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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 10, 2026. These drawings are accepted and entered.
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 1-4, 7-9, 10-23 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.
With respect to claim 1 support for the limitation of “the lingual portion is positioned anterior to an anterior side of the occlusal wall of the shell” is not provided in the originally filed specification.
With respect to claim 2, support for the mask region comprising the recess to receive the attachment in combination with the shell and mask region of the independent claims is not provided. It is noted that the embodiment of figures 6a-6b have support for the mask region having the recess as claimed, but not the shell with the walls in combination with the mask region.
With respect to claim 21, support for the smooth ramp region covering the lingual portion of the tooth mask and the occlusal wall is not supported in combination with the limitation of the lingual portion being positioned anterior to an anterior side of the occlusal wall of the shell. It is noted that figure 3a shows the transition portion 320 having the smooth ramp portion, however, does not teach that portion covering the lingual portion of the tooth mask.
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 1-4, 7-9, and 11-23 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation including “the lingual portion is positioned anterior to an anterior side of the occlusal wall of the shell” is unclear. It is noted that lingual is known in the art to be the tongue side of the teeth. Therefore, it is unclear how a lingual portion can be anterior to the tongue surface, i.e. in front of it. Such that if the lingual portion is in front of the occlusal surface, it would be a buccal portion. For examination purposes, the limitation is being interested as a posterior portion, such as the claimed lingual portion of the tooth mask is a posteriorly facing/lingual surface of the tooth mask, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 21, the limitation of the ramp portion covering a lingual portion of the tooth mask and the occlusal wall is unclear in view of the limitation discussed above in detail. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the ramp portion covers a posterior/lingual surface of the tooth mask, such that the mask region is both the at least one tooth mask and ramp, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 14-15, 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff (WO 2023/199327).
With respect to claim 1, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff discloses a dental appliance comprising a shell comprising an occlusal wall, a buccal wall, and a lingual wall defining a plurality of cavities (see figs. 1a-1b, 2a-2b, 7a-10, abstract, pars. 20 57, claim 1, 5, such that the disclosed inner functional layer is the shell), the shell configured to reposition a patient’s teeth from a first tooth arrangement toward a second tooth arrangement (abstract, pars. 80, 82-83, 86, 93) and a mask region (the outer functional layer) integrally formed with the shell (pars. 94-95, such that the layers are formed simultaneously), wherein, the mask region comprises at least one tooth mask that is configured to cover at lest one tooth of the patient’s teeth, the at least one tooth mask depicting the at least one tooth according to a target arrangement, the at least one tooth mask comprises an occlusal portion and a lingual portion connected to the occlusal portion, wherein the occlusal portion extends vertically above the occlusal wall of the shell, and wherein the lingual portion is positioned anterior to an anterior side of the occlusal wall of the shell, and the mask region comprises a smoothed ramp connecting the occlusal portion of the at least one tooth mask and the occlusal wall of the shell (see annotated figure below, pars. 29 80, 82-83, specifically in par. 83 “As a result, the appearance of the mouth with the alinger inserted on the first day of treatment, as shown in stage 403, is very nearly identical to the appearance of the mouth and aligner on the last day of treatment, as shown in stage 404, and to the appearance of the mouth itself on the last day of treatment, as showing in stage 405.”, see 112 above regarding interpretation of lingual portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the at least one tooth comprises one or more anterior teeth (see figs. 2a-2b, i.e. area 20, fig. 4, fig. 8).
With respect to claim 3, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses the plurality of cavities comprises at least one cavity configured to receive the at least one tooth, and the at least one tooth mask is positioned proximate to the at least one cavity (see figs. 2a-2b, i.e. area 20, fig. 4, fig. 8)
With respect to claim 4, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the at least one tooth mask is connected to the buccal wall (see annotated figures above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 7, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the at least one tooth mask comprises a gingival portion, the occlusal portion being thicker than the gingival portion (see annotated figure below, par. 29 specifically “additional thickness at the tip of a tooth”, i.e. the occlusal portion being thicker).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
285
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the mask region is solid (see annotated figures above).
With respect to claim 11, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the at least one tooth comprises a plurality of teeth, and the mask region comprises an interproximal portion corresponding to an interproximal region of the plurality of teeth (pars. 29, 82, fig. 8).
With respect to claim 14, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the mask region is configured to cover an attachment on the at least one tooth (see figs. 2a, 2g, 3c, pars. 64, 70-71).
With respect to claim 15, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further teaches wherein the mask region comprises a recess configured to receive the attachment (see figs. 2a, 2g, 3c, pars. 64, 70-71, specifically par. 57 teaching the shell and mask being gradient layers, such that the mask would include a portion of the recess when the layers are a gradient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Mason to teaches the mask region covering at least one attachment in order to deliver the desired force to the teeth.
With respect to claim 18, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the target tooth arrangement is different from the second tooth arrangement (pars. 80-83, 98, such that aligners are used and the teeth are moved gradually to the final position from a first to a second and further to a final, as seen in fig. 7a treatment processes).
With respect to claim 19, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the target tooth arrangement corresponds to a final treatment stage of a treatment plan for repositioning teeth (pars. 80-83, 86, 98).
With respect to claim 20, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the dental appliance is an alinger (see abstract, detailed discussion above).
With respect to claim 21, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the smooth ramp region covers the lingual portion of the at least one mask and the occlusal wall of the shell (see annotated figure above with respect to claim 1, such that is cover the lingual portion and occlusal wall in an occlusal direction, i.e. it is above those portions).
With respect to claim 22, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses wherein the mask region comprises a gingival portion that is configured to extends past a gingal margin of the patient’s teeth to cover a part of the patient’s gingival (see par. 15).
With respect to claim 23, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses the dental appliance further comprising a second mask region integrally formed with the lingual wall of the shell wherein the second mask region is configured to cover an attachment on a lingual surface of a tooth (see fig. 2a, 2g, 3c, pars. 64, 70-71, such that the mask portion is different, i.e. a second mask region than the mask region in the independent claim that is on the lingual portion of a different tooth).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff (WO 2023/199327) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Coreil et al. (2025/0288390).
Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the interproximal portion of the mask region has a different color than a remaining portion of the mask region.
Coreil teaches a dental appliance 100 comprising a mask region (the entire device), wherein the mask region is configured to cover at least one tooth of the
patient's teeth and wherein the mask region depicts the at least one tooth in a desired arrangement (see abstract, pars. 24-25, such that it cover maloccluded teeth to improve the appearance) and wherein the at least one tooth comprises a plurality of teeth, and the mask region comprises an interproximal portion 160 corresponding to an interproximal region of the plurality of teeth (see figs 4-5).
With respect to claim 12, Coreil further teaches wherein the interproximal portion
of the mask region has a different color than a remaining portion of the mask region (par. 80, such that the different regions, including the joining region which is the interproximal region can have different colors, par. 88 further teaches the color changing across the single region to provide visual depth for the embrasure region, which is an interproximal portion). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the interproximal regions taught by Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff to be different colors than other portions of the mask region as taught by Coreil in order to impart a more natural appearance.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff (WO 2023/199327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Althobity (2018/0333236).
Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including the dental appliance comprising a material that is selected to approximate the natural look of a tooth (see par. 59), however, does not specifically teach the material having a transmittance no greater than 80%.
Althobity teaches a dental appliance which uses a material that approximates the natural look of a tooth that has a transmittance no greater than 80% (see par. 83). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material taught by Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff to have a transmittance no greater than 80% as taught by Althobity in order to create a natural luster of depicted tooth region on the mask region.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 18-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (2010/0129762) in view Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff (WO 2023/199327).
With respect to claim 1, Mason teaches a dental appliance comprising a shell 170 comprising an occlusal wall, a buccal wall, and a lingual wall defining a plurality of cavities (see fig. 5A, abstract, pars. 5, 36, see annotated figure below), the shell configured to reposition a patient’s teeth from a first tooth arrangement towards a second tooth arrangement (abstract, pars. 5, 27-28) and a mask region 172 integrally formed with the shell (abstract, see figs, 5a-5b, pars. 36, 38, specifically in par. 38 “Alternatively, an outer component and the main body of the appliance can be integrally formed, thereby eliminating the need for attachment features.”), wherein the mask region comprises at least one tooth mask that is configured to cover at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth (see figs. 5a-5b), the at least one tooth mask depicting the at least one tooth according to a target tooth arrangement (par. 36, such as the mask region 172 represents the teeth in their planned final arrangement), that at least one tooth mask comprising an occlusal portion and a lingual portion connected to the occlusal portion (see figs. 5a-5b), wherein the occlusal portion extends vertically above the occlusal wall of the shell (see figs. 5a-5b, such that it is positioned on top of the shell and therefore extends vertically). Mason teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the mask region comprises a smoothed ramp region connecting the occlusal portion of the at least one tooth mask and the occlusal wall of the shell and the lingual portion is positioned anterior to an anterior side of the occlusal wall of the shell.
With respect to claim 1, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff discloses a dental appliance comprising a shell comprising an occlusal wall, a buccal wall, and a lingual wall defining a plurality of cavities (see figs. 1a-1b, 2a-2b, 7a-10, abstract, pars. 20 57, claim 1, 5, such that the disclosed inner functional layer is the shell), the shell configured to reposition a patient’s teeth from a first tooth arrangement toward a second tooth arrangement (abstract, pars. 80, 82-83, 86, 93) and a mask region (the outer functional layer) integrally formed with the shell (pars. 94-95, such that the layers are formed simultaneously), wherein, the mask region comprises at least one tooth mask that is configured to cover at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth, the at least one tooth mask depicting the at least one tooth according to a target arrangement, the at least one tooth mask comprises an occlusal portion and a lingual portion connected to the occlusal portion, wherein the occlusal portion extends vertically above the occlusal wall of the shell, and wherein the lingual portion is positioned anterior to an anterior side of the occlusal wall of the shell, and the mask region comprises a smoothed ramp connecting the occlusal portion of the at least one tooth mask and the occlusal wall of the shell (see annotated figure below, pars. 29 80, 82-83, specifically in par. 83 “As a result, the appearance of the mouth with the alinger inserted on the first day of treatment, as shown in stage 403, is very nearly identical to the appearance of the mouth and aligner on the last day of treatment, as shown in stage 404, and to the appearance of the mouth itself on the last day of treatment, as showing in stage 405.”, see 112 above regarding interpretation of lingual portion). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tooth mask taught by Mason with the lingual portion taught by Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff in order to provide the desired esthetic effect and create a smooth surface to prevent irritation.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the at least one tooth comprises one or more anterior teeth (see figs. 5a-5b, such that the mask region 172 covers several anterior teeth).
With respect to claim 3 Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the plurality of cavities comprises at least one cavity configured to receive the at least one tooth, and the mask region comprises at least one tooth mask proximate to the at least one cavity (see figs. 5a-5b, par. 36, such that each of the cavities receive a tooth and the mask region includes a tooth mask that is positioned so that it is proximate to the teeth within the cavities such that the singular tooth mask is one of the teeth on the mask that depicts the teeth in their desired planned final position).
With respect to claim 4, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the at least one tooth mask is connected to the buccal wall (see figs. 5a-5b, such that the mask 172 is attached to the outer buccal wall of the shell).
With respect to claim 7, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the at least one tooth mask comprises a gingival portion (the portion located at the gingival edge of the tooth), the occlusal portion being thicker than the gingival portion (par. 62, “For example, component thickness can gradually increase or decrease along an incisor-to-molar or crown to gingival direction along a span of the arch.”, such that it teaches the thickness decreases from the occlusal portion to the gingival portion (i.e. crown to gingival direction)).
With respect to claim 8, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the mask region comprises a mesial portion and a distal portion, the mesial portion being thicker than the distal portion (par. 37, “To further decrease the amount of material used so as to decrease weight and/or increase comfort, the thickness of the component may be tapered as it extends toward the posterior portions of the mouth on the buccal side”, such that the distal end are tapered and therefore thinner than the mesial portion and further par. 62 “For example, component thickness can gradually increase or decrease along an incisor-to-molar or crown to gingival direction along a span of the arch”, such that it decreases in thickness as it extends from the incisor (i.e. mesial portion) to the molars (i.e. distal ends)).
With respect to claim 9, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the mask region is solid (see figs. 5a-5b, such that element 172 is a solid element).
With respect to claim 11 Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the at least one tooth comprises a plurality of teeth and the mask region comprises an interproximal portion corresponding to an interproximal region of the plurality of teeth (see figs. 5a-5b, such that it spans several teeth and therefore has interproximal portions, such as grooves shown in the figures).
With respect to claim 13, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the interproximal portion comprises a groove configured to produce a shadowing effect (see figs. 5a-5b, such that there are grooves at the interproximal portions that are configured to produce a shadowing effect. Such that the groove can create a shadow when light hits it at a desired angle, see annotated figure below showing the grooves).
PNG
media_image4.png
706
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further teaches wherein the mask region is configured to cover an attachment on the at least one tooth (see figs. 2a, 2g, 3c, pars. 64, 70-71). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Mason to teaches the mask region covering at least one attachment in order to deliver the desired force to the teeth.
With respect to claim 15, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further teaches wherein the mask region comprises a recess configured to receive the attachment (see figs. 2a, 2g, 3c, pars. 64, 70-71, specifically par. 57 teaching the shell and mask being gradient layers, such that the mask would include a portion of the recess when the layers are a gradient). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Mason to teaches the mask region covering at least one attachment in order to deliver the desired force to the teeth.
With respect to claim 18, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the target tooth arrangement is different from the second tooth arrangement (par. 28, such that the teeth can move from a first position, to a second, i.e. intermediate position, to a final position, the second being different than the final which is depicted on the mask).
With respect to claim 19, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the target tooth arrangement corresponds to a final treatment stage of a treatment plan for repositioning the patient’s teeth (par. 36, i.e. planned final arrangement).
With respect to claim 20, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Mason further teaches wherein the dental appliance is an aligner (see figs. 5a-5b, abstract, such that the shell is a dental aligner, par. 3)
With respect to claim 21, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further teaches wherein the smoothed ramp region covers the lingual portion of the at least one tooth mask and the occlusal wall (see fig. 7A, annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
382
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further teaches wherein the mask region comprises a gingival portion that is configured to extends past a gingal margin of the patient’s teeth to cover a part of the patient’s gingival (see par. 15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the mask region taught by Mason with the mask region extending to cover part of the gingiva in order to provide an esthetic covering of the gingiva as needed.
With respect to claim 23, Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff further discloses the dental appliance further comprising a second mask region integrally formed with the lingual wall of the shell wherein the second mask region is configured to cover an attachment on a lingual surface of a tooth (see fig. 2a, 2g, 3c, pars. 64, 70-71, such that the mask portion is different, i.e. a second mask region than the mask region in the independent claim that is on the lingual portion of a different tooth).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (2010/0129762) in view Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff (WO 2023/199327) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Coreil et al. (2025/0288390).
Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the interproximal portion of the mask region has a different color than a remaining portion of the mask region.
Coreil teaches a dental appliance 100 comprising a mask region (the entire device), wherein the mask region is configured to cover at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth and wherein the mask region depicts the at least one tooth in a desired arrangement (see abstract, pars. 24-25, such that it cover maloccluded teeth to improve the appearance) and wherein the at least one tooth comprises a plurality of teeth, and the mask region comprises an interproximal portion 160 corresponding to an interproximal region of the plurality of teeth (see figs 4-5).
With respect to claim 12, Coreil further teaches wherein the interproximal portion of the mask region has a different color than a remaining portion of the mask region (par. 80, such that the different regions, including the joining region which is the interproximal region can have different colors, par. 88 further teaches the color changing across the single region to provide visual depth for the embrasure region, which is an interproximal portion). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the interproximal regions taught by Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff to be different colors than other portions of the mask region as taught by Coreil in order to impart a more natural appearance.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (2010/0129762) in view in view Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff (WO 2023/199327) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leeson et al. (2021/0236238)
Mason/Lewkowitz-Shpuntoff teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Mason teaching the shell portion applying the repositioning forces to the teeth and the mask region being a veneer element integrally formed with the shell (see above rejection with respect to the first interpretation). It is noted that Mason does not teach that the mask region 172 applies forces to the teeth, however, does not specifically teach the mask region does not apply repositioning forces to the patient’s teeth.
Leeson teaches a dental appliance comprising a shell 300 comprising a plurality of cavities 1015, the shell configured to reposition a patient’s teeth from a first tooth arrangement toward a second tooth arrangement (see abstract), and a mask region integrally formed with the shell (such that the mask region is the wall of the shell 330 with the simulated teeth, such that it is integral with the shell, which is the occlusal and lingual walls or the outer esthetic portion as discussed in par. 45), wherein the mask region is configured to cover at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth, and wherein the mask region depicts that at least one tooth according to a target tooth arrangement (see abstract, par. 41-42).
With respect to claim 16, Leeson teaches that prior art esthetic appliances, such as veneers, are only used for an esthetic purpose and does not impart movement on the teeth (see for example par. 40). Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mask element taught by Mason/Alhumayyani so that it does not apply forces to the teeth so that the desired forces of the designed shell are applied to the teeth to achieve the desired arrangement. It is noted that Mason teaches the alinger is designed to apply the forces to the teeth and element 172 is for only providing an esthetic look.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (2010/0129762) in view Alhumayyani (2022/0249210) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Althobity (2018/0333236).
Mason/Alhumayyani teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Mason teaching the dental appliance comprising a material that is opaque (see claim 8), however, does not specifically teach the opaque material having a transmittance no greater than 80%.
Althobity teaches a dental appliance which uses an opaque material that has a transmittance no greater than 80% (see par. 83). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the opaque material taught by Mason/Alhumayyani to have a transmittance no greater than 80% as taught by Althobity in order to create a natural luster of depicted tooth region on the mask region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Chaiken teaching a tooth mask having a lingual surface anterior of an occlusal surface of a tooth and a smooth ramp extending from the lingual surface (see fig. 10).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 7/31/2026
Prosecution Insights