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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to “A manufacturing system”, classified in B29C33/3842.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to “A quality analysis system”, classified in B33Y50/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of groups I & II are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions are a dental appliance manufacturing system (robot arm, press & laser) -and- a quality analysis system comprising a camera and a processor for checking dental appliance alignment and its bond qualities, using data acquisition and processing. These systems have different designs, components and modes of operation.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin Kimes on 9/10/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of “A manufacturing system”, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Examiner Comments
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8 & 11 cite elements that may not be positively-recited limitations, as these elements cite what the structural elements of the apparatus are intended to do. As these claims are written, a valid prior art for rejection may have the same cited structural elements but use the structure for a different function. See MPEP 2114(I),(II),(III). These elements can become patentably significant limitations by citing that the structure is ‘configured’ to perform the particular function.
The elements of note are: claim 2, line 2 ‘printer’ (e.g., printer configured to print…), claim 2, line 3 ‘thermoforming equipment’, claim 2, line 4 ‘trimming equipment’, claim 3, line 3 ‘camera’, claim 3, line 4 ‘processing device’, claim 6, line 2 ‘camera’, claim 6, line 3 ‘processing device’, claim 8, line 2 ‘camera’, claim 8, line 4 ‘processing device’, claim 11, line 4 ‘processing device’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp (US20080159798A1), in view of Cam (US20180000564A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A manufacturing system, comprising: a holder configured to receive a feature of a dental appliance and to hold the dental appliance by clamping the feature of the dental appliance, wherein the holder holds the feature of the dental appliance at a reference position; a robot arm configured to retrieve an object and to place the object against the feature at the reference position; a press configured to apply pressure to press the object against the feature of the dental appliance while the dental appliance is held by the holder; and a laser configured to expose an interface of the dental appliance and the object to coherent light to weld the object to the feature of the dental appliance while the press presses the object against the feature of the dental appliance.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Culp teaches a manufacturing system (Fig. 1), comprising: a robot arm (Fig. 1, item 52) as a pick and place holder configured to receive an identifying tab feature (Fig. 8, item 74’ tab) of a dental appliance and to hold the dental appliance by clamping the feature of the dental appliance and transferring the appliance to another holder, a pallet (Fig. 1, item 14) on a turntable (Fig. 1, item 16; [0036-0039]). Culp teaches the pallet is moved on the turntable to the printing station, then pressed by the press arm to press the ink object onto the appliance/feature [0040])wherein the pallet is configured to hold the feature of the dental appliance at a reference position [0040]; a printing head on a press arm (Fig. 6, item 64) is configured to retrieve an inked tape object (Fig. 6, item 72) held by its rollers (Fig. 6, items 66, 68, 70; [0040]) and to place the object against the feature at the reference position. Culp teaches “the turret or turntable 16 stopped at a rotational position in which a first item 12a of the pair of items 12a, 12b on a pallet 14 is aligned under the printing head 64 of the first printing station 36” [0040]. Culp teaches the press above the printing head is configured to apply pressure to press the object against the feature of the dental appliance while the dental appliance is held by the pallet [0040].
Culp teaches the press arm that delivers the inked tape to the aligner feature (See Figs. 6 & 7, items 64, 72) which is held in place by pinch rollers (Fig. 6, items 66) which hold a side of the inked tape while the print head (Fig. 6, item 64) is extended down at the base of the press arm [0040].
Culp is silent on the holder being able to clamp the feature of the dental appliance while the object is pressed against the feature. Culp teaches the pallet is raised to meet the print head press device [0034, 0040], but the pallet is not explicitly taught to clamp the feature of the dental appliance.
However, substitution from the pallet to a more common clamping device such as the gripper of the pick and place robot arm would be a prima facie obvious substitution for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, if desired. This modification would predictably provide an alternate means for holding the aligner and feature while the object is pressed to the feature for bonding. The modification could be the pick and place robot (Fig. 1, item 52) transferring the aligner to the bonding station instead of onto the pallet system, as the robot is configured within reach of the bonding station (Fig. 1, item 36).
Culp is silent on a laser configured to expose an interface of the dental appliance and the object to coherent light to weld the object to the feature of the dental appliance while the press presses the object against the feature of the dental appliance.
However, the prior art of Cam teaches an object comprises surface having a outer shape (Fig. 3C, item 310) that mates with the first inner shape of an aligner appliance (Fig. 3C, item 325; [0043-0044, 0061] by laser welding the object to the feature of the clear plastic dental appliance [0052]. Cam teaches an adhesive may be applied at the interface between the object and feature of the appliance, wherein the laser welding step process cures the adhesive. Cam teaches “the adhesive may be a light curable adhesive (e.g., an epoxy that is cured using ultraviolet light)” [0052].
Cam teaches alternative embodiments wherein the object can be on the convex (outer) portion of the aligner (See Figs. 7B, 7C).
Cam does not explicitly teach applying pressure while laser welding the object to the cavity of the clear plastic dental appliance.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to maintain the object at pressure until the object is bonded to the plastic shell to prevent debonding of the object from the shell when pressure is relieved and the press is opened.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the bonding device comprising a laser to laser weld the object and aligner feature, as taught by Cam, in place of the bonding press taught by Culp, which teaches thermopressing to bond the ink object onto the aligner feature. This modification would predictably result in a laser welding station in the system taught by Culp with a reasonable expectation of success.
2. The manufacturing system of claim 1, further comprising: a three-dimensional printer to print a mold for the dental appliance; thermoforming equipment to thermoform the dental appliance over the mold; and trimming equipment to trim the dental appliance along a trim line.
With respect to claim 2, Cam teaches the dental appliance is formed by three-dimensional printing to print a mold for the dental appliance [0054]; thermoforming the clear plastic dental appliance (Fig. 3B, item 320) over the mold (Fig. 3B, item 305), wherein the cavity forms over the mold during the thermoforming ([0056]); and trimming the clear plastic dental appliance along a trim line [0102].
3. The manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the dental appliance comprises an orthodontic aligner, the manufacturing system further comprising: a camera to capture an image of the feature while the dental appliance is held in the holder; and a processing device to: process the image to determine an aligner type of the orthodontic aligner; determine an object type to use from a plurality of object types, wherein the object type is associated with the aligner type; and cause the robot arm pick up the object having the object type.
With respect to claim 3, Culp teaches the dental appliance comprises an orthodontic aligner (Fig. 8, item 12a), the manufacturing system further comprising: an optical reader, or vision camera (Figs. 12 & 13, items 80), to capture an image of the feature while the dental appliance is held in the holder [0048]; and a processing device to: process the image to determine an aligner type of the orthodontic aligner; and determine an object type to use from a plurality of object types, wherein the object type is associated with the aligner type [0048]. Culp teaches that from the read station, the robot arm can further pick up and place the aligner having the object type determined by the image processing of the inked data matrices [0048, 0050].
6. The manufacturing system of claim 1, further comprising: a camera to capture an image of the dental appliance while the dental appliance is held in the holder; and a processing device to: process the image; and determine whether the dental appliance has a correct placement in the holder based on a result of the processing.
With respect to claim 6, Culp teaches an optical reader, or vision camera (Figs. 12 & 13, items 80), to capture an image of the feature while the dental appliance is held in the holder [0048]; and a processing device to: process the image to determine an aligner type of the orthodontic aligner [0048]. Culp teaches a conventional pick and place robot can orient the appliance (Fig. 8, item 12a) to determine whether the dental appliance has a correct placement in the holder based on a result of the processing [0037, 0038].
10. The manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the object comprises a layer of a photo-thermal compound on a surface of the object, wherein at least one of a) the dental appliance is a clear plastic dental appliance or b) the object is a clear plastic object, and wherein performing the laser welding comprises: directing coherent light having a first wavelength through at least one of the clear plastic dental appliance or the clear plastic object onto an interface of the object and the dental appliance, wherein the photo-thermal compound absorbs the coherent light having the first wavelength and generates heat that melts the object and the dental appliance at the interface of the object and the dental appliance.
With respect to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Cam teaches the object can comprise a layer of a photo-thermal epoxy or other photocurable adhesive on a surface of the object, wherein the dental appliance is a clear plastic dental aligner. Cam teaches laser welding, with a UV-curable adhesive such as epoxy coated on the surface of the object before bonding with the aligner feature [0052], and that heat is generated during the laser welding process [0052].
Cam teaches performing the laser welding comprises: directing coherent light through at least one of the clear plastic dental appliance or the clear plastic object which is absorbed and generates heat that melts the object and the dental appliance at the interface of the object and the dental appliance [0052].
Although Cam is silent on a laser wavelength, it is commonly known that lasers by definition (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) will comprise at least one wavelength.
11. The manufacturing system of claim 1, further comprising: a sensor to measure an amount of force applied to place the object against the feature of the dental appliance during placement of the object against the feature of the dental appliance; and a processing device to: determine whether the amount of force is between an upper force threshold and a lower force threshold; and determine whether the object has been correctly placed against the feature of the dental appliance based on whether the amount of force is between the upper force threshold and the lower force threshold.
With respect to claim 11, Culp teaches the force at which the aligner feature and the object are pressed together is maintained within a predetermined pressure range [Claim 9].
Culp teaches a pressure transducer can be used to measure the amount of force applied to place the object against the feature of the dental appliance during placement of the object against the feature of the dental appliance [0042]. Culp teaches the system controlled by a software algorithm executed by a computer system [0031], with the pressure sensor sending pressure values to determine whether the amount of force is being controlled between an upper force threshold and a lower force threshold [0042]. Culp teaches an alarm can be activated if the pressure is not within upper and lower limits of the control pressure range [0042].
Culp teaches a vision system comprising optical readers will send the object image data to the computer system [0048]; this step determines whether the object has been correctly placed against the feature of the dental appliance based on whether the amount of force is between the upper force threshold and the lower force threshold.
Claims 4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Culp (US20080159798A1), in view of Cam (US20180000564A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claims 3 & 6, respectively, and further in view of Shah (US20200160497A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
4. The manufacturing system of claim 3, wherein processing the image comprises: inputting the image into a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model outputs a classification for the orthodontic aligner that indicates the aligner type.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Culp teaches an optical reader, or vision camera (Figs. 12 & 13, items 80), to capture an image of the feature while the dental appliance is held in the holder [0048]; and a processing device to: process the image to determine an aligner type of the orthodontic aligner; and determine an object type to use from a plurality of object types, wherein the object type is associated with the aligner type [0048].
Culp, in view of Cam, is silent on processing the image comprising: inputting the image into a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model outputs a classification for the orthodontic aligner that indicates the aligner type.
However, the prior art of Shah teaches a processing device using a machine learning model trained to process a plurality of images [Claim 1], and determining an ID associated with the 3D printed object based on a result of the optical character recognition [Claim 5]. “The laser marking may provide an identification of a particular 3D printed object (or of a particular shell or aligner), and may correspond to a particular digital model of the 3D printed object (or of the shell or aligner). The image control module may perform optical character recognition (OCR) on the symbol sequence to determine the ID” [0061].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique of using machine learning to process aligner images to provide aligner identification and model, taught by Shah, to improve the manufacturing process of Culp, in view of Cam, by providing a means to identify aligner model and details in the same way. Since Culp, in view of Cam, already has a camera and a processor, this modification would require only the machine learning software to analyze the images to function in the same way as taught by Shah.
7. The manufacturing system of claim 6, wherein processing the image comprises inputting the image into a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model generates an output indicating whether the dental appliance has the correct placement in the holder.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, Culp teaches the dental appliance is properly placed by the pick and place robot arm. This allows for proper object placement at the pressing / printing station.
Culp teaches proper placement of the aligner to allow proper pressing and imprinting of the object; however, Culp is silent on the means for processing an image taken by the camera to ensure its proper placement; Culp is silent on whether this comprises inputting the image into a trained machine learning model, wherein the trained machine learning model generates an output indicating whether the dental appliance has the correct placement in the holder.
However, the prior art of Shah teaches a processing device using a machine learning model trained to process a plurality of images [Claim 1], and determining an ID associated with the 3D printed object based on a result of the optical character recognition [Claim 5]. “The laser marking may provide an identification of a particular 3D printed object (or of a particular shell or aligner) and may correspond to a particular digital model of the 3D printed object (or of the shell or aligner). The image control module may perform optical character recognition (OCR) on the symbol sequence to determine the ID” [0061].
While Shah does not explicitly teach machine learning to provide proper placement of an aligner on a holder, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique of using machine learning to process aligner images, taught by Shah, taken before the provide the means for the proper aligner placement before pressing/printing taught by Culp, in view of Cam, to improve the manufacturing system of Culp, in view of Cam, by providing a means to properly place aligner on the holder in the same way. This modification would use a camera sending signals to a processor taught by Culp, in view of Cam, with the machine learning software of Shah to analyze the images to provide the means for properly place the aligner in the same way as the system of Culp, in view of Cam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, no prior art was found to modify Culp, in view of Cam, to teach the object comprises an opposing pattern of notches and/or protrusions that mates with the pattern of notches and/or protrusions of the feature for the aligner type.
Regarding claim 8, no prior art was found to modify Culp, in view of Cam, to teach a camera to capture an image of the dental appliance in the holder before the object is welded to the feature; and a processing device to: process the image; and determine whether the object is correctly placed against the feature of the dental appliance based on a result of the processing.
There is no teaching of a process for positioning an object on the dental appliance in situ at the bonding station using a camera and machine learning for the pressing / bonding system taught by Culp, in view of Cam.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 8 and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights