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
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 22 line 3 to “[[a]] the capillary interface”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 13-15, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 102566186 B1 and translated PDF, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Boronkay (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0007368 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
657
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
578
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
306
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
312
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Kim discloses a removable dental appliance (Abstract, 10 in Figs. 2-6) comprising:
an archform layer of material (11 in Figs. 2a-2b, para. 0036) custom-shaped to fit to a row of teeth of a person (Figs. 2-5, para. 0034), the archform layer having a first custom-shaped surface (1st surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b, paras. 0036-0037), and a second surface (2nd surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b), the first custom-shaped surface and the second surface face opposite sides of the archform layer (annotated Figs. 2a-2b); and
the first custom-shaped surface includes a plurality of concave appliance surfaces (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2b), a concave appliance surface of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces forms an interface (Fig. 4c, para. 0037) with a corresponding vestibular-facing convex crown surface (crown surfaces in annotated Fig. 4c) of a plurality of vestibular-facing convex crown surfaces of a plurality of teeth of the row of teeth (Fig. 4c) when the removable dental appliance (Abstract, para. 0008, easy attachment and detachment) is engaged with the row of teeth (paras. 0037 and 0050) such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth (Figs. 4c, para. 0043 and 0050) while avoiding causing an orthodontic change to an arrangement of the plurality of teeth (Abstract, para. 0008, cosmetic tooth cover identical to outer shape of user’s teeth).
Kim does not disclose that the archform layer material is biocompatible, does not disclose that the interface is a capillary interface, and does not disclose that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth by the capillary interface
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1A) comprising an archform layer of biocompatible material (Fig. 1A, para. 0135) wherein an appliance surface forms a capillary interface with a corresponding surface of a tooth (para. 0142) and that the archform layer is secured in place on a plurality of teeth by the capillary interface (Fig. 1A, para. 0142).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the archform layer material of Kim by specifying it is biocompatible as taught by Boronkay in order to reduce the likelihood of an allergic reaction in a patient (Boronkay para. 0135).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concave appliance surface interface of Kim to be a capillary interface and specified that the archform layer is secured in place on a plurality of teeth by the capillary interface as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142).
In regard to claim 2, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the interface (Fig. 4c, para. 0037) creates an adhesive force between at least one of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2b) and at least one of the plurality of corresponding vestibular-facing convex crown surfaces (crown surfaces in annotated Fig. 4c) when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth by using saliva (paras. 0037 and 0050), resulting in the adhesive force holding the dental appliance in position adjacent to the row of teeth (Fig. 4c, paras. 0037 and 0050).
Kim does not disclose that the interface is a capillary interface, the adhesive force is a capillary adhesive force, and the saliva is used to form a capillary bridge within the capillary interface.
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1A) wherein a capillary interface creates a capillary adhesive force (para. 0142), and saliva is used to form a capillary bridge within the capillary interface (para. 0142, surface tension).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concave appliance surface interface and adhesive force of Kim in view of Boronkay to be a capillary interface and specify that the adhesive force is capillary, and that the saliva is used to form a capillary bridge within the capillary interface as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142).
In regard to claim 3, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein, the second surface (2nd surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b) includes a plurality of convex appliance surfaces (convex surfaces in annotated Fig. 2a) which mimics a corresponding surface of at least one artificial crown of a plurality of artificial crowns arranged as a row of artificial teeth (Figs. 5a-5b, paras. 0024 and 0031).
In regard to claim 4, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein, the second surface (2nd surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b) is custom-shaped (paras. 0010 and 0034, correspond to front surface of user’s teeth).
In regard to claim 5, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein, the dental appliance is shaped to not encase an oral-facing surface (oral-facing surface in annotated Fig. 4c) of a crown of a tooth (35B in Fig. 4c) included in the row of teeth when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth (Fig. 4c).
In regard to claim 10, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein, the first custom-shaped surface (1st surface in annotated Fig. 2a-2b) includes one or more oral-facing surfaces (oral-facing surface in annotated Fig. 3b) that encase one or more vestibular-facing undercuts of surfaces of a plurality of crowns of the plurality of teeth when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth (Figs. 3a-3b and 4c, para. 0038; at least capable; note that teeth are not positively claimed as part of the invention).
In regard to claim 11, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim does not disclose wherein, the biocompatible material includes a plastic material.
Boronkay teaches wherein a biocompatible material includes a plastic material (paras. 0135, 0173-0174, materials exhibit biocompatibility).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biocompatible material of Kim in view of Boronkay to specify it includes a plastic material as taught by Boronkay in order to allow for the use of materials which are not only biocompatible but also exhibit sufficient strength, stiffness, and durability for use in an appliance (Boronkay para. 0174).
In regard to claim 12, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim does not disclose wherein, at least one of the first custom-shaped surface or the second surface is coated with a plastic material.
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4A) wherein, a first custom-shaped surface (1st surface in annotated Fig. 4A) is coated with a plastic material (404 in Fig. 4A, paras. 0094, 0110, 0176).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first custom-shaped surface of Kim in view of Boronkay to be coated with a plastic material as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142).
In regard to claim 13. Kim discloses a removable dental appliance (Abstract, 10 in Figs. 2-6) comprising:
an archform layer of material (11 in Figs. 2a-2b, para. 0036) custom-shaped to fit a row of teeth of a person (Figs. 2-5, para. 0034), the archform layer having a first custom-shaped surface (1st surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b, paras. 0036-0037), and a second surface (2nd surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b), the first custom-shaped surface and the second surface face opposite sides of the archform layer (annotated Figs. 2a-2b);
the first custom-shaped surface includes a plurality of concave appliance surfaces (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2b), a concave appliance surface of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces correlates with a corresponding vestibular-facing convex crown surface of a plurality of corresponding vestibular-facing convex crown surfaces (crown surfaces in annotated Fig. 4c) of a plurality of teeth of the row of teeth (Fig. 4c, paras. 0037 and 0050);
an interface (Fig. 4c, paras. 0037 and 0050) formed by the plurality of concave appliance surfaces such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth (Fig. 4c, para. 0043 and 0050) while avoiding causing an orthodontic change to an arrangement of the plurality of teeth (Abstract, para. 0008, cosmetic tooth cover identical to outer shape of user’s teeth); and
the second surface (2nd surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b) includes a plurality of convex appliance surfaces (convex surfaces in annotated Fig. 2a), a convex appliance surface of the plurality of convex appliance surfaces mimics a corresponding surface of an artificial crown of a plurality of artificial crowns arranged as a row of artificial teeth (Figs. 5a-5b, paras. 0024 and 0031).
Kim does not disclose that the archform layer material is biocompatible, and that the interface is a capillary interface formed such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth by the capillary interface.
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1A) comprising an archform layer of biocompatible material (Fig. 1A, para. 0135) and a capillary interface (para. 0142) formed such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth by the capillary interface (Fig. 1A, para. 0142).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the archform layer material of Kim by specifying it is biocompatible as taught by Boronkay in order to reduce the likelihood of an allergic reaction in a patient (Boronkay para. 0135).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interface of Kim to be a capillary interface formed such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth by the capillary interface as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142).
In regard to claim 14, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim further discloses wherein, the second surface (2nd surface in annotated Figs. 2a-2b) is custom-shaped (paras. 0010 and 0034, correspond to front surface of user’s teeth).
In regard to claim 15, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim further discloses wherein, the removable dental appliance is shaped to not encase an oral-facing surface (oral-facing surface in annotated Fig. 4c) of a crown of a tooth (35B in Fig. 4c) included in the row of teeth when the removable dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth (Fig. 4c).
In regard to claim 20, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim further discloses wherein, the first custom-shaped surface (1st surface in annotated Fig. 2a-2b) includes one or more oral-facing surfaces (oral-facing surface in annotated Fig. 3b) that encase one or more vestibular-facing undercuts of surfaces of a plurality of crowns of the plurality of teeth when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth (Figs. 3a-3b and 4c, para. 0038; at least capable; note that teeth are not claimed as part of the invention).
In regard to claim 21, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 20. Kim further discloses wherein, the encasing of the one or more vestibular-facing undercuts holds the dental appliance in position adjacent to the row of teeth when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth (Figs. 3a-3b and 4c, para. 0038 and 0040).
In regard to claim 22, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim further discloses wherein, at least one concave appliance surface of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2b) forms the interface (Fig. 4c, para. 0037) with the corresponding vestibular-facing convex crown surface (crown surfaces in annotated Fig. 4c) when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth.
Kim does not disclose that the interface is capillary (Fig. 4c, paras. 0037 and 0050).
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1A) wherein an appliance surface forms a capillary interface with a corresponding surface of a tooth (para. 0142).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concave appliance surface interface of Kim to be a capillary interface as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142).
In regard to claim 23, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 22. Kim further discloses wherein, the interface (Fig. 4c, para. 0037) creates an adhesive force between the at least one concave appliance surface (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2b) and the corresponding vestibular-facing convex crown (crown surfaces in annotated Fig. 4c) when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth and when saliva is present (paras. 0037 and 0050) resulting in the adhesive force contributing to holding the dental appliance in position adjacent the row of teeth when the dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth (Fig. 4c, paras. 0037 and 0050).
Kim does not disclose that the interface is capillary, the adhesive force is a capillary adhesive force, and the saliva is used to form a capillary bridge within the capillary interface.
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1A) wherein a capillary interface creates a capillary adhesive force (para. 0142), and saliva is used to form a capillary bridge within the capillary interface (para. 0142, surface tension).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concave appliance surface interface and adhesive force of Kim in view of Boronkay to be a capillary interface and specify that the adhesive force is capillary, and that the saliva is used to form a capillary bridge within the capillary interface as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142).
In regard to claim 24, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim does not disclose wherein, the biocompatible material includes a plastic material.
Boronkay teaches wherein a biocompatible material includes a plastic material (paras. 0135, 0173-0174, materials exhibit biocompatibility).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the biocompatible material of Kim in view of Boronkay to specify it includes a plastic material as taught by Boronkay in order to allow for the use of materials which are not only biocompatible but also exhibit sufficient strength, stiffness, and durability for use in an appliance (Boronkay para. 0174).
In regard to claim 25, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim does not disclose wherein, at least one of the first custom-shaped surface or the second surface is coated with a plastic material.
Boronkay teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4A) wherein, a first custom-shaped surface (1st surface in annotated Fig. 4A) is coated with a plastic material (404 in Fig. 4A, paras. 0094, 0110, 0176).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first custom-shaped surface of Kim in view of Boronkay to be coated with a plastic material as taught by Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve engagement between the appliance and the teeth (Boronkay para. 0097).
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil (DE 102016101376 A1 and translated PDF).
PNG
media_image5.png
719
684
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim does not disclose wherein, the archform layer has a modulation of thickness in a direction substantially along an archform of the archform layer.
Kandil teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) wherein an archform layer (Figs. 1 and 2) has a modulation of thickness in a direction substantially along an archform of the archform layer (Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0007 and 0011, thickness can be chosen depending on tooth position appearance correction).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the archform layer of Kim in view of Boronkay to have a modulation of thickness in a direction substantially along an archform of the archform layer as taught by Kandil in order to ensure a particularly aesthetically pleasing tooth appearance (Kandil para. 0011).
In regard to claim 7, Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil discloses the invention of claim 6. Kim does not disclose wherein, the modulation of thickness correlates at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces.
Kandil teaches wherein a modulation of thickness correlates at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0007 and 0011, thickness can be chosen depending on tooth position appearance correction).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modulation of thickness of Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil to correlate at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces as taught by Kandil in order to ensure a particularly aesthetically pleasing tooth appearance (Kandil para. 0011).
In regard to claim 8, Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil discloses the invention of claim 6. Kim does not disclose wherein, the modulation of thickness has at least two local minima of thickness.
Kandil teaches the modulation of thickness has at least two local minima of thickness (Fig. 1, para. 0011, para. 0031, thickness may be reduced in the area of the side edges 6).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modulation of thickness of Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil to have at least two local minima of thickness as taught by Kandil in order to advantageously chose the thickness depending on the tooth position (Kandil para. 0011) and create an aesthetic transition (Kandil para. 0031).
In regard to claim 9, Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil discloses the invention of claim 6. Kim does not disclose wherein, the modulation of thickness has at least two local maxima of thickness.
Kandil teaches the modulation of thickness has at least two local maxima of thickness (Figs. 1 and 2, dental veneer 2 has twelve veneers 4, thickness of centers of 4 flanked by its reduced thickness side edges 6 are local maxima, para. 0011 and 0031).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modulation of thickness of Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil to have at least two local maxima of thickness as taught by Kandil in order to advantageously chose the thickness depending on the tooth position (Kandil para. 0011) and ensure a particularly aesthetically pleasing tooth appearance (Kandil para. 0011).
In regard to claim 16, Kim in view of Boronkay discloses the invention of claim 13. Kim does not disclose wherein, the archform layer has a modulation of thickness in a direction substantially along an archform of the archform layer.
Kandil teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-3) wherein an archform layer (Figs. 1 and 2) has a modulation of thickness in a direction substantially along an archform of the archform layer (Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0007 and 0011, thickness can be chosen depending on tooth position appearance correction).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the archform layer of Kim in view of Boronkay to have a modulation of thickness in a direction substantially along the archform of the archform layer as taught by Kandil in order to ensure a particularly aesthetically pleasing tooth appearance (Kandil para. 0011).
In regard to claim 17, Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil discloses the invention of claim 16. Kim does not disclose wherein, the modulation of thickness correlates at least partially with an arrangement of a plurality of convex appliance surfaces, and at least partially with an arrangement of a plurality of concave appliance surfaces.
Kandil teaches wherein a modulation of thickness correlates at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of convex appliance surfaces (convex surfaces in annotated Fig. 2, paras. 0011 and 0031), and at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces (concave surfaces in annotated Fig. 2, paras. 0011 and 0031).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modulation of thickness of Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil to correlate at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of convex appliance surfaces, and at least partially with an arrangement of the plurality of concave appliance surfaces as taught by Kandil in order to ensure a particularly aesthetically pleasing tooth appearance (Kandil para. 0011).
In regard to claim 18, Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil discloses the invention of claim 16. Kim does not disclose wherein, the modulation of thickness has at least two local minima of thickness.
Kandil teaches the modulation of thickness has at least two local minima of thickness (Fig. 1, para. 0011, para. 0031, thickness may be reduced in the area of the side edges 6).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modulation of thickness of Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil to have at least two local minima of thickness as taught by Kandil in order to advantageously chose the thickness depending on the tooth position (Kandil para. 0011) and create an aesthetic transition (Kandil para. 0031).
In regard to claim 19, Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil discloses the invention of claim 16. Kim does not disclose wherein, the modulation of thickness has at least two local maxima of thickness.
Kandil teaches the modulation of thickness has at least two local maxima of thickness (Figs. 1 and 2, dental veneer 2 has twelve veneers 4, thickness of centers of 4 flanked by its reduced thickness side edges 6 are local maxima, para. 0011 and 0031).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modulation of thickness of Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil to have at least two local maxima of thickness as taught by Kandil in order to advantageously chose the thickness depending on the tooth position (Kandil para. 0011) and ensure a particularly aesthetically pleasing tooth appearance (Kandil para. 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection of claims 1-4, 10-12, 13-15, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boronkay, Applicant argues that to meet the previous recitations regarding a "capillary interface" creating a "capillary adhesive force," the Office relies on Boronkay, and argues that merely channeling saliva in order to improve force and/or torque delivery to the teeth is not the same as forming "a capillary interface... when the removable dental appliance is engaged with the row of teeth such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth by the capillary interface while avoiding causing an orthodontic change to an arrangement of the plurality of teeth," as claim 1 presently recites. Applicant argues that Kim fails to remedy this deficiency because Kim is silent on "a capillary interface," let alone the limitations of amended claim 1 presently recites.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 1-4, 10-12, 13-15, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boronkay. Boronkay teaches a capillary interface wherein an appliance surface forms a capillary interface with a corresponding surface of a tooth (para. 0142) and that the archform layer is secured in place on a plurality of teeth by the capillary interface (Fig. 1A, para. 0142), as paragraph 0142 states that the surface properties cab be modulated to further improve contact between the appliance and received teeth. Examiner notes that Kim discloses such that the archform layer is secured in place on the plurality of teeth (Figs. 4c, para. 0043 and 0050) while avoiding causing an orthodontic change to an arrangement of the plurality of teeth (Abstract, para. 0008, cosmetic tooth cover identical to outer shape of user’s teeth). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Kim by the teachings of Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that one would not be motivated to combine Kim with Boronkay because Boronkay is directed to an orthodontic aligner system whereas Kim is directed to an aesthetic cosmetic appliance. Applicant traverses the assertion that one would be motivated to modify Kim to include the saliva channeling features of Boronkay, and argues that there is no suggestion in Boronkay or Kim that any benefit would arise from applying the saliva channeling techniques, which control an amount of torque applied to the teeth for corrective realignments, to the cosmetic tooth covers of Kim. Applicant argues that applying such a feature to Kim would render the device ineffective as a "cosmetic tooth cover" by causing orthodontal movement of the teeth or change the principle of operation of Kim. Applicant argues that for at least the reasons discussed above, the purported combination of references does not teach or suggest all of the features of amended independent claim 1, and accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn.
Examiner notes that Kim and Boronkay are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic trays. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Kim by the teachings of Boronkay in order to allow increased surface tension between the appliance and the teeth to improve contact between the appliance and received teeth (Boronkay para. 0142). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 13 recites similar subject matter as independent claim 1, therefore, for reasons similar to those discussed above regarding independent claim 1, Kim and Boronkay does not teach or suggest all of the features independent claim 13 recites. Applicant argues that accordingly, Applicant requests the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 13, and the claims depending therefrom, be withdrawn.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boronkay, and claim 13 is rejected similarly to claim 1 as noted in the above response. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejections of claims 6-9 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boronkay and A.P.A, Applicant argues claims 6-9 ultimately depend from independent claim 1, and claims 16-19 ultimately depend from independent claim 13. Applicant argues that as discussed above, independent claims 1 and 13 are in condition for allowance, at least over the cited documents of record, and therefore, dependent claim 6-9 and 16-19 are also in condition for allowance, at least for their dependencies from allowable base claims, and for the additional features claims 6-9 and 16-19 recite, and requests the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 6-9 and 16-19 be withdrawn.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Boronkay and Kandil, based on the new claim amendment to independent claims 1 and 13. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights