Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-14, 17-20, and 22 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 terms “proximate the problem area” and “proximate the anchoring area” in claims 1 and 22 are unclear terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” is defined in the dictionary as close, and applicants use it in the specification to mean close or near, see ¶ [0106]. Thus, this term is relative because it is not clear what is considered “proximate”? Proximate can mean, 0.001mm or 0.001cm, There is no clear definition of “proximate.”
Claims 2-14, 17-20 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1.
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 1-14, 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1 this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites a method; thus, the claim is directed to a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “determining an adjusted stiffness of a first section based on the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire and the model of the patient's teeth, the first section associated with the tooth malocclusion of the patient, wherein the patient's teeth include a problem area and an anchoring area, and the archwire is configured such that the first section is located on or proximate the problem area and a second section of the orthodontic nickel-titanium archwire is on or proximate the anchoring area” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “constructing a model of a patient's teeth in the computer system” and “of the orthodontic nickel-titanium archwire” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because the element is regarding a generic computing component or generic component, thus not practical application under prong 2. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “inputting material properties of the archwire to the computer system wherein the material properties of the archwire comprise a height of martensitic and austenitic transformation curves.” The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input. Data input is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “constructing a model of a patient's teeth in the computer system” and “of the orthodontic nickel-titanium archwire” are merely a generic components or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements “inputting material properties of the archwire to the computer system wherein the material properties of the archwire comprise a height of martensitic and austenitic transformation curves.” The additional elements is not significantly more than the abstract idea nor an inventive concept, because it only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data input. Data input is consider well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 2, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “further comprising: wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined based on different variables associated with the model of the patient's teeth.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the variables comprise at least one of interbracket distance, malocclusion magnitude, bracket slot size, wire size, teeth size or extent of stiffness modification of the archwire” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined based on a comparison of the model of the patient's teeth to a patient database comprising data for addressing tooth malocclusions” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “further comprising constructing the archwire having the first section based on the adjusted stiffness by using a laser to adjust the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. . “A laser” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic laser) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein determining the adjusted stiffness comprises iteratively changing the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire in the computer system” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “further comprising reducing a diameter of the first section of the archwire relative to other portions of the archwire to soften the first section of the archwire relative to the other portions of the archwire.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 8, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the adjusted stiffness of the first section varies through an extent of the first section” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 9, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the second section has a stiffness higher than the first section” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 10, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the archwire comprises a third section, the third section having a stiffness higher than the first section, wherein the first section is between the second and third sections” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 11, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein a first portion of the adjusted stiffness of the first section proximate to the second section is stiffer than a second portion of the adjusted stiffness of the first section proximate to the third section” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 12, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein an interbracket distance associated with the first portion of the first section is less than an interbracket distance associated with the second portion of the first section” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 13, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the stiffness of the second section is the same as the stiffness of the third section.” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 14, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined using finite element analysis in the computer system” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 17, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the adjusted stiffness of the archwire can be changed within 2 micrometer resolution without making any bends by using a laser to adjust the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the step is still drawn to an abstract idea. “A laser” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic laser) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 18, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein stiffness modification of the archwire reduces unloading plateau of the archwire from 8 times to 11 times” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 19, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein stiffness modification of the archwire reduces loading plateau of the archwire from 1.5 times to 2.5 times” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 20, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims do not add additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional element of “wherein the constructing the model of a patient's teeth comprises calibrating a finite element model using a plurality of brackets” does not render the judicial exception as a practical limitation or make a combination that is significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 22, is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – a laser processing device. A laser processing device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic laser) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 1-3, 7-11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreiko et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2002/0006597) in view of Lewis (U.S. PG PUB 2012/0322019), Pattijin (U.S. PG PUB 2010/0280798) and Ferreora et al “Nickel-titanium allows” Feb 9, 2010.
Regarding claim 1, Andreiko teaches a method for optimizing stiffness of an orthodontic archwire for a tooth malocclusion of a patient with a computer system, the method comprising:
constructing a model of a patient's teeth in the computer system (see ¶ [0029] “Alternatively, three dimensional imaging of the teeth and jaw of the patient is carried out with laser or other scanner to form full three dimensional images of the teeth and jaw of the patient. The images may be formed from the patient's teeth and jaw or from a model thereof. Additional data is digitized by taking vertical profiles of the patient's teeth, either by tracing with a computer the three dimensional images generated with other scanners, or by scanning with a mechanical contact probe or with a non-contact probe the individual teeth of the patient, or model thereof. The data may be taken directly from the patient using CAT scans, MRI, positron emission tomography or other technique.”);
determining an adjusted stiffness of a first section of the orthodontic archwire and the model of the patient’s teeth, the first section associated with the tooth malocclusion of the patient (see ¶ [0295] “This finish archwire will be of a material and stiffness determined to be appropriate for the final positioning of the teeth. Depending on the severity of the initial malpositioning of the patient's teeth, however, less stiff archwires, or temporary archwires may be desired for beginning the orthodontic treatment. Thus, additional archwires 64 of various properties but in the shape shown in FIG. 8E will be provided the orthodontist 14. In addition or in the alternative to the provision of these additional archwires, an actual size drawing or template having thereon the shape shown in FIG. 8E will be provided the orthodontist 14 to enable him to form archwires for preliminary treatment and rough positioning.”).
Andreiko do not expressly disclose wherein the patient’s teeth include a problem area and an anchoring area, and the archwire is configured such that the first section is located on or proximate the problem area and a second section of the orthodontic archwire is on or proximate the anchoring area.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the patient’s teeth include a problem area (see ¶ [0047] “For example, if two adjacent teeth are closely crowded so as to make it difficult to access and bond brackets to the labial surface of both teeth, it may be desired to limit the length of the individual blocks at these tooth locations, or even to omit one of the engagement blocks until one of the teeth can be moved somewhat away from the other tooth. At that stage, the omitted engagement block could then be crimped or otherwise attached to the core wire or a new custom arch wire could be employed.”) and an anchoring area (see ¶ [0061] “FIG. 5 illustrates a portion of an orthodontic arch wire 500, which includes engagement blocks 502 separated by differently-sized interconnecting core wires 504a and 504b. Differently-sized interconnecting core wires may be advantageous where it is desired that the engagement blocks provide varying levels of force on the brackets”), and the archwire is configured such that the first section is located on or proximate the problem area and a second section of the orthodontic archwire is on or proximate the anchoring area (see ¶ [0068] “FIG. 8 illustrates a pair of custom fabricated arch wires 800 configured for placement on an upper/mandibular dental arch and a lower/maxillary dental arch. The custom upper wire 802 includes a plurality of spaced apart, enlarged engagement blocks 804, which are engaged within a partial set of orthodontic brackets 808. The custom lower wire 802' includes a plurality of spaced apart, enlarged engagement blocks 804', which are engaged within a partial set of orthodontic brackets 808'. Each engagement block is received within its corresponding bracket.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Andreiko and Lewis do not expressly disclose, however, Pattijin teaches inputting material properties of the archwire to the computer system (see ¶ [0053] “The analytical model which is based on the stiffness method, represents the initial archwire shape and individual bracket positions, and is used to compute the loads needed to deform the archwire and hold it into the brackets. This model exists of a finite number of elements representing the archwire in its initial shape, i.e. its un-deformed shape that occurs when no forces are applied onto it. The material properties, the cross-section, and the shape of the archwire are parameters in the analytical model, so that each archwire can be modelled.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko and Lewis by adapting Pattijin to compare and provide the most optimal (shortest treatment time, lowest forces . . . ) treatment for each individual patient can be selected (see ¶[0001] of Pattijin).
Andreiko, Lewis and Pattijin do not expressly disclose, however, Ferreora teaches wherein the material properties of the archwire comprise the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves (page 73, “Nowadays, nickel-titanium alloys known as martensitic-stabilized (Nitinol), austenitic active and martensitic active alloys10,26 are available. Austenitic active and martensitic active alloys present different rigidity depending on temperature and as show the thermoelastic effect or shape memory. For the martensitic-stabilized alloys, it is expected only good elasticity effect, thus having good springback”); the orthodontic archwire based on the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves (see Fig. 3, page 73, “Stress x strain graph. Typical curve for a superelastic alloy, forming plateaus. The plateau A represents the crystalline martensitic change at a certain level of tension, while plateau B represents a new martensitic transformation, but at a lower voltage level. Between A and B there is new formation of austenite with stiffness equal to that prior to the plateau A. The plateau A is formed due to the stress-induced martensite, due to metal arc be attached to the slot brackets, while the plateau B is formed due to the reduction of tension (motion toward the dental arch alignment).”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin by adapting Ferreora in order to manage the alignment of teeth (see page 72 of Ferreora).
Regarding claim 2, Andreiko teaches further comprising: wherein the adjust stiffness is determined based on different variables associated with the models of the patient's teeth (see ¶ [0284] “The arch forming software determines the position of the roller 70b of the anvil 70 that is required to produce a given radius in the particular wire material and cross-section by going to a look-up table, previously derived and stored in a file accessible by the computer 30c, containing constants necessary to correct for each wire material and cross-section. The anvil 70 is driven to the desired position to produce the required radius and the feed roll motor 70c is driven to create the desired length of wire at that radius. By adjusting the position of the anvil roller 70b and length of wire fed with the roller 70b so adjusted, archwires 64 of the calculated final sequential tangential radii are fabricated.”).
Regarding claim 3, Andreiko teaches wherein the variables comprise at least one of interbracket distance, malocclusion magnitude, bracket slot size, wire size, teeth size or extent of stiffness modification of the archwire (see ¶ [0272] “In addition, the wire size and bracket geometry information are assembled, and tool size and clearance information are taken into account.”).
Regarding claim 7, Andreiko does not expressly disclose further comprising reducing a diameter of the first section of the archwire relative to other portions of the archwire to soften the first section of the archwire relative to the other portions of the archwire.
However, Lewis teaches further comprising reducing a diameter of the first section of the archwire relative to other portions of the archwire to soften the first section of the archwire relative to the other portions of the archwire (see ¶ [0046] “Core wire 102 is shown as including a round (e.g., circular) cross-section of constant diameter from first end 102a to second end 102b. Although this is currently preferred, it will be understood that alternative embodiments may include a core wire of non-round cross-section, e.g., square or rectangular, other polygonal shapes, other rounded wires (e.g., of oval cross-section), or a more complex shape including both straight sides and rounded sides. In addition, core wire 102 can have a constant diameter or it may have a diameter that varies between different engagement blocks so as to provide a desired level of force on adjacent engagement blocks. Exemplary diameters for a round core wire 102 may range from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm. Typical wire diameters include, but are not limited to about 0.1 mm, about 0.15 mm, about 0.2 mm, about 0.25 mm, about 0.3 mm, about 0.35 mm, about 0.4 mm, about 0.45 mm, and about 0.5 mm. Any of the foregoing values may serve as range endpoints.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 8, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein the adjusted stiffness of the first section varies through an extent of the first section.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the adjusted stiffness of the first section varies through an extent of the first section (see ¶ [0046] “In addition, core wire 102 can have a constant diameter or it may have a diameter that varies between different engagement blocks so as to provide a desired level of force on adjacent engagement blocks. Exemplary diameters for a round core wire 102 may range from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm. Typical wire diameters include, but are not limited to about 0.1 mm, about 0.15 mm, about 0.2 mm, about 0.25 mm, about 0.3 mm, about 0.35 mm, about 0.4 mm, about 0.45 mm, and about 0.5 mm. Any of the foregoing values may serve as range endpoints.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 9, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein the second section has a stiffness higher than the first section.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the second section has a stiffness higher than the first section (see ¶ [0046] “In addition, core wire 102 can have a constant diameter or it may have a diameter that varies between different engagement blocks so as to provide a desired level of force on adjacent engagement blocks. Exemplary diameters for a round core wire 102 may range from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm. Typical wire diameters include, but are not limited to about 0.1 mm, about 0.15 mm, about 0.2 mm, about 0.25 mm, about 0.3 mm, about 0.35 mm, about 0.4 mm, about 0.45 mm, and about 0.5 mm. Any of the foregoing values may serve as range endpoints.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 10, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein the archwire comprises a third section, the third section having a stiffness higher than the first section, wherein the first section is between the second and third sections.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the archwire comprises a third section, the third section having a stiffness higher than the first section, wherein the first section is between the second and third sections (see ¶ [0046] “In addition, core wire 102 can have a constant diameter or it may have a diameter that varies between different engagement blocks so as to provide a desired level of force on adjacent engagement blocks. Exemplary diameters for a round core wire 102 may range from about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm. Typical wire diameters include, but are not limited to about 0.1 mm, about 0.15 mm, about 0.2 mm, about 0.25 mm, about 0.3 mm, about 0.35 mm, about 0.4 mm, about 0.45 mm, and about 0.5 mm. Any of the foregoing values may serve as range endpoints.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 11, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein a first portion of the adjusted stiffness of the first section proximate to the second section is stiffer than a second portion of the adjusted stiffness of the first section proximate to the third section.
However, Lewis teaches wherein a first portion of the adjusted stiffness of the first section proximate to the second section is stiffer than a second portion of the adjusted stiffness of the first section proximate to the third section (see ¶[0058] “Arch wires 303a and 303b may be the same diameter or different diameters. Exemplary diameters for core wires 303a and 303b range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm. Such an embodiment provides a mechanism for increasing the stiffness of the arch wire 300 without necessarily increasing the diameter of either core wire. It also would allow use of very small thickness wires (e.g., two 0.05 mm diameter wires). Such a small thickness single core wire may not provide sufficient force or be so thin as to not have sufficient strength for use in orthodontic treatment. Embodiments which include two core wires exhibit a stiffness and moment of inertia that is significantly less than a similarly sized rectangular wire.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 13, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein the stiffness of the second section is the same as the stiffness of the third section.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the stiffness of the second section is the same as the stiffness of the third section (see ¶ [0066] “Alternatively, a low force arch wire as seen in FIG. 7A, 7B or 7C may be used for the entire duration of the orthodontic treatment, as it provides low force as a result of the thin diameter of core wire 702, but provides for excellent slot engagement as a result of engagement block 704.”, see ¶ [0014] “In contrast, the thin core wire portions of the arch wire advantageously result in an arch wire with relatively low stiffness, so that the arch wire applies low corrective forces to the brackets and teeth. These characteristic low forces result in decreased treatment time, as the teeth tend to move faster under application of such forces. This unique combination of low stiffness coupled with the enlarged engagement blocks allows for corrective forces to be relatively small, comfortable, and more efficient, providing excellent engagement (i.e., reduced play) between the arch wire and the bracket slots. This combination of better engagement, reduced play, and continuous low force advantageously allows for significant reduction in treatment times.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 14, Andreiko do not expressly disclose wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined using finite element analysis in the computer system.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined using finite element analysis in the computer system (see ¶[0010] “In one embodiment, a physical or electronic custom model of the patient's dental arch is obtained and used to manufacture one or more customized orthodontic arch wires. Based on the custom model, a corrected, final position of the patient's teeth is determined. A custom arch wire is then formed according to the custom specifications derived from the custom model. For example, a core wire and a plurality of engagement blocks may be provided, and the appropriate length of the core wire is determined by reference to the custom model of the patient's dental arch. Based upon the corrected, final position of the patient's teeth (by reference to the custom model), a position for each bracket engagement block is determined, and the engagement blocks are positioned along the length of the core wire at the predetermined positions so that the engagement blocks may be received within a corresponding slot of an orthodontic bracket during orthodontic treatment of the patient.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 17, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein the stiffness of the archwire can be changed within 2 micrometer resolution without making any bends by using a laser to adjust the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the stiffness of the archwire can be changed within 2 micrometer resolution without making any bends (see ¶ [0058] “Arch wires 303a and 303b may be the same diameter or different diameters. Exemplary diameters for core wires 303a and 303b range from about 0.05 mm to about 0.5 mm. Such an embodiment provides a mechanism for increasing the stiffness of the arch wire 300 without necessarily increasing the diameter of either core wire. It also would allow use of very small thickness wires (e.g., two 0.05 mm diameter wires). Such a small thickness single core wire may not provide sufficient force or be so thin as to not have sufficient strength for use in orthodontic treatment.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Andreiko and Lewis do not expressly disclose, however, Ferreora teaches using a laser to adjust the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire (see page 79, “”The
chemical composition and surface analysis tests were performed by means of X-ray spectroscopy, through a scanner attached to an electronic microscope.” see Fig. 3, page 73, “Stress x strain graph. Typical curve for a superelastic alloy, forming plateaus. The plateau A represents the crystalline martensitic change at a certain level of tension, while plateau B represents a new martensitic transformation, but at a lower voltage level. Between A and B there is new formation of austenite with stiffness equal to that prior to the plateau A. The plateau A is formed due to the stress-induced martensite, due to metal arc be attached to the slot brackets, while the plateau B is formed due to the reduction of tension (motion toward the dental arch alignment).”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko and Lewis by adapting Ferreora in order to manage the alignment of teeth (see page 72 of Ferreora).
Regarding claim 19, Andreiko does not expressly disclose wherein stiffness modification of the archwire reduces loading plateau of the archwire from 1.5 times to 2.5 times.
However, Lewis teaches wherein stiffness modification of the archwire reduces loading plateau of the archwire from 1.5 times to 2.5 times.
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 20, Andreiko do not expressly disclose wherein constructing the model of a patient's teeth comprises calibrating a finite element model using a plurality of brackets.
However, Lewis teaches wherein constructing the model of a patient's teeth comprises calibrating a finite element model using a plurality of brackets (see ¶[0059] “As shown in FIGS. 4A-4B, the engagement blocks 304 disposed on the core wires 303a and 303b are shown as having a generally rectangular shape that allows the engagement blocks 304 to exert forces (e.g., torquing forces) against the teeth via the orthodontic bracket slots”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko by adapting the teachings of Lewis for creating customized orthodontic archwires (see ¶[0009[ of Lewis).
Regarding claim 22, in an independent system claim, corresponding to method claim 1, and it is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Andreiko teaches a laser processing device to process the archwire such that the at least a section of the archwire has the adjusted stiffness (see ¶ [0380] “Where the full three dimensional scan has been employed in step (300), as could be produced with the use of the laser image generator (FIG. 1B), or as could be produced with moire image generator or other technique, a digitized computer model is produced.” See ¶[0151] “The equipment 38 also includes an appliance archwire bending or forming machine 40 which produces custom shaped archwires for the appliance 25 by feeding and bending wire of any one of several available materials and stiffnesses into the custom archwire shape”).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreiko et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2002/0006597) in view of Lewis (U.S. PG PUB 2012/0322019, Pattijin (U.S. PG PUB 2010/0280798), and Ferreora et al “Nickel-titanium allows” Feb 9, 2010, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kuo et al (U.S. PG PUB 2007/0141527).
Regarding claim 4, Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin and Ferreora do not expressly disclose wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined based on a comparison of the model of the patient's teeth to a patient database comprising data for addressing tooth malocclusions.
However, Kuo teaches wherein the adjusted stiffness is determined based on a comparison of the model of the patient's teeth to a patient database comprising data for addressing tooth malocclusions (see ¶ [00316] “The appliances can be braces, including brackets and archwires, polymeric shells, including shells manufactured by stereo lithography, retainers, or other forms of orthodontic appliance. Implementations can include comparing the actual effect of the appliances with an intended effect of the appliances”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin and Ferreora by adapting the teachings of Kuo to more effectively determine treatment plans for patients using prior data.
Regarding claim 5, Andreiko, Lewis, and Pattijin do not expressly disclose further comprising constructing an archwire having the first section based on the adjusted thickness by using a laser to adjust the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire.
However, Ferreora teaches using a laser to adjust the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire (see page 79, “”The chemical composition and surface analysis tests were performed by means of X-ray spectroscopy, through a scanner attached to an electronic microscope.” see Fig. 3, page 73, “Stress x strain graph. Typical curve for a superelastic alloy, forming plateaus. The plateau A represents the crystalline martensitic change at a certain level of tension, while plateau B represents a new martensitic transformation, but at a lower voltage level. Between A and B there is new formation of austenite with stiffness equal to that prior to the plateau A. The plateau A is formed due to the stress-induced martensite, due to metal arc be attached to the slot brackets, while the plateau B is formed due to the reduction of tension (motion toward the dental arch alignment).”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, and Pattijin by adapting Ferreora in order to manage the alignment of teeth (see page 72 of Ferreora).
Ferreora does not expressly disclose, however, Kuo teaches further comprising constructing an archwire having the first section based on the adjusted thickness (see ¶ [0121] “For example, constraints can be defined to set a maximum or minimum thickness of the aligner material”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin and Ferreora by adapting the teachings of Kuo to more effectively determine treatment plans for patients using prior data.
Regarding claim 6, Andreiko, Lewis, and Pattijin do not expressly disclose wherein determining the adjusted stiffness comprises iteratively changing the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation and curves of the archwire in the computer system.
However, Ferreora teaches changing the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation and curves of the archwire in the computer system (see Fig. 3, page 73, “Stress x strain graph. Typical curve for a superelastic alloy, forming plateaus. The plateau A represents the crystalline martensitic change at a certain level of tension, while plateau B represents a new martensitic transformation, but at a lower voltage level. Between A and B there is new formation of austenite with stiffness equal to that prior to the plateau A. The plateau A is formed due to the stress-induced martensite, due to metal arc be attached to the slot brackets, while the plateau B is formed due to the reduction of tension (motion toward the dental arch alignment).”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin by adapting Ferreora in order to manage the alignment of teeth (see page 72 of Ferreora).
Ferreora does not expressly disclose, however, Kuo teaches wherein determining the adjusted stiffness comprises iteratively changing the archwire in the computer system (see ¶ [0077] “Typically, during the construction of the analyzer or model, the analyzer's performance is tested against the test set. The selection of the analyzer or model parameters is performed iteratively until the performance of the analyzer in classifying the test set reaches an optimal point”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin, and Ferreora by adapting the teachings of Kuo to more effectively determine treatment plans for patients using prior data.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreiko et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2002/0006597) in view of Lewis (U.S. PG PUB 2012/0322019), Pattijin (U.S. PG PUB 2010/0280798), and Ferreora et al “Nickel-titanium allows” Feb 9, 2010, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hansen et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2014/0154637).
Regarding claim 12, Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin , and Ferreora do not expressly disclose wherein an interbracket distance associated with the first portion of the first section is less than an interbracket distance associated with the second portion of the first section.
However, Hansen teaches wherein an interbracket distance associated with the first portion of the first section is less than an interbracket distance associated with the second portion of the first section (see ¶ [0061] “The digital setup software can also enable either the practitioner 14 or technician 24 to make further manual adjustments to the archwire definition. For example, each archwire segment 206 can be individually adjusted for one or more of the following: lingual or occlusal step bends, torque, angulation, rotation, and in-out (i.e. lingual-facial) offsets. The digital setup software optionally includes one or more default adjustments to the archwire shape based on treatment norms, which can be superseded by input from the practitioner 14 or technician 24. For example, the segments 206 for some or all of the anterior teeth may automatically include a slight occlusal offset to expand interbracket distance.” And see Fig. 4).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin and Ferreora by adapting the teachings of Hansen to have enabled brackets, archwires, or both, to be fully customized to the teeth configuration of the individual patient (see ¶[0005] of Hansen).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreiko et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2002/0006597) in view of Lewis (U.S. PG PUB 2012/0322019), Pattijin (U.S. PG PUB 2010/0280798), and Ferreora et al “Nickel-titanium allows” Feb 9, 2010, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Besselink et al. (U.S. Patent 6,428,634).
Regarding claim 18, Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin, and Ferreora do not expressly disclose wherein stiffness modification of the archwire reduces unloading plateau of the archwire from about 8 times to about 11 times.
However, Besselink teaches wherein stiffness modification of the archwire reduces unloading plateau of the archwire from about 8 times to about 11 times (see col. 1, lines 40-45, “On unloading, there is a decline in stress with reducing strain to the start of the "unloading plateau" evidenced by the existence of an inflection point (which is characteristic of the superelastic behaviour with which the present invention is concerned) along which stress changes little with reducing strain.”).
Hence, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko, Lewis, Pattijin, and Ferreora by adapting the teachings of Besselink to reduce stiffness on a segment of archwire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 112 rejections, applicant’s argue the definition of “proximate” is clear and whether the first and second sections are place 0.001mm or 0.001cm away would not affect the functionality of claims 1 or 22 and claims are not indefinite.
Examiner disagrees. The issue is not whether there is a clear definition of the word “proximate” but whether the metes and bounds of the claim terms are clear. In this case, applicant agrees that the sections can be either 0.001mm or 0.001cm or any other measurement for that matter, and thus, there is no way for one of ordinary skill to determine the metes and bounds of the claim terms. Proximate is a relative term, whether it is 0.001mm or 0.001cm, the actual distance cannot be determined. Thus, examiner will be maintaining the 112 rejections. Correction is required of the applicant.
Regarding 101 rejections, examiner maintains the same rejection and provided further explanation in the rejection. Applicants argue that the claimed, “determining an adjusted stiffness of a first section of the orthodontic nickel-titanium archwire based on the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire” is not a simple mental process, and that different stiffness may be determined with only a subset of different factors or variables and may not require each variable and would be time consuming. Applicant argues that the measurements on a physical model of a patients teeth is more accurate will reduce cost and time and innovation is rooted in computer technology.
Examiner disagrees. Applicants claimed “determining an adjusted stiffness of a first section of the orthodontic nickel-titanium archwire based on the height of the martensitic and austenitic transformation curves of the archwire” is a mathematical process that can be done by the mind with pen and paper. The height and transformation curve can be determined by a mathematical graph. Examiner does not agree it would be time consuming as mathematics is commonly used in determining stiffness of archwire, it is a mental process that is done via aid of pen/paper/drawing of graph.
The technological improvement, or computer technology applicant is mentioning is merely insignificant post solution activity and merely linking the abstract idea into a particular technological environment, recited at a high level of generality. The claims are still directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Rejection 103 rejection, applicants argue Andreiko does not disclose the stiffness is adjusted, but rather Andreiko teaches different archwires having different stiffness are provided and argues that the stiffness is not adjustable. Applicant argues there is not reason to combine the teachings of Pattijin with Andreiko and/or Lewis.
Examiner disagrees. Andreiko teaches that the archwire can have different stiffness and the stiffness is adjusted because the archwire is going through a bending or forming machine which means it is adjusted. The prior art discusses lower stiffness and higher stiffness; therefore, the stiffness can be adjusted. See ¶[0151] “The equipment 38 also includes an appliance archwire bending or forming machine 40 which produces custom shaped archwires for the appliance 25 by feeding and bending wire of any one of several available materials and stiffnesses into the custom archwire shape.” See ¶[0295] “This is the same shape as the archwire of FIG. 8E shipped to the orthodontist 14. This finish archwire will be of a material and stiffness determined to be appropriate for the final positioning of the teeth.” See ¶[0298] “Then, with the brackets 80 set on the teeth the archwire 64 is installed. Often, the first archwire installed will be one of lower stiffness than the final archwire.”
Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning to combine the prior art references. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Andreiko and Lewis by adapting Pattijin to compare and provide the most optimal (shortest treatment time, lowest forces . . . ) treatment for each individual patient can be selected (see ¶[0001] of Pattijin). Applicant argument is not persuasive.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peacock, III (U.S. PG PUB 2003/0124480) teaches adjustable orthodontic band conforms around teeth of varied sizes. The band may be elastic or a superelastic alloy, and elastically expands under force to fit different teeth. Or the band has shape memory, e.g. shape memory metal alloy, with variable circumference under applied energy such as heat. The band may be solid heat shrink or elastomeric polymer, or metal alloy. Or, interconnected struts are separated by voids that may receive cement or are covered with elastomer. Adjustability may vary along the band. A kit of adjustable bands has varied adjustable size ranges, and may include no more than about 8 or fewer bands together covering an overall range of up to 30% or more difference in circumference. One band having at least a 30% range of adjustable circumference also may be provided for each tooth type. The adjustable bands are pre-coated with cement, and are pre-packaged in a UV and moisture protective container. Estimated size is all that is required to choose the correct band for most teeth.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (MST).
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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194