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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/722,319, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 14, 23, 26-27, 33-34 and 37 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application as it does not mention the elastic component as claimed.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/05/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: an attachment member in claim 34. The word “couple” adds up structure that takes it out from the 112f interpretation.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 14, 23, 26, 27, 33, 34, and 37 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.
The limitation “based on the length of the receptacle” in claims 14 and 26 is not supported by the specification and is new matter.
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, 10-11, 26-27, 33-34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 5871350).
Regarding Claim 1, Clark discloses an orthodontic appliance (Figures 15, 15a), the orthodontic appliance comprising: an elongated receptacle (Figure 15) comprising a first protruding member (342ii, 338ii, 326ii, 334ii, 330ii; Figure 15); the elongated receptacle having a first region (342ii; Figure 15), second region (338ii and 326ii; Figure 15), and a third region (334ii; Figure 15), wherein the first and second regions are at an angle relative to each other (Figure 15), and wherein the second and third regions are at an angle relative to each other (Figure 15); and an elongated member (384, 372, 376; Figure 15-15a) comprising a second protruding member (380 at 372; Figure 15), wherein the elongated member telescopically extends from and slides within (Figure 15) the elongated receptacle and adapted to couple to one or more teeth as seen in figure 6 (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Clarke does not disclose wherein the first and second regions are at an obtuse angle relative to each other, and wherein the second and third regions are at an acute angle relative to each other.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the elongated receptacle with the first and second regions are at an obtuse angle relative to each other, and wherein the second and third regions are at an acute angle relative to each other of Clark so that orthodontic appliance to increase the force upon the tooth, since Applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of ensuring that a portion of the at least one securing device applies pressure to the teeth (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Regarding Claim 2, Clark discloses one end of an elastic member (392; Figure 15; Column 25, Lines 3-10) is coupled to the first protruding member of the elongated receptacle (Figure 15) and another end of the elastic member is coupled to the second protruding member (380 which is part of 372; Figure 15) of the elongated member (396, 376, 372; Figure 15), such that the elongated member moves towards the elongated receptacle to reduce space between one or more first teeth and one or more second teeth (Column 25, Lines 3-20).
Regarding Claim 3, Clark discloses wherein the first and second protruding members each comprise a hook configuration (364 and 380 which is part of 372; Figure 15).
Regarding Claim 10, Clark discloses the orthodontic appliance facilitates an intrusion of one or more teeth (Column 25, Lines 3-20).
Regarding Claim 11, Clark discloses a root correction attachment for facilitating a root correction of one or more teeth (Column 25, Lines 3-20).
Regarding Claim 26, Clark discloses an orthodontic appliance, the orthodontic appliance comprising: a receptacle (Figure 15) having a tubular opening therein (Figure 15), wherein the receptacle comprises a first region (342ii; Figure 15) followed by (338ii and 326ii; Figure 15), and a third region (334ii; Figure 15), wherein the second region is at an angle relative to the first and third regions (Figure 15); an elongated member (396; Figure 15) at least partially disposed within the tubular opening of the receptacle (Figure 15) and extending therefrom (Figure 15), wherein the elongated member is adapted to couple to one or more teeth (Column 25, Lines 20-40), and wherein the receptacle and the elongated member are adapted to move toward each other in opposing directions based on the length of the receptacle (as the biasing member 392 pulls 384 toward the tooth, the receptacle moves forward; Figure 15).
Clark does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and third regions are substantially parallel with respect to each other. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the elongated receptacle with the first and third regions are substantially parallel (similar to that of Figure 15), since Applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of ensuring that a portion of the at least one securing device applies pressure to the teeth (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Regarding Claim 27, Clark as modified discloses the device of Claim 26. Clark as modified discloses one end of an elastic or biasing member (392; Figure 15) is coupled to the first protruding member of the elongated receptacle (Figure 15) and another end of the elastic or biasing member is coupled to the second protruding member (Figure 15) of The elongated member (Figure 15), such that the first movement is a space closure movement and the second movement is an aligning movement of the teeth (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Regarding Claim 33, Clark as modified discloses the device of Claim 26. Clark as modified discloses a movement (Column 25, Lines 20-40) of the elongated member relative to the receptacle facilitates a first movement of the one or more teeth (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Regarding Claim 34, Clark as modified discloses the device of Claim 33. Clark as modified discloses an attachment member (364; Figure 15) coupled to the orthodontic appliance and capable of facilitating a second movement of the one or more teeth (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Regarding Claim 33, Clark as modified discloses the device of Claim 34. Clark as modified discloses the second movement is root correction movement (Column 25, Lines 20-40).
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keles (US 20050221249).
Regarding Claim 14, Keles discloses an orthodontic appliance (Figures 1-3), the orthodontic appliance comprising: a first elongated receptacle (9; Figure 3; Paragraph [0024]) adapted to be coupled to one or more first teeth (Figure 1), wherein the first elongated receptacle comprises a first region (see illustrated Figure 3), second region (see illustrated Figure 3), and a third region (see illustrated Figure 3), wherein the first and second regions are at an angle relative to each other (Figure 3), wherein the second and third regions are at an angle relative to each other (Figure 3), wherein the first region and third region are perpendicular to each other (Figure 3); and a first elongated member (6; Figure 1) coupled to the first elongated receptacle and at least partially disposed within the first elongated receptacle (Figure 1 throw the top of 9), wherein the first elongated member is capable of sliding relative to the first receptacle (Figure 1; paragraph [0024]) in a longitudinal direction based on the length of the first elongated receptacle (Figure 1), and wherein the first elongated member is adapted to couple one or more second teeth (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keles does not explicitly disclose the elongated receptacle with the first and second regions are at an obtuse angle relative to each other, and wherein the second and third regions are at an acute angle relative to each other.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the elongated receptacle with the first and second regions are at an obtuse angle relative to each other, and wherein the second and third regions are at an acute angle relative to each other of Keles so that orthodontic appliance to increase the force upon the tooth, since Applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of ensuring that a portion of the at least one securing device applies pressure to the teeth (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 23, Keles discloses a root correction attachment for facilitating a root correction of one or more teeth (paragraph [0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Clarke does not provide the motivation for the modification of the receptacles angles, the Examiner notes that the motivation is correct the malocclusion of teeth through the pressure on the tooth through the specific angles as it is well-known in the art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 and 23 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
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, Cris Rodriguez can be reached on 571-272-4964. 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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/Cris L. Rodriguez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights