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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al (US 2006/0166157) in view of Kassayan et al (US 2009/0105523)
Regarding claim 1, Rahman discloses a compliance device (compliance monitor 104/compliance sensor 106) that is configured to be disposed within a patient's mouth (see figures 1-8 and 11), the compliance device comprising:
a sensor (106) configured to detect at a first time and at a second time an input associated with whether an orthodontic appliance is at least partially disposed within the patient's mouth (par 53 discloses the compliance sensor taking sensor output at predetermined frequencies, the second time being subsequent to the first time and par 51 discloses the compliance monitor being within the orthodontic device which would be positioned in the mouth of a user, par 46 discloses a specific example, the sensor being positioned between the tooth and the orthodontic device and par 42 discloses the sensor being a pressure sensor which collects changes in pressure during wear, such as chewing which would require multiple readings while the appliance is installed) and
wherein the compliance device is configured to store data associated with input detected by the sensor at the first time and the second time (via RAM 224, see par 52), the compliance device comprising a transceiver or a light emitter (par 55 discloses the use of infrared or optical transmission).
Rahman discloses that additional arrangements of the sensor (par 43), but fails to disclose wherein the compliance device is configured to be bonded directly to a tooth of the patient.
Kassayan teaches the attachment of an electronic device (64) separately used in combination with an orthodontic appliance (60) wherein the electronic device is configured to be bonded directly to a tooth of the patient (see figures 6A-B and par 95) for the purpose of allowing the electronic to be replaced when needed (par 95).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rahman to have the compliance device which is used in combination with the appliance and adjacent to the tooth surface be separate from the appliance such that it is configured to be bonded directly to a tooth of a patient as taught by Kassayan for the purpose of allowing a modular configuration between the compliance device and an orthodontic appliance to allow replacement of the compliance device when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-17 and 29-46 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See office action mailed 8/1/2025 for detailed reason of allowance for claim 4. Claims 5-17 and 29-32 are indicated allowable based on claim dependency on claim 4.
See office action mailed 1/29/2026 for detailed reasons for indicating claim 33 allowable Claims 34-46 are indicated allowable subject matter based on claim dependency on claim 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in summary, on pages 12-14 that the disclosure and teachings of Rahman et al and Kassayan et al teach away from their combination as any resulting modification of the device of Rahman et al by the teaching of Kassayan render Rahman inoperable for its intended use, applicant supports this argument by pointing out the sensors disclosed by Rahman which require a change from ambient inputs to body or internal values to determine compliance and that a modification to make the sensor bond to a tooth would not enable the sensor to operate as intended. The examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As set forth above in the rejection, the sensor 106 which is a pressure sensor discloses placement of the pressure sensor on a surface of a tooth (figure 3) and par 42 discloses the sensor being a pressure sensor which collects changes in pressure during wear, such as chewing which would require multiple readings while the appliance is installed. Modifying Rahman to have the modular configuration where the appliance is separate from the compliance device and the compliance device being configured to bond to the tooth surface as taught by Kassayan would not modify the intended use of the disclosed embodiment of the sensor 106 being a pressure sensor positioned between the tooth surface and the appliance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights