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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22, 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite accessing data, generating data, and transmitting data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. It is also noted that the data is only for production and it is not until claim 23 where fabrication is positively recited. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and retrieving information in memory is well-understood, routine, conventional computer function MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “generating a three-dimensional (3D) model” and “generating a first 3D model”, then recites “the generating”, making it unclear to which of these two is being referenced.
Claim 30 recites “an arch wire slot”, while “a slot” has been established in claim 29 from which it depends. It is unclear if this is meant to be an additional slot or referring to the same.
Claim 34 recites “weakened area”, however “weakened area” was already established in claim 33. It is unclear if this is meant to be an additional weakened area or referring to the same.
Claim 34 also recites “a depression”, which appears to be referring to the already recited “groove”, however it is unclear if this is referring to the same groove or a separate groove/depression.
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.
Claims 22-25, 27-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (US 2021/0128277).
Jackson shows a method for use in manufacturing customized ceramic labial/lingual orthodontic brackets by additive manufacturing ([0030]), the method comprising accessing dentition data of a profile of a patient's teeth ([0043]); based on the dentition data, generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of the patient's teeth (“processed 3D model” [0043]); generating a first 3D model of a labial/lingual bracket structure based on the 3D model of the patient's teeth (“design of custom lingual brackets” [0043]), the generating comprising generating, in the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure a first fracture groove (128 in combination with 126 creates a groove of reduced bracket base thickness and therefore a line of weakness as indicated by a fracture groove) that has a first depth (at 126/128 in Fig. 3-4), from a surface of a first tooth in the 3D model of the patient's teeth to which the first bracket is to be bonded, that is approximately constant throughout the first fracture groove (approximately constant depth seen in Fig. 3-4 as they follow the shape of the bonding surface/associated tooth surface as seen in the various bracket shapes of the Figures); and transmitting data indicating the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure to an additive manufacturing machine for production of a first bracket using the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure ([0044]). With respect to claim 23, further comprising fabricating, using the additive manufacturing machine and the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure, the first bracket, the fabricating comprising forming, in the first bracket, a fracture groove in the first bracket, the fracture groove having a depth, from a surface of a tooth of the patient's teeth, that is approximately constant throughout the fracture groove ([0044] which has the structure of the aforementioned virtually designed bracket). With respect to claims 24-25, wherein fabricating the first bracket comprises fabricating the first bracket from an inorganic material such as a ceramic or a metal ([0007] “metal”; [0030]). With respect to claim 27, wherein generating the first fracture groove further comprises generating a first surface that matches a contour of a portion of the first tooth in the 3D model of the patient's teeth to which the first bracket is to be bonded (surface along the base of the aforementioned groove follows the curvature of the bracket bonding surface and the corresponding tooth). With respect to claim 28, wherein generating the first fracture groove further comprises configuring the first depth of the first fracture groove to be in a range of approximately 0.10 millimeters to 1.2 millimeters ([0029] discusses a depth of 100-350 micrometers, equivalent to 0.1-0.35 mm). With respect to claim 29, wherein generating the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure comprises: generating a bracket body comprising a slot (112); and disposing the first fracture groove in relation to the slot (disposed underneath and in similar direction as seen in Fig. 3-4). With respect to claim 30, wherein generating the bracket body comprises generating, in the bracket body: a mesial tie wing pair and a distal tie wing pair (tie wing pairs seen in Fig. 3-4); and an arch wire slot comprising slot walls formed at least partially by the mesial tie wing pair and the distal tie wing pair (see 112 above; however the walls of the archwire slot are shown as walls of the tie wing pair in Fig. 3-4 and 1A for instance). With respect to claim 31, wherein generating the bracket body comprises generating the slot as an auxiliary slot between the mesial tie wing pair and the distal tie wing pair (capable of being used for an auxiliary, such as accepting a ligature). With respect to claim 32, wherein generating the first fracture groove comprises aligning the first fracture groove at least partially with the auxiliary slot (shown aligned in the figures 3-4 for instance). With respect to claim 33, wherein generating the first fracture groove comprises generating a weakened area of the first labial/lingual bracket structure (as discussed above, the grooves narrow the width of the base and create a weakened area). With respect to claim 34, wherein generating weakened area of the first labial/lingual bracket structure comprises generating a depression within the first labial/lingual bracket structure in an occlusal-gingival direction (see 112 above; depression corresponds to groove 128 for instance). With respect to claim 35, wherein generating the first fracture groove comprises generating the first fracture groove with a negative draft angle ([0032] for instance discusses inclusion of negative or undercut angles in the pattern). With respect to claim 36, wherein generating the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure comprises contouring a surface of the first labial/lingual bracket structure based on a shape of a portion of the first tooth of the 3D model of the patient's teeth to which the first bracket is to be bonded (customized to individual tooth anatomy, such as discussed in [0036] and seen throughout the figures). With respect to claim 37, wherein generating the first 3D model of the labial/lingual bracket structure comprises: generating a bracket pad configured to oppose a first tooth surface (pads shown with grooves in Fig. 3-4); and generating the first fracture groove within the bracket pad (Fig. 3-4 show the grooves therein). With respect to claim 38, further comprising designing/manufacturing a second bracket in the same manner as the first, but where the depth is different than the first depth (the various figures show different configurations for different teeth, including different groove configurations with varying depths, such as those between 124 in Fig. 2, and aforementioned 126/128).
Claims 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart et al. (US 2008/0153051).
Hart shows a customized ceramic labial/lingual orthodontic bracket ([0043]) comprising: a fracture groove (49), wherein the fracture groove, when bonded to a tooth of a patient, has a depth from a surface of the tooth that is approximately constant throughout the fracture groove (follows curvature of bracket and therefore curvature of the corresponding surface it is applied to), wherein the customized ceramic labial/lingual orthodontic bracket is produced by additive manufacturing using a 3D model of a labial/lingual bracket structure and a 3D model of a patient's teeth (this is considered product-by-process where only the resulting structure is at issue, which would be a ceramic bracket as detailed above).
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 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of Yick (US 2015/0182307).
Jackson discloses the device as previously described above (and the manufacture of the bracket itself), but fails to show wherein the material of the bracket is ceramic.
Yick similarly teaches orthodontic brackets wherein the materials used for construction may either be metal or ceramic ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson’s method/bracket by utilizing ceramic as taught by Yick in order to utilize known alternative materials in the art.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson in view of DeCarr et al. (US 2019/0076914).
Jackson discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show the use of polymer-derived material.
DeCarr similarly teaches a method of forming metal/ceramic material utilizing an alternative method with polymer-derived material ([0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jackson’s material to be polymer-derived as taught by Decarr in order to utilize known alternative rapid-prototyping manufacturing means and to allow for complex fabrication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (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.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights