DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Abstract
2. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently contains legal phraseologies, e.g. “comprising” (line 2), and phrases which can be implied, e.g. "One embodiment of the present invention provides…" (line 1). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Kim (US 2016/0157962).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a clear aligner 100 comprising:
a clear aligning body 100 in which a channel 110a accommodating a tooth to be aligned is formed to move the tooth from an initial position to a target position (Figs. 1-2; [0002] “transparent orthodontic aligner applying orthodontic force for tooth movement”; [0103] “recess 110a into which the teeth… are inserted”).
Fig. 9 shows the clear aligner having an occlusal part 113 defined in the clear aligning body and located in an occlusal area 113 coming into contact with an antagonistic tooth T3 during occlusion.
Fig. 5 clearly shows a thickness of the occlusal part 113 is formed of three layers 101, 102, and 120. Occlusal part 113 is therefore thicker than the area 111, 112 excluding the occlusal part 113; area 111, 112 is formed of two layers 101, 102 (Figs. 5-9; [0104] “first cover layer 101… and a second cover layer 102”; [0056] “An opposing teeth-contacting surface with a shape where the occlusal surface of the opposing teeth is transcribed may be formed on the outer surface of the guard base contacting the opposing teeth”; [0120] “thickness of the bottom (a portion covering an end portion of the teeth) at the end at left side and the end at right side of the teeth binding recess 110a is thinner than a thickness of a middle portion of the teeth binding recess covering the incisal surface of the anterior teeth”).
As to claim 2, Figs. 34 and 37 each shows a thickness of the clear aligning body gradually increases toward the occlusal part 313a/313b (Figs. 34; [0212]-[214]).
As to claim 3, Kim discloses a strength reinforcing part that is, relative to a movement direction of the tooth to be aligned, formed conformally on an outer surface of the clear aligning body located at a distal side from the movement direction to reinforce an orthodontic force ([0213] “the guard base 313 includes a buffer layer 313a which absorbs shock from an occlusal force between the posterior teeth and the opposing teeth (posterior teeth in the lower teeth in the present embodiment), and a hard layer 313b of a firm material provided on the inside or outside of the buffer layer 313a to reinforce the strength of the guard base 313”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 4-10 iare rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee (WO 2023/278894).
Regarding claims 4-10, Kim discloses the invention discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for the specific location(s) of the strength reinforcing part.
Lee discloses a clear aligner having a strength reinforcing part strategically placed according to orthodontic treatment needs:
Per claim 4, for an expansion case (Fig. 35), the strength reinforcing part 3510, 3520, is formed on a lingual side outer surface of the clear aligning body (Fig. 35; [00137] “Figure 35 illustrates an orthodontic appliance 202 applied for arch expansion…the actuator 3510 includes one or more selfactuation layers… the actuator 3520 includes a self- actuation structure forming a bridge between the two end portions of the orthodontic appliance 202”).
Per claim 5, for a retraction case (Fig. 2), the strength reinforcing part 204D is formed on a buccal side outer surface of the clear aligning body (Fig. 2; [0181] “ribs 20D also called an reinforce array”).
Per claim 6, for an extrusion case (Fig. 19), the strength reinforcing part 1906, 1908 is formed on portions of an outer surface of the clear aligning body that are located on proximal sides from a dental root based on heights of contour of a tooth (Fig. 19).
Per claim 7, for an intrusion case, the strength reinforcing part is formed on portions of an outer surface of the clear aligning body that are located on distal sides from a dental root based on heights of contour of a tooth.
Per claim 8, for a rotation case (Fig. 18), the strength reinforcing part1808,1810,1812 is formed on portions of an outer surface of the clear aligning body that are located diagonally from each other when four sections of an occlusal surface of a tooth are set based on groove lines formed on the occlusal surface (Fig. 18 [0029]).
Per claim 9, for an angulation case (Fig. 16), the strength reinforcing part 1604/1608 is formed on a mesial side outer surface 1604 of the clear aligning body that is located in one direction based on a height of contour of a tooth and a distal side 1608 outer surface of the clear aligning body that is located in the other direction based on another height of contour of the tooth (see Fig. 16).
Per claim 10, for a torque control case (Fig. 20), the strength reinforcing part 2012/2014 is formed on a lingual side 2012 outer surface of the clear aligning body that is located in one direction based on a height of contour of a tooth and a buccal side 2014 outer surface of the clear aligning body that is located in the other direction based on another height of contour of the tooth (Fig. 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim by positioning the reinforcement part strategically at the locations as detailed above according to each orthodontic case as explicitly taught by Lee in order to effectively apply appropriate forces according to the treatment plan for each orthodontic case.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Hao D Mai/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772