integrally-formed one or more fasteners.
However Benarouch teaches integrally-forming one or more fasteners on or with the one or more exterior surfaces of the 3D printed dental aligner via the 3D printer, wherein the force augmentation generator is extendible around or over the integrally-formed one or more fasteners such that the force augmentation generator is removable attached to the 3D printed dental aligner via the integrally-formed one or more fasteners. (, para 44-50, 111, 122 – A fastener formed on the aligner exterior surface during the 3D printing process to allow attachment and removal of a bracket member that applies a force to the aligner.)
Shivapuja, Hilliard, and Benarouch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to dental aligners.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja and Hilliard, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Benarouch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce the amount of time spent and discomfort to the patient during development of the dental device by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Benarouch (para 10-11).
Claim 11
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hilliard further teaches the force augmentation generator is at least one extendible elastic or rubber band. (Hilliard, para 46-47 – Force is applied to the tack/”force augmentation generator” using attached elastic bands.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja, Hilliard, and Benarouch, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hilliard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a method to exert adjustment force on sections of an aligner covering multiple teeth by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hilliard (para 46).
Claim 12
The combination of Shivapuja and Hilliard teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Benarouch further teaches the integrally-formed one or more fasteners comprise hooks, posts, and/or tabs. (Benarouch, para 126 – Integrally formed hooks, sheaths, spacers, abutment/post, crosspiece/tab.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above dental aligner, as taught by Shivapuja, Hilliard, and Benarouch, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Benarouch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce the amount of time spent and discomfort to the patient during development of the dental device by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Benarouch (para 10-11).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matov et al, US Patent Pub US 20190282333 A1 relates to claims regarding establishing an initial position of a tooth, determining a target position of the tooth in a treatment plan, calculating a movement vector associated with the tooth movement from the initial position to the target position, determining a plurality of components corresponding to the movement vector, and determining a corresponding one or more positions of a respective one or more attachment devices relative to a surface plane of the tooth such that the one or more attachment devices engages with a dental appliance.
Shojaei et al, US Patent Pub US 20220160467 relates to claims regarding designing an orthodontic treatment system or force system, 3-dimensional (3D) force-displacement model, moving one or more teeth, and a stiffness matrix.
Matov et al, US Patent Pub US 20130204583 A1 relates to claims regarding creating a virtual set of teeth from initial orthodontic data, determining one or more forces applied to the teeth based on information, and anchors or other attachments to aligner surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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 on 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights