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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for adjusting” in claim 1, “a member” in claim 5, “movement module” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) is/are: “means for adjusting” in claim 3, “the member” in claim 6, “the module” in claims 9-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindayel (US 2017/0128168 A1), in view of Kopelman (US 2021/0220087 A1), and further in view of Ozkalayci et al. (NPL, 2018; Effect of continuous versus intermittent orthodontic forces on root resorption: A microcomputed tomography study - PubMed).
Regarding claim 1, Bindayel teaches an apparatus configured for manipulating at least one tooth in a patient's mouth (abstract and see Fig. 3), the apparatus comprising:
a dental device for location in the patient's mouth (see Figures), the mouth having a plurality of teeth therein (see Figures), the dental device comprising at least one elongate element ([0003]; archwire), the at least one elongate element arranged to exert a force set by the patient's orthodontist on at least one of the teeth ([0004]and see claim 32; “The integrated circuit is configured to control the motor according to the instructions from the computer server to drive the gear system to apply a force to the archwire”,[0038]) and
a means for adjusting ([0057]; the gear and rods with notches of the bracket, and see Fig. 6) the position of the at least one elongate element in order to manipulate the at least one tooth ([0043]), and
wherein the means for adjusting the position of the at least one elongate element comprises a motor, the motor configured to power the means for adjusting the position of the at least one elongate element ([0035], [0043]) and
wherein the dental device includes a processor configured to control and recognize movement of one of: said at least one of the teeth; and the at least one elongate element ([0009-0010]; the system is a computerized system (i.e. has a processor) that can be controlled and adjusted remotely based on feedback about the progress of the teeth alignment and [0041]; the smart bracket has sensors that detect forces being applied to and/or position of the tooth and provide feedback); and
Bindayel teaches the patient has the option of making adjustments to the brackets at times that are convenient to the patient ([0039]) and the force may be decreased ([0010]). Bindayel teaches the device is remotely controlled to generate, increase or decrease forces and the device being scheduled to apply a first prescribed force to a tooth according to a first set of instructions ([0009]). Additionally, Bindayel teaches that when adjustments are needed, the force can be adjusted remotely based on monitored data and feedback and that the system provides an estimate of the time remaining based on the current progress of treatment ([0010]) and the electronic files has the treatment plan which includes information about the amount and direction of force to be applied to each tooth at each of different time periods ([0037]). Bindayel teaches monitoring the forces and adjusting them remotely to apply more or less force based on the data ([0101], and therefore teaches the dental device includes a force reduction means. Bindayel further discusses forces being applied to each tooth at different time periods ([0037]) and the patient having the option of making adjustment to the brackets at times that are convenient to the patient and the adjustments can be conveniently performed at the patient’s home ([0039]).
However, Bindayel does not explicitly teach the force reduction means being operable by the patient and wherein the processor includes a timer, and wherein the dental device is configurable such that upon operation of the force reduction means by said patient, the force acting on the at least one elongate element is reduced from the force set by the patient's orthodontist for a period of time set by the timer, and thereafter at the end of the period of time set by the timer to return the force acting on the at least one elongate element to the force set by the patient's orthodontist.
Kopelman teaches a dental device for applying force to a patient’s teeth (abstract) and the device may be controlled by a timer and circuitry as to adjust the force generating component as appropriate (i.e., its duration or intensity). The circuitry maybe configured to provide electrical energy to the device/appliance to adjust the force generating component 120, for example, with electronic contraction or expansion of the force ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a timer, as taught by Kopelman, since the device of Bindayel must reflect information regarding time, time intervals and periods of time and because it would allow controlling the duration of the forces applied by the device.
It would have further been obvious that the force reduction means be operable by the patient, since the patient is indirectly controlling the device by informing the orthodontist of the need to reduce forces if the device is too tight and requesting changes, therefore it would be more convenient to allow them to directly operate it themselves.
The device of Bindayel/Kopelman includes a timer for controlling the force, therefore it is configurable as claimed, since it can easily be programmed to be operated by the patient to reduce the force from the force set initially to a reduced force, for a period of time, and then return to the initial force.
Ozkalyaci finds that deliberately reduced or removed (paused) orthodontic force for defined periods during treatment (i.e., intermittent force application) significantly reduces the amount of root resorption compared with continuous force (see conclusions section). Ozkalvaci teaches that pausing the forces for a period of time allows root repair and therefore reduces root inflammation (see discussions section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device such that the user can pause or reduce the force for a time period before resuming the required force application, as taught by Ozkalvaci, because it would reduce root resorption and ease patient discomfort from continuous and active movement forces during orthodontic treatment.
Regarding claim 2, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches a dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the at least one elongate element is selected from the group comprising: a wire (the elongate element is an archwire, [0003]); a band; a chain; a coil spring and a ligature.
Regarding claim 3, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches a dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the means for adjusting the position of the at least one elongate element is selected from the group comprising: a linear actuator ([0057] and refer to Fig. 6; the bracket comprises a miniature gear and rods with notches wherein when the gear rotates, the rod moves up or down (i.e. linearly)); a lever and a reel.
Regarding claim 4, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches a dental device according to Claim 3 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the linear actuator is a selected one of: a piston and cylinder; a rack and pinion actuator ([0057] and see Fig. 6; the bracket comprises a miniature gear and rods with notches (a rack and pinion mechanism) wherein when the gear rotates, the rod moves up or down (i.e. linearly)); a worm drive; and contra-rotating rollers engaging the elongate element therebetween.
Regarding claim 5, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches a dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the at least one elongate element is arranged to exert a force on said at least one of the teeth by one of: contacting said at least one of the teeth (see Fig. 3); and engaging with a member attached to said at least one of the teeth ([0003-0005]; the archwire interacts with the motorized bracket, which is attached to a tooth, to exert forces to move the teeth according to an orthodontic treatment).
Regarding claim 6, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches a dental device according to Claim 5 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches the member attached to said at least one of the teeth is a selected one of: a pad; a bracket (the motorized system comprises the bracket 122, which is attached to a tooth and interacts with the orthodontic arch wire, see Figures 3, 6 and [0003-0005]) and a band.
Regarding claim 8, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the at least one elongate element engages in an elongate element movement module (the electronics of the bracket; [0040-0041]; the bracket comprises an RFID protocol or a Blutetooth protocol for communicating with a wireless reader and to monitor and control the amount of force being applied to the tooth through the wire).
Regarding claim 9, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 8 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the module includes a transceiver for wireless connection to a remote controller. Bindayel teaches the module (i.e., electronic protocol of the bracket) can be RFID or Bluetooth and allows the bracket to communicate remotely with a reader (110) or a mobile device (108) ([0040]) to reflect and direct forces of the arch wire ([0041]). It is well known in the art that both an RFID system and a Bluetooth system both employ a transceiver to enable wireless communication.
Regarding claim 11, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches it further comprising a source of electrical energy (see claim 6; the device/system comprising the motor has a wireless energy receiver to power the motor).
Regarding claim 12, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the device comprises at least one sensor, the at least one sensor configured to monitor a condition associated with one of: the at least one elongate element; and said at least one of the teeth ([0041]; the bracket comprises sensors that detect the amount of force and/or position trajectories being applied to the tooth through the arch wire or the sensors may be embedded in the archwire to provide feedback on the amount and direction of force being applied).
Regarding claim 13, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 12 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the at least one sensor is configured to sense the force exerted on a selected one of: the at least one elongate element; at least one of the teeth; the distance moved by the at least one elongate element ; and the distance moved by at least one of the teeth ([0041]; the bracket comprises sensors that detect the amount of force and/or position trajectories being applied to the tooth through the arch wire or the sensors may be embedded in the archwire to provide feedback on the amount and direction of force being applied).
Regarding claim 15, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 14 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the processor ([0107]) is comprised in a micro-controller ([0009-0010, 107]; the system is a computerized system on a generic computer (i.e. has a processor and a microcontroller) that can be controlled and adjusted remotely based on feedback about the progress of the teeth alignment). A generic computer inherently includes a microcontroller embedded within and every microcontroller comprises at least one processor.
Regarding claim 22, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 8 (see rejection above). Bindayel teaches wherein the module is adapted for fixed attachment to said at least one of the teeth (the module (i.e., electronic system of the bracket) is contained in the bracket and the bracket is fixed onto a tooth).
Regarding claim 24, Bindayel teaches an apparatus for controlling movement of at least one tooth in a patient's mouth (abstract, see Fig. 3), the apparatus comprising:
a dental device (see Figures) comprising at least one elongate element ([0003] archwire), the at least one elongate element arranged to exert a force set by the patient's orthodontist on said at least one of the teeth ([0004]and see claim 32; “The integrated circuit is configured to control the motor according to the instructions from the computer server to drive the gear system to apply a force to the archwire”, [0038]) and
a means for adjusting ([0057]; the gear and rods with notches of the bracket, and see Fig. 6) the position of the at least one elongate element in order to manipulate the at least one tooth ([0043]), and
wherein the means for adjusting the position of the at least one elongate element comprises a motor, the motor configured to power the means for adjusting the position of the at least one elongate element ([0035], [0043]),
wherein the dental device includes a processor configured to control and recognize movement of one of: said at least one of the teeth; and the at least one elongate element ([0009-0010]; the system is a computerized system (i.e. has a processor) that can be controlled and adjusted remotely based on feedback about the progress of the teeth alignment and [0041]; the smart bracket has sensors that detect forces being applied to and/or position of the tooth and provide feedback); and
Bindayel teaches the patient has the option of making adjustments to the brackets at times that are convenient to the patient ([0039]) and the force may be decreased ([0010]). Bindayel teaches the device is remotely controlled to generate, increase or decrease forces and the device being scheduled to apply a first prescribed force to a tooth according to a first set of instructions ([0009]). Additionally, Bindayel teaches that when adjustments are needed, the force can be adjusted remotely based on monitored data and feedback and that the system provides an estimate of the time remaining based on the current progress of treatment ([0010]) and the electronic files has the treatment plan which includes information about the amount and direction of force to be applied to each tooth at each of different time periods ([0037]). Bindayel teaches monitoring the forces and adjusting them remotely to apply more or less force based on the data ([0101], and therefore teaches the dental device includes a force reduction means. Bindayel further discusses forces being applied to each tooth at different time periods ([0037]) and the patient having the option of making adjustment to the brackets at times that are convenient to the patient and the adjustments can be conveniently performed at the patient’s home ([0039]).
However, Bindayel does not explicitly teach the force reduction means being operable by the patient and wherein the processor includes a timer, and wherein the dental device is configurable such that upon operation of the force reduction means by said patient, the force acting on the at least one elongate element is reduced from the force set by the patient's orthodontist for a period of time set by the timer, and thereafter at the end of the period of time set by the timer to return the force acting on the at least one elongate element to the force set by the patient's orthodontist.
Kopelman teaches a dental device for applying force to a patient’s teeth (abstract) and the device may be controlled by a timer and circuitry as to adjust the force generating component as appropriate (i.e., its duration or intensity). The circuitry maybe configured to provide electrical energy to the device/appliance to adjust the force generating component 120, for example, with electronic contraction or expansion of the force ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a timer, as taught by Kopelman, since the device of Bindayel must reflect information regarding time, time intervals and periods of time and because it would allow controlling the duration of the forces applied by the device.
It would have further been obvious that the force reduction means be operable by the patient, since the patient is indirectly controlling the device by informing the orthodontist of the need to reduce forces if the device is too tight and requesting changes, therefore it would be more convenient to allow them to directly operate it themselves.
The device of Bindayel/Kopelman includes a timer for controlling the force, therefore it is configurable as claimed, since it can easily be programmed to be operated by the patient to reduce the force from the force set initially to a reduced force, for a period of time, and then return to the initial force.
Ozkalyaci finds that deliberately reduced or removed (paused) orthodontic force for defined periods during treatment (i.e., intermittent force application) significantly reduces the amount of root resorption compared with continuous force (see conclusions section). Ozkalvaci teaches that pausing the forces for a period of time allows root repair and therefore reduces root inflammation (see discussions section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device such that the user can pause or reduce the force for a time period before resuming the required force application, as taught by Ozkalvaci, because it would reduce root resorption and ease patient discomfort from continuous and active movement forces during orthodontic treatment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindayel (US 2017/0128168 A1), in view of in view of Kopelman (US 2021/0220087 A1), Ozkalayci et al. (NPL, 2018; Effect of continuous versus intermittent orthodontic forces on root resorption: A microcomputed tomography study - PubMed), and further in view of Aknin (US 6,382,966 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches a dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the at least one elongate element is provided from a plurality of elongate elements.
Aknin teaches a device in the same field of endeavor of devices for orthodontic repositioning of the teeth using brackets and archwires (Col. 1 lines 7-51). Aknin teaches the arch wires are selected from a series of a plurality of arch wires differeing from one another in the morphology of dental arches and, as regards each dental arch, in the straightening forces which the branches provide (Col. 1 lines 27-34).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the elongate element (i.e. wire) of Bindayel/Ozkalyaci, be selected from a plurality of arch wires, as taught by Aknin, to select the wire with optimal dimensions and morphology to accommodate for different anatomical sizes and structures of different patients.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindayel (US 2017/0128168 A1), in view of in view of Kopelman (US 2021/0220087 A1), Ozkalayci et al. (NPL, 2018; Effect of continuous versus intermittent orthodontic forces on root resorption: A microcomputed tomography study - PubMed), and further in view of AliKhani et al. (US 2019/0076218 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 8 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the module comprises a socket, the socket providing for a wired connection.
Alikhani et al. teaches a device in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic systems with brackets and archwires (abstract). Alikhani teaches the bracket may be manipulated by a robotic device based on data corresponding to the positioning of the teeth. Alikhani teaches the processing module of the robotic device can transfer data to the adjustment device (i.e. bracket) via a wired connection (e.g. cable) or a wireless communications network (e.g. Bluetooth) ([0089]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the module of Bindayel/Ozkalyaci to have a socket to allow for a wired connection via a cable, as taught by Alikhani, because it could provide faster communication between the bracket module and the remote controller.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindayel (US 2017/0128168 A1), in view of in view of Kopelman (US 2021/0220087 A1), Ozkalayci et al. (NPL, 2018; Effect of continuous versus intermittent orthodontic forces on root resorption: A microcomputed tomography study - PubMed), and further in view of Griffith et al. (US 2008/0248439 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to the device further comprising an elongate element lock.
Griffith et al. teaches a device in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic devices for correcting teeth (abstract). Griffith teaches an archwire comprises a locking surface including notches (105, Figs. 4-4C) that are gripped to secure the archwire to the teeth while the brackets can still apply the forces ([0127], [0129]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bindayel/Ozkalyaci to include a locking surface, as taught by Griffith, because it would ensure a secure grip between the wire and the bracket and allow proper distribution of the applied forces.
Regarding claim 20, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci in view of Griffith teaches the dental device according to Claim 19 (see rejection above). Griffith teaches wherein the elongate element lock includes an elongate element gripper (see Figures 4-4C and [0127, 0129]; locking surface 105 has notches that are gripped by the bracket).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bindayel/Ozkalyaci to include a locking surface, as taught by Griffith, because it would ensure a secure grip between the wire and the bracket and allow proper distribution of the applied forces.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindayel (US 2017/0128168 A1), in view of in view of Kopelman (US 2021/0220087 A1), Ozkalayci et al. (NPL, 2018; Effect of continuous versus intermittent orthodontic forces on root resorption: A microcomputed tomography study - PubMed), and further in view of Cosse et al. (US 2015/0305833 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the dental device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the motor is provided with a clutch mechanism.
Cosse teaches a device in the same field of endeavor of motorized orthodontic devices for adjusting an archwire (abstract). Cosse teaches the device comprises a bracket (50) including a body (70) with an archwire slot (72) and a drive structure (78) (see Figure 1). Cosse teaches the drive structure can selectively regulate, produce and/or enable relative motion of the bracket relative to the archwire ([0047]) and can be a motor ([0048]) and wherein the motor/drive structure can include a clutch ([0048]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the motor of Bindayel/Ozkalyaci include a clutch mechanism, as taught by Cosse, because it would provide the motor with the ability to connect/disconnect and allow more control over the manipulation of the wire.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bindayel (US 2017/0128168 A1), in view of in view of Kopelman (US 2021/0220087 A1), Ozkalayci et al. (NPL, 2018; Effect of continuous versus intermittent orthodontic forces on root resorption: A microcomputed tomography study - PubMed), and further in view of Rosenman et al. (US 2012/0240941 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Bindayel in view of Kopelman and Ozkalyaci teaches the device according to Claim 8 (see rejection above), wherein the module is adapted for removable attachment to said at least one of the teeth, the said at least one of the teeth having a bracket fixed thereto, the module removably attachable to the bracket.
Rosenman et al. teaches a device in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic systems (abstract). Rosenman teaches the orthodontic device (62) comprises an electronic module (64) that reflects and monitors positioning data of the orthodontic device ([0035]) and wherein the electronic module is removably attached to the appliance ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Bindayel/Ozkalyaci to have the module be removably attached from the orthodontic appliance (i.e., orthodontic device), as taught by Rosenman, such that it would facilitate replacing any of the parts of the module in case of maintenance of the module, without having to remove the whole bracket.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15, 19-24 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.
As previously discussed, the claim is an apparatus claim and the limitation of the patient operating the device is merely functional and as claimed the patient is fully capable of doing the adjustment. Please note new grounds of rejection above teaching reducing the forces for a period of time and then resuming the forces as to relieve discomfort and reduce root resorption.
Please further note that the claim recites the processor being configurable to function as claimed and therefore since Bindayel/Kopelman teaches the device including a timer for controlling force duration, it is configurable to function as recited if programmed to do so. The term “configurable” denotes capability or potential, such that the device is capable of being set or adjusted to do so but does not require it to actually be set or be operating in that manner. In contrast, the term “configured” denotes an actual condition such that the device would be required to be presently set to perform as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached 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 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
1/22/2026