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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,944,511. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The portions of claim 7 of the present application which differ from claim 1 of Patent 11,944,551 are identified with underlining:
Claim 7. An additively manufactured dental device, comprising: an additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form, including; a buccal-facing side; a lingual-facing side; a plurality of tooth locations recessed between the buccal-facing side and the lingual-facing side; at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body joined to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form, wherein a joining interface between the polymeric removable bracing body and the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form includes a cross-sectional area of at least about 1.5 mm2 and no more than about 20 mm2; and at least one additively manufactured removable polymeric support structure coupled to the dental device wherein the removable polymeric support structure is separate from the polymeric removable bracing body.
As to the term, “including,” the Patent recites “having” which is not patentably distinct.
As to the term “locations,” the Patent recites “sockets” which is more specific.
As to the term “recessed,” the Patent recites the sockets are “disposed... between” which is not patentably distinct from “recessed” in this context.
As to the phrase, “wherein a joining interface between the polymetric removable bracing body and...” this is not patentably distinct from the corresponding phrase “wherein each polymeric fixed junction with...” which is found in the Patent’s claim. That is, a joining interface is not patentably distinct from a “fixed junction.”
As to the term, “at least one,” the Patent recites, “a plurality of,” which is equivalent.
As to the term “coupled to,” the patent recites, “extending from” which is more specific.
As to the term, “the dental device,” the Patent recites, “the polymeric dental arch” which is more specific.
As to the term, “is separate from, “ the Patent recites, “being of a smaller cross-section” which implies the claimed feature by necessarily being separate from if it is a different feature
The following chart indicates which claims of the present application correspond to which claims of the patent.
Present Application Claim
Corresponding Patent 11,944,511 Claim
7
1
8
1
18
5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites, “15. The additively manufactured dental device of claim 13, wherein the single plane is normal to an occlusal plane.” Claim 13 requires “the multiple beam-like members of the polymeric removable bracing body lie in a single plane.”
Thus, claim 15 requires all of the beam-like members to line in a single plane normal to an occlusal plane.
However, none of the embodiments illustrated by Applicant have support for this limitation. Rather, as shown in Figs 3A-4F of the originally filed Specification, the beam-like members are all extend at least partially horizontally. The beam-like members would be required to extend only vertically to be normal to the occlusal plane. Since the beam-like members are required to junction with the lingual facing side of the dental arch, some horizontal extension appears to be required, which would be an extension parallel to, not normal to the occlusal plane.
The same reasons apply to claim 24.
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.
Claims 12-15 and 21-24 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.
The term “beam-like members” in claims 12, 13, 21, and 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how similar to a “beam” a member must be, or in what ways it must be similar to a beam in order to meet the claimed limitation “beam-like members.”
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 7-14, 16-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9456963 B2) in view of Sandwick et al. (US 20210038346 A1).
As to claim 7, Lee teaches an additively manufactured dental device (Lee teaches dentures made by three-dimensional printing. See Col 3 lines 20-22: “a method for making dentures using the compositions and three-dimensional printing technology are provided.”), comprising: an additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form (the form shown in Fig 1 is three-dimensionally printed. The material is described at Col 4 lines 8-21, and includes at least “difunctional bisphenol A dimethacrylate” which is polymeric), including; a buccal-facing side; a lingual-facing side; a plurality of tooth locations recessed between the buccal-facing side and the lingual-facing side (as shown in Examiner’s annotated Fig 1 below); and at least one additively manufactured removable polymeric support structure coupled to the dental device (Lee describes “support material” at Col 1 lines 34-40. Lee also teaches a “support bar” at Col 1 line 59. Last, Lee teaches removing “support layers” which are required “in order to accurately form the three-dimensional articles,” see Col 10 lines 15-21.)
Lee does not teach at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body.
Examiner interprets the only support structure described by Lee are the support material commonly used in the 3D printing arts to support a portion of the body which is not directly supported from below by the plate or a portion of the body itself.
However, in the field of additively manufactured dental components, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for additively manufactured removable bracing bodies. See Sandwick which teaches an orthodontic device 10 which is formed by additive manufacturing. Sandwick teaches at Fig 3 for example a lattice 40 which is “is sufficient to maintain the intended shape of the lingual portion 12 until such time that the material used to form the lingual portion 12 solidifies so that the lingual portion 12 can maintain its own shape” (Paragraph [0044]). Sandwich further teaches at paragraph [0046]: “Once the material of the lingual portion 12 sufficiently solidifies, the rigid lattice wires are removed, for example by cutting them from the lingual portion 12.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body as described by Sandwich in the three-dimensionally printed denture base body of Lee. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits of the bracing body as described by Sandwick, which is the stability of shape until solidification. See also MPEP § 2143 D which describes the prima facie obviousness of applying a known technique (additive manufacturing of bracing bodies of Sandwick) to a known device (the denture base of Lee) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.1
Lee in view of Sandwick thus teach: at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body joined to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form (as shown in Lee Fig 3, the lattice 40 is joined to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form), wherein the removable polymeric support structure is separate from the polymeric removable bracing body (the support of Lee is different and serves a different purpose than the lattice of Sandwick. An artisan would have been motivated to use both kinds of support in order to ensure the stability of the shape of the resulting denture base).
Lee in view of Sandwick further suggest: wherein a joining interface between the polymeric removable bracing body and the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form includes a cross- sectional area of at least about 1.5 mm2 and no more than about 20 mm2 (Even though Lee doesn’t teach a specific thickness of the denture device, Sandwick describes plastic dental devices as having a minimum thickness of 1.5 millimeters (see Paragraph [0003]). A cylinder having a thickness of 1.5mm has a cross-sectional area of 1.8mm2. Thus, an artisan practicing Lee in view of Sandwick would have been motivated to provide for the lattice of Sandwick having a cross-sectional area of at least 1.8mm2 in order to provide sufficient structural strength. The value of 1.8mm2 is within the claimed range of 1.5mm2 to 20mm2.)
PNG
media_image1.png
494
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 7, wherein the additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form includes a denture base (Lee teaches a denture base).
As to claim 9, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 8, wherein the denture base includes a partial denture base (Lee teaches at Col 12 lines 50-52: “Some of artificial teeth can be printed individually and assembled together to the denture base, using dental adhesives, to generate full or partial denture.”).
As to claim 10, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 7, wherein the additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form includes a mandibular dental arch form (See Lee Col 2 lines 28-31: “Since each patient has different mandibular arch and maxillary arch, each denture is manufactured uniquely on a case by case basis such that each denture is different from one another.”).
As to claim 11, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 7, wherein the additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form includes a maxillary dental arch form (See Lee Col 2 lines 28-31: “Since each patient has different mandibular arch and maxillary arch, each denture is manufactured uniquely on a case by case basis such that each denture is different from one another.”).
As to claim 12, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 7, wherein the polymeric removable bracing body includes multiple beam-like members (Sandwick teaches a lattice 40 which includes beam-like members 40a, 40b, 40c).2
As to claim 13, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 12, wherein the multiple beam-like members of the polymeric removable bracing body lie in a single plane (Sandwick’s Figs 3-5 illustrate the lattice 40, but as the Figures are top-down, it is unknown whether the lattice is in a single plane. However, Sandwick Paragraph [0045] teaches another structure which will “functional similarly to the rigid lattice” which is a “plate-like structure.” Accordingly, as a plate-like structure would function similarly, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have understood that a reasonable configuration of the lattice wires 40a, 40b, 40c is in a single plane).
As to claim 14, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 13, wherein the single plane is parallel to an occlusal plane (as illustrated by Sandwick).
As to claim 16, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 7, wherein the at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body includes multiple joining interfaces to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form, wherein the multiple joining interfaces include an anterior connection, a left posterior connection and a right posterior connection (this configuration is shown for example in Sandwick Fig 3).
As to claim 17, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 7, wherein the at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body includes multiple joining interfaces to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form, wherein the multiple joining interfaces include at least two left posterior connections and at least two right posterior connections (this configuration is shown for example in Sandwick Fig 3).
As to claim 18, Lee teaches an additively manufactured dental device (Lee teaches dentures made by three-dimensional printing. See Col 3 lines 20-22: “a method for making dentures using the compositions and three-dimensional printing technology are provided.”), comprising: an additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form (the form shown in Fig 1 is three-dimensionally printed. The material is described at Col 4 lines 8-21, and includes at least “difunctional bisphenol A dimethacrylate” which is polymeric), including; a buccal-facing side; a lingual-facing side; a plurality of tooth sockets located along the dental arch form between the buccal- facing side and the lingual-facing side (as shown in Examiner’s annotated Fig 1 above); and at least one additively manufactured removable polymeric support structure coupled to the dental device (Lee describes “support material” at Col 1 lines 34-40. Lee also teaches a “support bar” at Col 1 line 59. Last, Lee teaches removing “support layers” which are required “in order to accurately form the three-dimensional articles,” see Col 10 lines 15-21.).
Lee does not teach at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body
Examiner interprets the only support structure described by Lee are the support material commonly used in the 3D printing arts to support a portion of the body which is not directly supported from below by the plate or a portion of the body itself.
However, in the field of additively manufactured dental components, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for additively manufactured removable bracing bodies. See Sandwick which teaches an orthodontic device 10 which is formed by additive manufacturing. Sandwick teaches at Fig 3 for example a lattice 40 which is “is sufficient to maintain the intended shape of the lingual portion 12 until such time that the material used to form the lingual portion 12 solidifies so that the lingual portion 12 can maintain its own shape” (Paragraph [0044]). Sandwich further teaches at paragraph [0046]: “Once the material of the lingual portion 12 sufficiently solidifies, the rigid lattice wires are removed, for example by cutting them from the lingual portion 12.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body as described by Sandwich in the three-dimensionally printed denture base body of Lee. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefits of the bracing body as described by Sandwick, which is the stability of shape until solidification. See also MPEP § 2143 D which describes the prima facie obviousness of applying a known technique (additive manufacturing of bracing bodies of Sandwick) to a known device (the denture base of Lee) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.3
Lee in view of Sandwick thus teach: at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body joined to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form (as shown in Lee Fig 3, the lattice 40 is joined to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form), wherein the removable polymeric support structure is separate from the polymeric removable bracing body (the support of Lee is different and serves a different purpose than the lattice of Sandwick. An artisan would have been motivated to use both kinds of support in order to ensure the stability of the shape of the resulting denture base).
Lee in view of Sandwick further suggest: wherein a joining interface between the polymeric removable bracing body and the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form includes a cross- sectional area of at least about 1.5 mm2 and no more than about 20 mm2 (Even though Lee doesn’t teach a specific thickness of the denture device, Sandwick describes plastic dental devices as having a minimum thickness of 1.5 millimeters (see Paragraph [0003]). A cylinder having a thickness of 1.5mm has a cross-sectional area of 1.8mm2. Thus, an artisan practicing Lee in view of Sandwick would have been motivated to provide for the lattice of Sandwick having a cross-sectional area of at least 1.8mm2 in order to provide sufficient structural strength. The value of 1.8mm2 is within the claimed range of 1.5mm2 to 20mm2.).
As to claim 19, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 18, wherein the additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form includes a mandibular dental arch form (See Lee Col 2 lines 28-31: “Since each patient has different mandibular arch and maxillary arch, each denture is manufactured uniquely on a case by case basis such that each denture is different from one another.”).
As to claim 20, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 18, wherein the additively manufactured polymeric dental arch form includes a maxillary dental arch form (See Lee Col 2 lines 28-31: “Since each patient has different mandibular arch and maxillary arch, each denture is manufactured uniquely on a case by case basis such that each denture is different from one another.”).
As to claim 21, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 18, wherein the polymeric removable bracing body includes multiple beam-like members (Sandwick teaches a lattice 40 which includes beam-like members 40a, 40b, 40c).4
As to claim 22, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 21, wherein the multiple beam-like members of the polymeric removable bracing body lie in a single plane (Sandwick’s Figs 3-5 illustrate the lattice 40, but as the Figures are top-down, it is unknown whether the lattice is in a single plane. However, Sandwick Paragraph [0045] teaches another structure which will “functional similarly to the rigid lattice” which is a “plate-like structure.” Accordingly, as a plate-like structure would function similarly, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have understood that a reasonable configuration of the lattice wires 40a, 40b, 40c is in a single plane).
As to claim 23, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 22, wherein the single plane is parallel to an occlusal plane (as illustrated by Sandwick).
As to claim 25, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 18, wherein the at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body includes multiple joining interfaces to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form, wherein the multiple joining interfaces include an anterior connection, a left posterior connection and a right posterior connection (this configuration is shown for example in Sandwick Fig 3).
As to claim 26, Lee in view of Sandwick teaches the additively manufactured dental device of claim 18, wherein the at least one additively manufactured polymeric removable bracing body includes multiple joining interfaces to the lingual-facing side of the dental arch form, wherein the multiple joining interfaces include at least two left posterior connections and at least two right posterior connections (this configuration is shown for example in Sandwick Fig 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 5 February 2026
1 Applicant is reminded that Sandwick is not relied upon to teach the material or the configuration of the dental device. These limitations are already taught by Lee. Rather, Sandwick is relied upon to show that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for a 3D printed dental device to include a “lattice 40” in order to maintain stability of the shape of the device during 3D printing until solidification. This would be equally as applicable to polymeric devices as metallic devices.
2 Claims 12-15 have an effective filing date of 10 February 2025
3 Applicant is reminded that Sandwick is not relied upon to teach the material or the configuration of the dental device. These limitations are already taught by Lee. Rather, Sandwick is relied upon to show that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed for a 3D printed dental device to include a “lattice 40” in order to maintain stability of the shape of the device during 3D printing until solidification. This would be equally as applicable to polymeric devices as metallic devices.
4 Claims 21-24 have an effective filing date of 10 February 2025