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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 20, in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the wall” in the last line. The claim previously introduced “walls” (plural), such that the limitation directed to the singular wall is unclear as to which wall is being referenced.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the flaps” in the first line. Claim 1 introduced “one or more flaps” (singular or plural flaps), such that the limitation in claim 10 is unclear as to whether it requires plural flaps and, if so, if the subsequent limitation refers to all of the plural flaps or some, or if intends to refer to the one or more flaps.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein forming the shell and/or the specialized feature comprises applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition,” which is unclear as to the encompassed step of forming “the shell” by applying “the polymeric thermoformable material” over a mold. Claim 10 introduced that “the polymeric thermoformable material” made up the material of the flaps/specialized feature but the claims have not required that the shell and the specialized feature are formed of the same material or that the shell is formed of the polymeric thermoformable material. As such, forming “the shell” by applying “the polymeric thermoformable material (of the flaps)” over a mold is unclear.
The indicated dependent claim(s) is/are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kopelman, US 20150216627 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman discloses a method of forming a dental appliance (orthodontic appliance, Abstract; fabricating the appliance, [0168]), the method comprising:
Forming a shell (shell, [0084]-[0085], shell is fabricated, [0170]) to have one or more cavities that are configured to receive a patient’s dentition (having a plurality of cavities shaped to receive teeth, [0085]), wherein the shell is configured to reposition one or more teeth of the patient’s dentition toward a new configuration (the shell being configured to exert appropriate forces on the teeth in order to achieve desired positioning of teeth, [0084]); and
Folding one or more flaps of material (discontinuities 1008 defining a flap surrounding a protrusion on each side of the appliance, [0142], Figs. 10A-10B, 10G, the flaps/protrusions being deflected outwards and folded, Fig. 10B) to form a specialized feature of the dental appliance (discontinuities, [0110], [0142], forming the discontinuities during or after fabrication of the shell, [0170]), the specialized feature configured to impart one or more specialized forces to one or more specific locations of the patient’s dentition or dental arch (the discontinuities being used to control forces applied to a patient’s teeth, [0110], [0142]).
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein folding the one or more flaps of material creates a thicker portion of the dental appliance corresponding to the specialized feature (the folded region being relatively thicker than other areas of the shell due to the layers of the folds, Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 3, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the dental appliance has an arch shape (the shell generally having an arch shape, Fig. 1A) with the one or more cavities formed along the arch shape (Fig. 1A), wherein the one or more flaps are folded over at least a portion of the arch shape (being located/folded at a tooth area, Figs. 10A-10B, and thus being folded over at least a portion of the arch shape).
Regarding claim 4, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more flaps of material includes a first flap (right or left side of folded material at 1002 in Fig. 10B) and a second flap (other of right or left side of folded material at 1002 in Fig. 10B), wherein the first flap is folded over the second flap to form the specialized feature (Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 5, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the shell includes a plurality of cavities that are configured to receive a plurality of teeth of the patient’s dentition (Fig. 1A, [0085]), wherein the specialized feature reinforces one or more of the plurality of cavities (Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 6, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the shell includes walls that define the one or more cavities (walls defining cavities that receive teeth, Figs. 1A, 10B), wherein the specialized feature reinforces at least a portion of the wall (Fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 9, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specialized feature includes multiple layers of the material of the one or more flaps (layers of right and left side of fold at region 1002, Fig. 10B).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman, US 20150216627 A1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1. In the referenced embodiment, Kopelman does not specifically disclose the specialized feature corresponds to a palate expansion structure that is configured to expand the patient’s dental arch.
Kopelman further discloses that specialized features can correspond to palate expansion structures configured to expand the patient’s dental arch for orthodontic repositioning (can be applied to space expansions in the upper dental arch, [0127]) and repositioning achieved by such devices can be selected based on where palatal expansion is desirable ([0106]). Kopelman teaches that space expansion can be beneficial for various dental procedures, such as for implants or treatment of impacted teeth ([0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kopelman such that the specialized feature corresponded to a palate expansion structure configured to expand the patient’s dental arch so that it could be applied to achieve space expansions in the upper dental arch for suitable dental procedures and/or treatments as taught by Kopelman.
Regarding claim 8, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1. In the referenced embodiment, Kopelman is silent as to the one or more flaps including one or more folding features that are configured to facilitate bending of the one or more flaps, wherein the one or more folding features correspond to one or more thinned or scored portions of the one or more flaps.
Kopelman further teaches the inclusion of biasing features such as partially penetrating grooves or engraved lines used in combination with discontinuities such as flaps in order to improve control over the deformation of the appliance by the formation of these structures defining specific locations where desired deformation, such as bending, should occur ([0166]-[0167]). Kopelman teaches such features increase the local compliance of the material to reduce its resistance to deformation at the specified locations and cause it to preferentially deform at those locations when appropriate forces are applied ([0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specialized feature of Kopelman to include one or more folding features that are configured to facilitate bending of the one or more flaps, wherein the one or more folding features correspond to one or more thinned or scored portions of the one or more flaps in order to define specific locations where desired deformations such as bending are intended to occur so as to modulate the deformation when appropriate forces are applied, as taught by Kopelman.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman, US 20150216627 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Phan et al., US 6572372 B1, provided in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 10, Kopelman discloses the method of claim 1. Kopelman discloses the material of the shell being polymeric material ([0104]) and the specialized feature/flaps being formed as part of the shell ([0110], [0142]), i.e., of the same material. Kopelman does not specifically disclose the material is thermoformable.
In the analogous art of dental appliances for orthodontic treatments (Abstract), Phan discloses that such polymeric positioning appliances are typically made from thermoformable polymer materials (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 10). Phan discloses that such materials can be thermoformed over a dental mold to form the appliance (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the polymeric material of the flaps of Kopelman was thermoformable such that the appliance could be easily shaped by thermoforming over a dental mold as taught by Phan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been shown to support a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kopelman discloses the method of claim 10, wherein forming the specialized feature comprises heating, applying pressure, and/or applying vacuum to the polymeric thermoformable material (Kopelman: at least applying pressure to generate the movement and fold of the flaps, Figs. 10A-10B).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kopelman discloses the method of claim 10. Kopelman discloses the appliance can be fabricated based on positive or negative models of the patient’s teeth generated by impression, scanning, and the like ([0104]). Kopelman is silent as to forming the shell and/or the specialized feature comprising applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition.
Phan as applied above further discloses forming a shell and corresponding specialized features by applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 17). Phan illustrates that forming over a dental mold was a known technique for making personalized dental appliances.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify that the shell and/or the specialized feature in Kopelman was formed by applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition since Kopelman discloses the appliance being fabricated based on a model of the patient’s teeth and Phan teaches that molding the polymeric thermoformable over a model of the patient’s dentition in the form of a dental mold was a known technique for forming personalized polymeric dental appliances.
Regarding claim 20, Kopelman discloses a method of forming a dental appliance (orthodontic appliance, Abstract; fabricating the appliance, [0168]), the method comprising:
Forming a shell (shell, [0084]-[0085], shell is fabricated, [0170]) to have one or more cavities that are configured to receive a patient’s dentition (having a plurality of cavities shaped to receive teeth, [0085]), wherein the shell is configured to reposition one or more teeth of the patient’s dentition toward a new configuration (the shell being configured to exert appropriate forces on the teeth in order to achieve desired positioning of teeth, [0084]); and
Folding one or more flaps (discontinuities 1008 defining a flap surrounding a protrusion on each side of the appliance, [0142], Figs. 10A-10B, 10G, the flaps/protrusions being deflected outwards and folded, Fig. 10B) of polymeric material (the shell being polymeric material ([0104]) and the specialized feature/flaps being formed as part of the shell ([0110], [0142]), i.e., of the same material) to form a specialized feature of the dental appliance (discontinuities, [0110], [0142], forming the discontinuities during or after fabrication of the shell, [0170]), the specialized feature configured to impart one or more specialized forces to one or more specific locations of the patient’s dentition or dental arch (the discontinuities being used to control forces applied to a patient’s teeth, [0110], [0142]), wherein forming the specialized feature comprises heating, applying pressure, and/or vacuum to the polymeric material (at least applying pressure to generate the movement and fold of the flaps, Figs. 10A-10B).
Kopelman does not specifically disclose the polymeric material is thermoformable.
In the analogous art of dental appliances for orthodontic treatments (Abstract), Phan discloses that such polymeric positioning appliances are typically made from thermoformable polymer materials (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 10). Phan discloses that such materials can be thermoformed over a dental mold to form the appliance (col. 9, line 63 – col. 10, line 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the polymeric material of the flaps of Kopelman was thermoformable such that the appliance could be easily shaped by thermoforming over a dental mold as taught by Phan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been shown to support a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
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(s) 1-2, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-3 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10150244 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claim 1, reference claims 1 and 11 recite a method of forming a dental appliance (preamble), comprising forming a shell to have one or more cavities that are configured to receive a patient’s dentition, wherein the shell is configured to reposition one or more teeth of the patient’s dentition toward a new configuration (forming a shell having a number of tooth apertures configured to receive and reposition a number of teeth of a patient); and folding one or more flaps of material to form a specialized feature of the dental appliance (claim 1: the shell having a number of specialized components formed from folding multiple sections of a first sheet of material over each other; claim 11: folding multiple sections of the first sheet of material over each other to form one or more specialized features). The reference claims do not explicitly recite the specialized feature is configured to impart one or more specialized forces to one or more specific locations of the patient’s dentition or dental arch; however, the reference claims recite that the specialized feature is part of the shell that is configured to reposition teeth such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specialized feature(s) is/are intended to impart specialized forces to the patient’s dentition and/or dental arch in order to achieve said repositioning.
Regarding instant claim 2, reference claim 11 includes that folding the one or more flaps creates a thicker portion corresponding to the specialized feature (folding to form the one or more specialized features having a thickness that is thicker).
Regarding instant claim 4, reference claims 1-2 and 11-12 read on the one or more flaps including a first flap and a second flap, wherein the first flap is folded over the second flap to form the specialized feature (folding sections of the first sheet of material over each other, bending a portion of the first sheet of material over itself to form first and second folded layers of material).
Regarding instant claim 8, reference claim 3 reads on the one or more flaps including one or more folding features (score line) that are configured to facilitate bending of the one or more flaps (for facilitating the folding of the sheet), wherein the one or more folding features correspond to one or more thinned or scored portions of the one or more flaps (score line).
Regarding instant claim 9, reference claims 1-2 and 11-12 read on the specialized feature including multiple layers of the material of the one or more flaps (folding multiple sections of the first sheet of material over each other to form the specialized feature, bending a portion of the first sheet over itself to form first and second folded layers of material).
Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 10-12, and 20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10150244 B2 in view of Phan et al., US 6572372 B1, provided in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding instant claim 3, the reference claims do not specifically recite that the dental appliance has an arch shape with the one or more cavities formed along the arch shape, wherein the one or more flaps are folded over at least a portion of the arch shape. In the analogous art, Phan discloses a dental appliance having an arch shape (positioning appliance 10 having an arch shape, Fig. 1) with the one or more cavities formed along the arch shape (Fig. 1), wherein the one or more flaps are folded over at least a portion of the arch shape (Fig. 11, including a feature comprised of folded flaps of material over a portion of the arch). Phan evidences that an arch shape was typical for a dental appliance and the folded flaps of Fig. 11 form a spring 60 that can be used for transmitting repositioning force to one or more teeth (col. 10, lines 18-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the dental appliance has an arch shape with the one or more cavities formed along the arch shape, wherein the one or more flaps are folded over at least a portion of the arch shape, in order to form a conventional dental appliance shape for fitting over the upper or lower teeth of a person with the specialized feature configured to function as a spring as taught by Phan.
Regarding instant claim 5, reference claims 1 and 11 read on the shell including a plurality of cavities that are configured to receive a plurality of teeth of the patient’s dentition (the shell having a number of tooth apertures configured to receive a number of teeth of a patient). The reference claims do not specifically recite that the specialized feature reinforces one or more of the plurality of cavities. In the analogous art, Phan as applied above discloses the specialized feature reinforces one or more of the plurality of cavities (Fig. 11, col. 10, lines 18-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further recite that the specialized feature reinforces one or more of the plurality of cavities so as to utilize the specialized feature as a spring for transmitting repositioning force to one or more teeth as taught by Phan.
Regarding instant claim 6, the reference claims do not specifically recite that the shell includes walls that define the one or more cavities and the specialized feature reinforces at least a portion of the wall. In the analogous art, Phan as applied above discloses that the shell includes walls that define the one or more cavities (Figs. 1 and 11) and the specialized feature reinforces at least a portion of the wall (col. 10, lines 18-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the shell includes walls that define the one or more cavities and the specialized feature reinforces at least a portion of the wall, in order to configure the dental appliance shape for fitting closely over individual teeth and so as to utilize the specialized feature as a spring for transmitting repositioning force to one or more teeth as taught by Phan.
Regarding instant claim 7, the reference claims do not specifically recite that the specialized feature corresponds to a palate expansion feature that is configured to expand the patient’s dental arch. In the analogous art, Phan as applied above discloses the specialized feature comprised of folded material corresponding to a palate expansion feature that is configured to expand the patient’s dental arch (Fig. 13, col. 10, lines 29-42). Phan teaches the configuration can provide additional support for the appliance and/or orthodontic functions (col. 10, lines 29-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the specialized feature corresponds to a palate expansion feature that is configured to expand the patient’s dental arch in order to provide additional support for the appliance and/or additional orthodontic functions as taught by Phan.
Regarding instant claim 10, reference claim 5 includes applying heat to transition the material to a formable state (i.e., thermoformable material) but the reference claims do not specifically recite that the material of the flaps comprises a polymeric thermoformable material. In the analogous art, Phan as applied above discloses the use of polymeric thermoformable material for achieving transparency, improved cosmetic appearance, and substantial force and stiffness (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the thermoformable material was polymeric in order to achieve transparency, improved cosmetic appearance, and substantial force and stiffness as taught by Phan. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been shown to support a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding instant claim 11, reference claims 1-16 read on forming the specialized feature comprising heating and/or applying pressure (folding/bending sections over each other, applying heat, imparting a force during/after bending, positioning against a template for forming).
Regarding instant claim 12, the reference claims do not specifically recite that forming the shell and/or the specialized feature comprises applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition. In the analogous art, Phan as applied above discloses forming the shell and/or the specialized feature comprises applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition (col. 10, lines 6-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify forming the shell and/or the specialized feature comprises applying the polymeric thermoformable material over a dental mold of the patient’s dentition as a known technique for predictably forming a shell and/or specialized feature of a personalized dental appliance as taught by Phan.
Regarding instant claim 20, reference claims 1-16 read on a method of forming a dental appliance (claims 1, 11: preamble), comprising forming a shell to have one or more cavities that are configured to receive a patient’s dentition, wherein the shell is configured to reposition one or more teeth of the patient’s dentition toward a new configuration (claims 1, 11: forming a shell having a number of tooth apertures configured to receive and reposition a number of teeth of a patient); and folding one or more flaps (claim 1: the shell having a number of specialized components formed from folding multiple sections of a first sheet of material over each other; claim 11: folding multiple sections of the first sheet of material over each other to form one or more specialized features) of thermoformable material (claim 5: sheet material that is formable via heating) to form a specialized feature of the dental appliance (claim 1: number of specialized components are formed from folding multiple sections of a first sheet of material over each other; claim 11: to form one or more specialized features), wherein forming the specialized feature comprises heating, applying pressure, and/or applying vacuum to the thermoformable material (claims 1-16: folding/bending sections over each other, applying heat, imparting a force during/after bending, positioning against a template for forming). The reference claims do not specifically recite the specialized feature is configured to impart one or more specialized forces to one or more specific locations of the patient’s dentition or dental arch; however, the reference claims recite that the specialized feature is part of the shell that is configured to reposition teeth such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the specialized feature(s) is/are intended to impart specialized forces to the patient’s dentition and/or dental arch in order to achieve said repositioning. The reference claims do not specifically recite that the material of the one or more flaps comprises a polymeric material. In the analogous art, Phan as applied above discloses the use of polymeric thermoformable material for achieving transparency, improved cosmetic appearance, and substantial force and stiffness (col. 1, line 66 – col. 2, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the thermoformable material was polymeric in order to achieve transparency, improved cosmetic appearance, and substantial force and stiffness as taught by Phan. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been shown to support a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170156823 A1, Roein Peikar et al. disclose techniques for forming dental appliance structures including cutting portions from a flat sheet of polymeric material and bending the structure into 3D shapes, optionally with application of heat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights