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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
Claim 10 is not supported by the disclosure of the provisional application (63583906), as Paragraph [0071] of states 2 degrees to 15 degrees, not 1 degree to 15 degrees.
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-9, and 11-20 is 09/20/2023. The priority date for claim 10 is 09/19/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “720” has been used to designate both the "Image capturing input(s)" and the "Processing Node". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 9 has a floating number "7" in the figure
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1010, 1022 1030. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0027] describes the method of Fig. 2 as "200", comprising steps "210" and "220"; however, Fig. 2 shows "300", "310" and "320"
Paragraph [0033] describes a system "1400"; however, Fig. 4 shows "400".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 3 should be corrected to “one or more processors and a memory”.
Line 4, “the method” should be “a method”
Claim 5
Lines 1-2 should be corrected to, “the degrees of freedom are configured for activation”. This is consistent with how the degrees of freedom are defined in claim 7.
Claim 6
Lines 1-2 should be corrected to, “the degrees of freedom are configured for retention”. This is consistent with how the degrees of freedom are defined in claim 7.
Claim 7
Line 2, “the degrees of freedom for retention” should be “the degrees of freedom for activation”.
Claim 12
Line 2, “transition along the y-axis” should be corrected to “translation along the y-axis”.
Claim 13
Line 2 should be corrected to, “a final set of contact surfaces”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Determination as to whether the claims are directed to a statutory category as specified in 35 U.S.C. 101 (MPEP 2106.03)
The claim(s) recite(s) a system for performing a method, which falls into the category of an apparatus.
Step 2A Prong 1 – Determination as to whether the claims recite a Judicial Exception including an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP 2106.04)
Regarding claim 1, although a system is disclosed, the system of the processor and memory is merely a conventional means of executing the mental processes (determining a desired force system, generating a population of sets of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces, determining a force system, updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom, generating a final set of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces) and mathematical formulas (evaluating a cost function) of claim 1. Orthodontists are capable of determining a desired force system and iteratively adjusting the appliance to elicit the desired force system, and this has been accomplished without the use of a computer, such as manually forming arch-wires to move a patient’s teeth based on patient feedback and biomechanical principles.
Dependent claims 2-19 recite additional limitations further defining the force system, degrees of freedom and contact surfaces which amounts to further narrowing the abstract idea and mathematical formulas without introducing a practical application of the method.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Determination as to whether the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Regarding claims 1-19, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea(s) to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The use of a memory and processor to execute the method is insignificant extra solution activity and does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood and conventional. For at least these reasons and as claims 1-19 do not recite additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts identified for claims 1-19 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B – Determination as to whether the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Regarding claims 1-19, as set forth above with respect to Step 2A Prong One, the claimed method steps are all capable of being performed mentally and represent nothing more than concepts related to performing observations, evaluations, and judgements, which fall within the judicial exception. The claimed mental processes (determining a desired force system, generating a population of sets of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces, determining a force system, updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom, generating a final set of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces) and mathematical formulas (evaluating a cost function) require nothing more than a generic computer processor. The disclosure does not describe additional features to suggest these devices are beyond a generic component for the apparatus. Additionally, the design method is not disclosed as improving the manner in which the apparatus operates. Mere recitation of generic conventional processing used in a conventional manner to perform conventional computer functions that are well understood and routine does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. The claims do not go beyond inputting data (“generating”) and processing data (“determining”, “evaluating”, “updating”) with a standard computer.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. The claims set forth do not require that the method be implemented by a particular machine and they do not require that the method particularly transforms a particular article. When viewed as a combination, the identified additional elements set forth a process of analyzing information of specific content and are not directed to any particularly asserted inventive technology for performing these functions. The disclosure and claims do not require anything beyond a generic computer to obtain and analyze the data according to mathematical algorithms. Therefore, the claimed method and apparatus fall within the judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
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) 1-9, 11-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20090191502 A1), herein referred to as Cao, in view of Shvalb et al. (WO 2021124335 A1), herein referred to as Shvalb; refer to the provided translation for Shvalb.
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a system for generating orthodontic aligner shapes (refer to Paragraph [0126]; a computer system implements the invention), the system (refer to Paragraph [0126]) comprising:
one or more processors (Refer to Paragraph [0124]; a processing unit executes disclosed method) and memory (refer to Paragraph [0125]; a read only memory/ and or a random access memory are utilized) comprising instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (refer to Paragraph [0124]), causes the system (refer to Paragraph [0126]) to carry out the method (refer to Paragraphs [0124]-[0125]; the processor receives instructions from the memory to implement the computer program for performing the disclosed method) comprising:
(a) determining a desired force system for moving a tooth (refer to Paragraph [0077]; an orthodontically optimal amount of force is determined for each tooth in a segment of the treatment plan)
(b) generating a population of sets of degrees of freedom (refer to Paragraphs [0074], [0077], [0109], [0117]; Examiner understands “degrees of freedom” as the change(s) in appliance geometry, where appliance geometry is defined in 3D space (see Paragraphs [0022], [0072] of Specification); the appliance geometry is modified using reliefs and protrusions for each segmented path; the treatment plan, comprising the series of segmented paths, equates to the population) and contact surfaces (Refer to Paragraphs [0117], [0121]; the shaped features associated with the changes/modifications in appliance geometry are determined for contact with the corresponding tooth at that treatment stage);
(c) determining a force system for each of the sets in the population (refer to Paragraph [0117]; a force profile and attributes are determined from each movement vector which includes magnitude and direction of force)
(d) evaluating each of the force systems compared to the desired force system (refer to Paragraphs [0079], [0097], Fig. 2; as part of the appliance calculation step (200), the forces applied to the teeth by the finite element model of the in place aligner (210) are evaluated on whether they are orthodontically acceptable (232));
(e) updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom (refer to Paragraphs [0084], [0086], [0096], [0097], Fig. 8; the aligner shape(s) are further modified based on redefined treatment paths (632) in a subprocess (400); the series of segmented paths (sets) equates to the population) and contact surfaces based on the evaluation of each of the force systems (refer to Paragraphs [0084], [0086], [0101], [0117], Fig. 4; based on the evaluation (232) from the appliance calculation step (200), the aligner shape is modified in a subprocess (400) by adding or removing material, such as shaped features (protrusions, ridges, dimples)) and
(f) repeating (c) through (e) until the determined force system for one of the sets matches the desired force system to generate a final set of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces (refer to Paragraph [0096]; after the treatment path has been redefined, thereby redefining the movement vector and associated force profile, the outer loop is executed again; the outer loop execution includes re-calculation of the appliances (200), another evaluation on whether they are orthodontically acceptable (232), and updates to the treatment plan (630) and aligner shape (400)).
While Cao discloses comparing the force system to the desired force system and updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces based on the evaluation of each of the force systems (refer to Paragraphs [0096]-[0097], [0084], [0086], [0101], [0121], Figs. 4, 6), Cao is silent to evaluating a cost function of each of the force systems compared to the desired force system and updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces based on the cost function of each of the force systems.
Shvalb discloses a method of forming an optimal orthodontic wire shape in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0016]). The method comprises the steps of
(d) evaluating a cost function of each of the force systems compared to the desired force system (refer to Paragraph [0075], Fig. 2; a cost function is minimized based on the model of the mechanical forces applied by the wire);
(e) updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces based on the cost function of each of the force systems (refer to Paragraph [0016], Fig. 2; the shape of the wire is updated based on the optimization determined from the cost function).
This method, similar to Applicant’s method produces an optimal shape of the appliance for optimal application of force to the patient’s teeth (refer to Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method steps of evaluating each of the force systems compared to the desired force system and updating the population of sets of degrees of freedom and contact surfaces based on the evaluation of each of the force systems as taught by Cao (refer to Paragraphs [0096]-[0097], [0084], [0086], [0101], [0121], Figs. 4, 6), with using a cost-function as taught by Shvalb, as Shvalb teaches this method as an equivalent means of producing an optimal shape of the appliance for optimal application of force to the patient’s teeth (refer to Paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 2, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 1; Cao further discloses wherein the force system is based on a movement of a tooth in a stage of an orthodontic treatment plan (refer to Paragraph [0117]; a movement vector associated with tooth movement for a segment of the tooth path (treatment stage) is generated for each tooth; the magnitude and direction of force and torque are determined from the movement vector).
Regarding claim 3, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 2; Cao further discloses wherein the movement is rotation (refer to Paragraph [0077]; each step of the treatment path follows simple rotation).
Regarding claim 4, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 2, wherein the movement is translation (refer to Paragraph [0077]; each step of the treatment path follows straight line movement).
Regarding claim 5, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 1; Cao further discloses wherein the degrees of freedom are activation degrees of freedom (refer to Paragraphs [0105], [0106], annotated Fig. 11C below; a predetermined relief is added, modifying the aligner geometry to provide the desired force for moving the tooth).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 5; Cao further discloses wherein the degrees of freedom are retention degrees of freedom (refer to Paragraph [0107], annotated Fig. 12 below; the dental appliance is modified to remove a gap between the dental appliance and tooth, thereby improving retention).
PNG
media_image2.png
809
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 6; Cao further discloses wherein the degrees of freedom for retention are different than the degrees of freedom for retention (refer to Paragraphs [0105]-[0107], annotated Figs. 11C, 12 above; Examiner understands this claims as the active and retention degrees of freedom are different; the active degrees of freedom result in the desired predetermined force being applied to the tooth, while the retention degrees of freedom eliminate gaps or pockets (distortion) formed when the aligner is in the active state).
Regarding claim 8, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 7; Cao further discloses wherein the degrees of freedom are selected from three rotational degrees of freedom about three orthogonal axis and three translations degrees of freedom along the three orthogonal axis (refer to Paragraphs [0034], [0045], [0113]; the aligner geometry is modified to elicit the movement vector, where movements (translations and rotation) are in any direction in any plane of three dimensional space, thus the aligner geometry is also modified in any plane of three dimensional space).
Regarding claim 9, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 8; Cao further discloses wherein a range of translation in the translation degrees of freedom is between 0.05mm and 1mm (refer to Paragraph [0105]; the predetermined relief is in the range or 0.1-0.3mm)
Regarding claim 11, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 1; Cao does not explicitly disclose wherein the final set of degrees of freedom include a retention degree of freedom along the z-axis of the tooth for intrusion (refer to Paragraphs [0059], [0108], annotated Fig. 4B below; the aligner shape geometry is optimized to address the formed gap or pocket
Cao discloses that the aligner shape geometry is optimized to address the formed gap or pocket (refer to Paragraph [0108]), meaning the geometry is modified in the direction which eliminates the pocket or gap. As demonstrated in annotated Fig. 12 above, the set of degrees of freedom for retention is a results effective variable, as modifying the degrees of freedom is equivalent to modifying the appliance geometry to correct distortion. In the instance that the observed distortion is in the z-axis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in eliminating the pocket or gap, by modifying the appliance geometry in the z-axis such that the appliance is capable of eliciting intrusion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention degree of freedom along the z-axis of the tooth for intrusion in the final set of degrees of freedom as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 12, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 11; Cao further discloses wherein the final set of degrees of freedom include two activation degrees of freedom, including transition in a mesial-distal direction (refer to Paragraphs [0054]-[0056], [0117]; shaped features are provided for accomplishing mesial or distal translation), and rotational, for angulation (refer to Paragraphs [0048], [0066]-[0067]; one or more protrusions are formed for translation and rotation movements).
Cao does not explicitly disclose the translation as occurring along the y-axis and the rotation occurring about the x-axis.
Cao discloses that the aligner shape geometry is optimized for the desired direction of movement (refer to Paragraph [0117]), meaning the geometry is modified in the direction to ensure the planned movement. As demonstrated in annotated Fig. 11 above, the set of degrees of freedom for activation is a results effective variable, as modifying the degrees of freedom is equivalent to modifying the appliance geometry to elicit the desired movement. In the instance that the desired translation is in the y-axis, and the desired rotation is in the x-axis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in providing shaped features for movement in the corresponding directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include y-axis translation and x-axis rotation as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 13, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 12; Cao further discloses wherein final set of contact surfaces include a bubble and a pressure point (refer to Paragraphs [0036], [0039], [0117], Figs. 2A-2B, annotated Fig. 11C above; a combination of shaped features are included in the appliance cavity, including interior and exterior protrusions, reliefs dimples and ridges).
PNG
media_image3.png
811
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
812
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 1; Cao further discloses wherein the method further comprises fabricating the aligner based on the contact surfaces (refer to Paragraph [0078]; the appliances are manufactured based on the defined processes).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20090191502 A1), herein referred to as Cao, in view of Shvalb et al. (WO 2021124335 A1), herein referred to as Shvalb (refer to the provided translation for Shvalb) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kuo'1 (US 20070129991 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claims 1 and 8; Cao further discloses the degrees of freedom being defined based on the movement vector, where the movement vector includes translation and rotation movement in all three planes (refer to Paragraphs [0034], [0048], [0117]; however, both references are silent to a range of rotation in the rotational degrees of freedom is between 1 degree and 15 degrees and the range of the retention degree of freedom is between 0.05mm and 1mm.
Kuo’1 discloses a method of digital dental treatment in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0009]). The method discloses a data mining step (Fig. 1A), with the goal range of rotational motion as 0-12 degrees (Fig. 1B), and the goal range of translation as 0-1.5mm (absolute value) (refer to Paragraphs [0064], [0067]). Thus, Kuo teaches the range of movements associated with the movement vectors. Cao also teaches that as the aligner is fit over the patient’s teeth, the aligner is distorted and then relaxes into place, applying force to the teeth to move the teeth along a desired path (refer to Paragraph [0083]); however, while relaxing into place, the appliance distorts based on the movement vector (refer to Paragraph [0113]). As the appliance distorts based on the movement vector, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in defining the range of degrees of freedom based on the range of movements associated with the movement vectors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the degrees of freedom as taught by Cao and Shvalb to include a range of rotation in the rotational degrees of freedom as between 1 degree and 15 degrees and the range of the retention degree of freedom as between 0.05mm and 1mm based on the teachings of the range of movements by Kuo’1 (refer to Paragraphs [0064], [0067], Figs. 1A-1B).
Further, in terms of the overlapping ranges provided, it would have been obvious to modify the rotational range (0-12 degrees) and translation retention range (0-1.5mm) of Kuo’1 to the rotational range of 1-15 degrees and translation retention range of 0.5mm-1mm since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I. Of note, Applicant has not assigned criticality to this range (see Paragraph [0072] of Specification).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20090191502 A1), herein referred to as Cao, in view of Shvalb et al. (WO 2021124335 A1), herein referred to as Shvalb (refer to the provided translation for Shvalb) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Knopp et al. (US 20050106525 A1), herein referred to as Knopp.
Regarding claim 14, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 13; neither reference discloses wherein the bubble is located occlusal to the pressure point.
Knopp discloses an improved system for positioning appliances over teeth in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0056]), wherein the appliance (100) includes a protrusion (116) and a bubble (108), wherein the bubble (108) is located occlusal to the pressure point (116) (refer to annotated Fig. 4A). The bubble (108) allows the tooth to advance or extrude in response to the applied forces (refer to Paragraph [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the configuration of the bubble and pressure point as taught by Cao and Shvalb with positioning the bubble occlusal to the pressure point as taught by Knopp in order to provide space for the extruding tooth (refer to Paragraph [0078]).
PNG
media_image5.png
547
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20090191502 A1), herein referred to as Cao, in view of Shvalb et al. (WO 2021124335 A1), herein referred to as Shvalb (refer to the provided translation for Shvalb) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kuo’2 (US 20130209952 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 13; Cao further discloses wherein the bubble extends away from a tooth receiving cavity (refer to annotated Fig. 2B above) ; both are silent to wherein the bubble extends away from a tooth receiving cavity of the appliance with a prominence of between 0.1mm and 1.0mm.
Kuo’2 discloses an aligner accommodating a relief in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0031]). The relief incorporates a 1.0mm envelope of movement into the volume, shape or geometry (refer to Paragraphs [0039]-[0040]). This relief is based on the expected amount of tooth movement for that particular stage of treatment, ensuring there is enough space, while also keeping the bubble small, improving aligner retention (refer to Paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the bubble as taught by Cao and Shvalb with a prominence of 1.0mm as taught by Kuo’2 in order to provide a relief, while improving aligner retention (refer to Paragraph [0040]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20090191502 A1), herein referred to as Cao, in view of Shvalb et al. (WO 2021124335 A1), herein referred to as Shvalb (refer to the provided translation for Shvalb) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Moray (US 20220313391 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 13; Cao discloses wherein the pressure point extends into a tooth receiving cavity (refer to annotated Fig. 2A above); neither reference discloses wherein the pressure point extends into a tooth receiving cavity of the appliance with a prominence of between 0.1mm and 1.0mm.
Moray discloses inward extrusions on a dental appliance in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0042], Fig. 2A), wherein the pressure point extends into a tooth receiving cavity of the appliance with a prominence of between 0.1mm and 1.0mm (refer to Paragraph [0043]; the inwardly extruding pressure areas extend inwardly approximately 0.2mm). These areas are dimensioned to provide the correct amount of force while properly seating in the patient’s mouth (refer to Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure points as taught by Coa and Shvalb with the dimensional range of 0.1mm and 1.0mm in prominence as taught by Moray in order to provide the correct amount of force while properly seating in the patient’s mouth (refer to Paragraph [0043]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 20090191502 A1), herein referred to as Cao, in view of Shvalb et al. (WO 2021124335 A1), herein referred to as Shvalb (refer to the provided translation for Shvalb) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kopelman et al. (US 20170007365 A1), herein referred to as Kopelman.
Regarding claim 16, Cao and Shvalb disclose the system of claim 13; but are silent to wherein the width of the contact surface is between 20% and 80% of the tooth width and wherein the length of the contact surface is between 20% and 80% of the tooth length.
Kopelman discloses a an orthodontic shell in the same field of endeavor () wherein the width of the contact surface is between 50% and 100% of the tooth width and tooth length (refer to Paragraph [0200], annotated Fig. 8B below; structures are added to the fabricated shell to contact most (>50%) to all (100%) of the circumferential surface; the circumferential surface includes the buccal, lingual and interproximal surfaces, surfaces that correspond to the width and length of the tooth). This coverage allows application of forces in many different directions (refer to Paragraph [0200]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact surfaces of Cao and Shvalb with the range of (>50%) to all (100%) of the tooth length and width as taught by Kopelman in order to allow application of forces in many different directions (refer to Paragraph [0200])..
Further, in terms of the overlapping ranges provided, it would have been obvious to modify the range of (>50%) to all (100%) of the tooth length and width of Kopelman to a range of 50%-80% since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I. Further, Applicant has not assigned criticality to this range (see Paragraph [0073] of Specification).
PNG
media_image6.png
583
713
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wucher et al. (US 20130209952 A1) discloses a method of using target and determined force values for appliance configurations (refer to col. 48, lines 45-58 and col. 49 lines 14-20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772