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 and 14 are objected to because each recite the limitation "the second portion" in lines 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, claim should recite “a second portion” for proper antecedent. Appropriate correction is required.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5, 7-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallah et al. (US 2012/0225398 A1) in view of Benarouch et al. (US 2018/0021107 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fallah discloses a system comprising:
a fabricating of a first elongate shaft having a first connection region for connecting to a shell of a dental appliance (Fig. 3 either the Occlusal wire or the apical wire, each being elongated shafts with a portion of either being adapted to connect to a shell of a dental appliance such as in fig. 1, being made it was fabricated by some system),
a fabricating of a second elongate shaft having a second connection region for connecting to the shell or to a tooth (Fig. 3 the opposite of the Occlusal wire or the apical wire, each being elongated shafts with a portion of either being adapted to connect to a shell of a dental appliance such as in fig. 1, being made it was fabricated by some system),
a fabricating of a first elongate connector coupled to the first and second elongate shafts (Fig. 3 one of the connecting elements, being made it was fabricated by some system),
and
a fabricating of a second elongate connector coupled to the first elongate shaft and extending toward the second elongate shaft (Fig. 3 any other of the connecting elements which extend towards the opposite wire in order to connect to it, being made it was fabricated by some system)
wherein the first and second elongate connectors are coupled to the first elongate shaft at respective locations separate from the first connection region (Figs. 1/3 the connecting elements can connect to one of the wires at a location separated from where the wire in received/connected in the shells), and
wherein the first elongate connector is coupled to the second elongate shaft at a location separate from the second connection region (Fig. 3 first selected member would be connected to the second elongated shaft away from a second connection region, an example of such arrangement in the annotated image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fallah discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the system of the fabricated device included an additive manufacturing system configured to perform an additive manufacturing process; one or more processors; and a memory operably coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the additive manufacturing system to perform operations that fabricated the device of Fallah.
However, Benarouch discloses a system of additively manufacturing configured to perform an additive manufacturing process of a dental archwire (title and abstract, paragraph [0084] lines 1-2 disclosing a element is 3D printed and thus is a form of additive manufacturing and paragraph [0034] all disclosing the element is an archwire with a profile that varies along its length) where the system includes one or more processors and a memory operably coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the additive manufacturing system to perform operations that fabricated the device (paragraph [0038] lines 1-2 disclosing the system has a computer that designs and produces the element of the archwire, a computer inherently having a processor and memory with instructions that would cause the additive manufacturing in order to “produce” the archwire via the 3D printing, paragraph [0219] and [2020] all disclosing the fabrication by 3d printer systems, paragraph [0050]-[0051] disclosing software tools for desiing and fabricating thus requiring instructions on memory of the computer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additive manufacturing system configured to perform an additive manufacturing process; one or more processors; and a memory operably coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the additive manufacturing system to perform operations that fabricated device as taught by Benarouch into the system as taught by Fallah for the purpose of providing a designing and fabricating system that can precisely control the characteristics of the archwire and to rapidly adapt the treatment for a patient as taught by Benarouch (paragraph [0240] lines 1-10) .
Regarding claim 3, Fallah/Benarouch as combine discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the system of the additive manufacturing process comprises one or more of the following: vat photopolymerization, material jetting, binder jetting, material extrusion, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, or directed energy deposition.
However, Benarouch further discloses where the additive manufacturing includes material extrusion (paragraph [0220] all disclosing a jet printer which would extrude material) or direct energy deposition (paragraph [0146] all disclosing direct energy deposited in a resin to photopolymerize the resin).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additive manufacturing system configured one or more of the following: vat photopolymerization, material jetting, binder jetting, material extrusion, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, or directed energy deposition as taught by Benarouch into the system as taught by Fallah/Benarouch for the purpose of providing a designing and fabricating system that can precisely control the characteristics of the arch wire and to rapidly adapt the treatment for a patient as taught by Benarouch (paragraph [0240] lines 1-10) and to apply materials adapted for orthodontic appliances (paragraph [0147] all).
Regarding claim 4, Fallah/Benarouch as combine discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the system of the additive manufacturing process comprises a layer-by-layer process.
However, Benarouch further discloses where the additive manufacturing includes material extrusion (paragraph [0220] all disclosing a jet printer which would extrude material) that is produced by layering layers (paragraph [0035] all disclosing several layers).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additive manufacturing system configured for an additive manufacturing process comprises a layer-by-layer process as taught by Benarouch into the system as taught by Fallah/Benarouch for the purpose of providing a designing and fabricating system that can precisely control the characteristics of the archwire and to rapidly adapt the treatment for a patient as taught by Benarouch (paragraph [0240] lines 1-10) and to apply materials adapted for orthodontic appliances (paragraph [0147] all).
Regarding claim 5, Fallah/Benarouch as combine discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including the fabrication of the first elongate shaft, the second elongate shaft, the first elongate connector, and the second elongate connector (see image above), but fails to explicitly disclose where the system of the additive manufacturing process comprises a light source configured to selectively polymerize a photopolymerizable resin.
However, Benarouch further discloses where the additive manufacturing comprises a light source configured to selectively polymerize a photopolymerizable resin (paragraph [0218] all disclosing the printing is done by a light based printer).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additive manufacturing system comprises a light source configured to selectively polymerize a photopolymerizable resin as taught by Benarouch into the system as taught by Fallah/Benarouch for the purpose of providing a designing and fabricating system that can precisely control the characteristics of the archwire and to rapidly adapt the treatment for a patient as taught by Benarouch (paragraph [0240] lines 1-10) and to apply materials adapted for orthodontic appliances (paragraph [0147] all).
Regarding claim 7, Fallah further discloses wherein the first elongate connector is configured to apply a first force to the first and second elongate shafts (paragraph [0019] lines 1-6 the first interconnecting wire would apply a force two the first and second shafts to help maintain their configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Fallah further discloses wherein the second elongate connector is configured to apply a second force to the first and second elongate shafts opposing the first force (Fig. 3 a second connecting element would apply an opposite force to also help maintain the configuration).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fallah further discloses wherein the first elongate connector comprises a first length, and the second elongate connector comprises a second length different than the first length (see image above either element could be the longer or shorter length, where one is shown as shorter than the other).
Regarding claim 10, Fallah further discloses wherein the second length is shorter than the first length such that the first elongate connector is compressed when the second elongate connector is coupled to the first and second elongate shafts (See image above, the second length can be the shorter and when inserted in the bracket the longer length would be compressed, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claim 11, Fallah further discloses wherein the second length is longer than the first length such that the first elongate connector is stretched when the second elongate connector is coupled to the first and second elongate shafts(See image above having a longer length and in use the shorter length could be stretched when removing or bending, as it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claim 12, Fallah further discloses wherein the first and second elongate shafts are integrally formed with the first and second elongate connectors (Fig. 3 the connecting elements shown an integral with the two shafts).
Regarding claim 13, Fallah further wherein the second portion of the second elongate shaft is configured to couple to the tooth (See annotated image above, the second connection region is connected to a tooth via shell).
Regarding claim 14, Fallah further discloses wherein the second portion of the second elongate shaft is configured to couple to the shell (see image above the second portion of the second elongate shaft is connected to the shell portion wrapped around it).
Regarding claim 15, Fallah further discloses wherein the first and second elongate shafts are power arms (See image above, the elongate shafts act as power arms by maintaining the shape of the device).
Regarding claim 16, Fallah further discloses wherein the first elongate connector comprises an elastic spring structure (paragraph [00025] lines 1-5 disclosing the elongate connector acts as a spring to spring the shafts away from each other).
Regarding claim 17, Fallah further discloses wherein the second elongate connector comprises a rigid material (paragraph [0029] line 3 disclosing the connector can be rigid).
Regarding claim 18, Fallah further dislcoses wherein the second elongate connector comprises a first end coupled to the first elongate shaft and a second end extending toward the second elongate shaft (See annotated image above where the second elongated connector has a first end coupled to the first shaft and a second end extending towards and connecting to the second elongated shaft).
Regarding claim 19, Fallah further discloses wherein the second end is configured to removably couple to the second elongate shaft (See image above, the second end it configured out of a material that is able to be cut and thus has a coupling that can be removed).
Regarding claim 20, Fallah further discloses wherein the operations further comprise fabricating the shell of the dental appliance (See annotated image above where the shell is show an thus fabricated).
Regarding claim 21, Fallah further dislcoses wherein the shell of the dental appliance is fabricated from a different material than the first elongate shaft and the second elongate shaft.
Regarding claim 21, Fallah/Benarouch as combine discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed abovebut fails to explicitly disclose where brackets are of a different material than the shafts, but does disclose where the shafts can be made of steel or nickel titanium (paragraph [0020] lines 5-7).
However, Benarouch further discloses where the bracket is made of ceramic (paragraph [0119] all).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate bracket made of cermic as taught by Benarouch into the system as taught by Fallah/Benarouch for the purpose of providing a bracket made of a material that would be allow replacement of the archwire without damaging the bracket as taught by Benarouch (paragraph [0118] all).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallah et al. (US 2012/0225398 A1) in view of Benarouch et al. (US 2018/0021107 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Khan et al. (GB 2518198 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fallah/Benarouch as combine discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed abovebut fails to explicitly disclose where the additive manufacturing system comprises a laser source configured to selectively fuse a layer of powdered material for the fabrication of the first elongate shaft, the second elongate shaft, the first elongate connector, and the second elongate connector.
However, Khan discloses methods for fabricating dental appliances (title) by forms of additive manufacturing including by use of a laser source configured to selectively fuse a layer of powdered material to produce parts (page 12 lines 27-29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the type of additive manufacturing to be use of a laser source configured to selective fuse a layer of powder as taught by Khan into the system as taught by Fallah/Benarouch for the purpose of providing thin layers between when manufacturing the device which would provide for fine tolerances and which would prevent the inclusion of air so as to improve quality of the fabricated part as taught by Khan (page 12 lines 27-29 and page 2 lines 7-12).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is a species of current claim 2.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is a species of current claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 is a species of current claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 recites powder bed fusion which occurs in layers, also sheet lamination with occurs layer by layer and is a species of current claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 recites powder bed fusion which uses a laser and is a species of current claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 is a species of current claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 is a species of current claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 is a species of current claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 is a species of current claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 is a species of current claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 is a species of current claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 is a species of current claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 is a species of current claim 14.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is a species of current claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 recites the elongated connector would be made of a photopolymerized material which would have made an elastic spring type structure by its material properties.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 recites the elongated connector would be made of a powder bed fusion material which would use a metal with is a type of rigid material.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is a species of current claim 18.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the second end of the second elongated connector a separated end, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is a species of current claim 20.
Claim 21 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,906 in view of Benarouch et al. (US 2018/0021107 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Claim 11 of 12,193,906 discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application claim fails to explicitly disclose where shell is of a different material than the shafts/arms.
However, Benarouch further discloses a system of additively manufacturing an archwire as discussed above and further discloses where the archwire can be made of polymer (paragraph [0018] all) and the bracket is made of a different material such as metal or ceramic (paragraph [0119] all).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate device that is attached to teeth to be made of a different material than another interconnecting device as taught by Benarouch into the shell of 12,193,906 for the purpose of providing a for material selections would be allow one device to not damaging the other when they interacted as taught by Benarouch (paragraph [0118] all).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 03/07/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772