DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 18, 23-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo et al (BR 102016007772 A2, hereinafter “Aguinaldo”) in view of Parker (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0296303 A1) in view of Huge (U.S. Patent No. 6,783,361 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
658
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
308
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
541
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 18, Aguinaldo discloses an orthodontic screw (1 in Fig. 1, Figures 1-6), comprising:
two bodies (2 in Fig. 3) connected by positioning means (3 and 4 in Fig. 3) capable of allowing a distance between said bodies to be adjusted with a reciprocal movement along a predetermined direction (p. 2 lines 9-12),
wherein said bodies have a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 6) capable of receiving a portion (portion in annotated Fig. 6) of a connecting structure (6 in Fig. 3) associable with the orthodontic screw for connection to teeth of a dental arch (p. 2 lines 14-15),
wherein said seat consists of a groove formed on an external surface (external surface in annotated Fig. 3) of the bodies (Figs. 3 and 6), wherein said seat is closed at one of its ends (closed end in annotated Fig. 3), and
wherein said seat develops parallel to said predetermined direction (Fig. 3).
Aguinaldo does not disclose wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to said positioning means and said portion of said connecting structure can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat.
Parker teaches a similar apparatus (para. 0085, Figs. 4-4b) comprising a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 4a) capable of receiving a portion of a connecting structure (36 in Fig. 4, paras. 0095-0096) wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to positioning means (Figs. 4 and 4a, paras. 0095-0096, see holes for positioning means in annotated Fig. 4a).
Huge teaches a similar apparatus (14 in Fig. 1-11) comprising a seat (98 in Fig. 2) with a wide opening on the external surface (external surface in annotated Fig. 2) wherein a portion of a connecting structure (portion in annotated Fig. 2) can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat (col. 19 lines 13-26, Fig. 2).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat of Aguinaldo by arranging the seat laterally with respect to the positioning means as taught by Parker in order to allow for the appliance to be custom fit to a patient’s mouth (para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat and portion of the connecting structure of Aguinaldo in view of Parker by widening the seat opening on the external surface so that a portion of a connecting structure can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat as taught by Huge in order to allow for increased potential for maintaining and promoting desired levels of expansive forces upon installation into the oral cavity (Huge col. 2 lines 45-48).
In regard to claim 23, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 18. Aguinaldo further discloses wherein said positioning means (3 in Fig. 3) is a screw (p. 2 line 10) and one or more rectilinear guides (4 in Fig. 3, p. 2 line 11) parallel to the screw (Figs. 3 and 6), and wherein said seat (seat in annotated Fig. 6) is formed in a direction that does not coincide with axes of the screw and of the guides (Figs. 2, 3 and 6).
In regard to claim 29, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 18. Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge further discloses an orthodontic screw according to claim 18 (see above rejection) Aguinaldo does not disclose a process for making an orthodontic appliance or an orthopedic appliance for dentistry, and a connecting structure associated with the orthodontic screw for its connection to the teeth of a dental arch, the process comprising: forming a seat having a groove, on an external surface of the bodies of said screw, and introducing a portion of said connecting structure in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat.
Huge further teaches a process for making an orthodontic appliance (11 in Figs. 1-3) for dentistry that comprises an orthodontic screw (14 in Figs. 1-11), and a connecting structure (22a and 22b in Fig. 2) associated with the orthodontic screw for its connection to the teeth of a dental arch (Fig. 1), the process comprising: forming a seat having a groove (groove in annotated Fig. 2, col. 19 lines 13-26), on an external surface of the bodies of said screw (Fig. 2), and introducing a portion of said connecting structure in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat (col. 13 line 65-col. 14 line 3, col. 14 lines 8-14).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orthodontic screw of Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge by adding a process for making the orthodontic screw and a connecting structure associated with the orthodontic screw for its connection to the teeth of a dental arch comprises: forming a seat having a groove, on an external surface of the bodies of said screw, and introducing a portion of said connecting structure in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat as taught by Huge in order to allow for increased potential for maintaining and promoting desired levels of expansive forces upon installation into the oral cavity (Huge col. 2 lines 45-48).
In regard to claim 24, Aguinaldo discloses an orthodontic appliance (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
an orthodontic screw (1 in Fig. 1) and a connecting structure (6 in Fig. 3) capable of connecting to teeth of a dental arch (p. 2 lines 14-15), the connecting structure comprising fixing means to the teeth (orthodontic bands, not shown, p. 2 lines 14-15) and one or more connecting arms (arms in annotated Fig. 3) arranged between said orthodontic screw and said fixing means to the teeth (p. 2 lines 14-15);
wherein the orthodontic screw comprises two bodies (2 in Fig. 3) connected by positioning means (3 and 4 in Fig. 3) capable of allowing a distance between said bodies to be adjusted with a reciprocal movement along a predetermined direction (p. 2 lines 9-12), wherein said bodies have a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 6) capable of receiving a portion (portion in annotated Fig. 6) of the connecting structure associable with the orthodontic screw for connection to the teeth of the dental arch (p. 2 lines 14-15),
wherein said seat consists of a groove formed on an external surface (external surface in annotated Fig. 3) of the bodies (Figs. 3 and 6), wherein said seat is closed at one of its ends (closed end in annotated Fig. 3), and wherein said seat develops parallel to said predetermined direction (Fig. 3).
Aguinaldo does not disclose wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to said positioning means, and wherein said portion of said connecting structure can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat.
Parker teaches a similar apparatus (para. 0085, Figs. 4-4b) comprising a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 4a) capable of receiving a portion of a connecting structure (36 in Fig. 4, para. 0095-0096) wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to positioning means (Figs. 4 and 4a, paras. 0095-0096, see holes for positioning means in annotated Fig. 4a).
Huge teaches a similar apparatus (14 in Fig. 1-11) comprising a seat (98 in Fig. 2) with a wide opening on the external surface (external surface in annotated Fig. 2) wherein a portion of a connecting structure (portion in annotated Fig. 2) can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat (col. 19 lines 13-26, Fig. 2).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat of Aguinaldo by arranging the seat laterally with respect to the positioning means as taught by Parker in order to allow for the appliance to be custom fit to a patient’s mouth (para. 0021).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat and portion of the connecting structure of Aguinaldo in view of Parker by widening the seat opening on the external surface so that a portion of a connecting structure can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat as taught by Huge in order to allow for increased potential for maintaining and promoting desired levels of expansive forces upon installation into the oral cavity (Huge col. 2 lines 45-48).
In regard to claim 26, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 24. Aguinaldo further discloses wherein each of said connecting arms (arms in annotated Fig. 3) is provided with a portion or section shaped to be insertable (insertable section in annotated Fig. 6) in said seat formed in the external surface of the bodies of the screw (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 27, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 24. Aguinaldo further discloses wherein each of said connecting arms (arms in annotated Fig. 3) are provided with a free end (free end in annotated Fig. 6) shaped to be insertable in the seat formed in the external surface of the bodies of the screw (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 28, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 24. Aguinaldo does not disclose further comprising one or more connection elements able to keep together said fixing means and said arms.
Huge further teaches comprising one or more connection elements (24a and 24b in Fig. 1) able to keep together fixing means (34a and 34b in Fig. 1) and said arms (22a and 22b in Fig. 1, col. 13 line 63-col. 14 line 3, col. 14 lines 8-14).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fixing means and arms of Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge by adding one or more connection elements able to keep together said fixing means and said arms as taught by Huge in order to affect expansion of an arch or increasing width of an arch (Huge col. 14 lines 20-21) and allow for increased potential for maintaining and promoting desired levels of expansive forces upon installation into the oral cavity (Huge col. 2 lines 45-48).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo et in view of Huge in view of Parker.
In regard to claim 25, Aguinaldo discloses an orthodontic appliance for dentistry (Figs. 1-6), comprising:
an orthodontic screw (1 in Fig. 1) and a connecting structure (6 in Fig. 3) capable of connecting to teeth of a dental arch (p. 2 lines 14-15), the connecting structure comprising fixing means to the teeth (orthodontic bands, not shown, p. 2 lines 14-15) of the dental arch, fixing means to a bone structure (5 in Fig. 3 and 9 in Fig. 5, p. 2 lines 13 and 37-38) and one or more connecting arms (arms in annotated Fig. 3) arranged between said orthodontic screw, said fixing means to the teeth and said fixing means to the bone structure (Fig. 3);
wherein the orthodontic screw comprises two bodies (2 in Fig. 3) connected by positioning means (3 and 4 in Fig. 3) capable of allowing a distance between said bodies to be adjusted with a reciprocal movement along a predetermined direction (p. 2 lines 9-12), wherein said bodies have a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 6) capable of receiving a portion (portion in annotated Fig. 6) of the connecting structure associable with the orthodontic screw for connection to the teeth of the dental arch (p. 2 lines 14-15), wherein said seat consists of a groove formed on an external surface (external surface in annotated Fig. 3) of the bodies (Figs. 3 and 6), wherein said seat is closed at one of its ends (closed end in annotated Fig. 3), and wherein said seat develops parallel to said predetermined direction (Fig. 3).
Aguinaldo does not disclose wherein said portion of said connecting structure can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat, wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to said positioning means.
Huge teaches a similar apparatus (14 in Fig. 1-11) comprising a seat (98 in Fig. 2) with a wide opening on the external surface (external surface in annotated Fig. 2) wherein a portion of a connecting structure (portion in annotated Fig. 2) can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat (col. 19 lines 13-26, Fig. 2).
Parker teaches a similar apparatus (para. 0085, Figs. 4-4b) comprising a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 4a) capable of receiving a portion of a connecting structure (36 in Fig. 4, para. 0095-0096) wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to positioning means (Figs. 4 and 4a, paras. 0095-0096, see holes for positioning means in annotated Fig. 4a).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat and portion of the connecting structure of Aguinaldo by widening the seat opening on the external surface so that a portion of a connecting structure can be inserted in said seat through a displacement orthogonal to the same seat as taught by Huge in order to allow for increased potential for maintaining and promoting desired levels of expansive forces upon installation into the oral cavity (Huge col. 2 lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat of Aguinaldo in view of Huge by arranging the seat laterally with respect to the positioning means as taught by Parker in order to allow for the appliance to be custom fit to a patient’s mouth (para. 0021).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge and Montalban (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0024334 A1).
PNG
media_image5.png
433
709
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
417
592
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 19 and 20, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 18. Aguinaldo does not disclose wherein said seat has a polygonal cross section, or wherein said seat has a quadrilateral cross section.
Montalban teaches an orthodontic screw (1 in Figs. 1-21), comprising: two bodies (5 and 6 in Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0073) wherein said bodies have a seat (100 in Fig. 1) capable of receiving a portion (portion of connecting structure in annotated Fig. 1) of a connecting structure (10 in Fig. 1), wherein said seat has a polygonal cross section (Fig. 5), wherein said seat has a quadrilateral cross section (Fig. 5).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seat of Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge by specifying the seat has a polygonal cross section which is a quadrilateral cross section as taught by Montalban in order to allow for rigidly fixing the portion of the connecting structure into the seats (Montalban para. 0078).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge and Raby et al (U.S. 2020/0253696 A1, hereinafter “Raby”).
In regard to claim 30, Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge discloses the invention of claim 29. Aguinaldo does not disclose wherein said connecting structure is designed and formed by a CAD-CAM technique.
Raby teaches a similar process (para. 0008, Fig. 8) wherein the connecting structure (16A-F in Fig. 1C) of an orthodontic expander is designed and formed by a CAD-CAM technique (paras. 0113-0114 and 0120).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic expanders. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge by specifying the connecting structure is designed and formed by a CAD-CAM technique as taught by Raby in order to allow for flexibility in the manufacturing process with reduced need for shipping physical objects back and forth (Raby para. 0081).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the cited references, alone or in combination, do not disclose all the limitations of the amended independent claims. 18, 24, and 25. Applicant argues that Huge does not disclose the amended limitation as in Huge, the seat (98) for attaching the segments (22a, 22b) is located in an intermediate position with respect to the axes of the seats (92) and (100) not laterally as claimed. Applicant argues that therefore, in Huge, there is no provision or illustration of a lateral arrangement of the seats with respect to the seats of the guide pin and the seats of the threaded portions of the spindle as claimed. Applicant argues that the arrangement of Huge results in reduced mechanical stability of the orthodontic apparatus due to the formation of torque imbalances caused, in turn, by the combined action of the thrust exerted by the spindle, whose threaded portions are housed in the seats formed on the bodies below the seats, and the resistance opposed by the user's dental arch transmitted through the segments.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, independent claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge, and independent claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Huge in view of Parker. Examiner notes that Parker teaches a similar apparatus (para. 0085, Figs. 4-4b) comprising a seat (seat in annotated Fig. 4a) capable of receiving a portion of a connecting structure (36 in Fig. 4, paras. 0095-0096) wherein said seat is laterally arranged with respect to positioning means (Figs. 4-4a, paras. 0095-0096). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Aguinaldo by the teachings of Parker in order to allow for the appliance to be custom fit to a patient’s mouth (para. 0021). Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations as claims 18, 24, and 25 do not recite limitations regarding mechanical stability, torque, or resistance, and Huge and Parker disclose the limitations as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that Aguinaldo shows a vertical height difference between the housing seats for the rods (6), the disconnection screw (3), and the guide rods (4), as the rods are shown to be housed at a higher level than the latter two. Applicant argues that since the housings for the rods are arranged above the guides and the screw, Aguinaldo does not suggest the claimed combination. Applicant argues that the absence of coplanarity between the seats of the positioning rods, the disconnection screw and the guides, and, consequently, between the expansion force acting on the plane of the screw and the resistance transmitted by the dental arch to the rods determines a torque imbalance and therefore a lower stability of the orthodontic device described in Aguinaldo.
Examiner notes that, as noted above, in the above rejection, independent claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge, and independent claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Huge in view of Parker. Examiner notes that Parker teaches a wherein said seat (seat in annotated Fig. 4a) is laterally arranged with respect to positioning means (Figs. 4-4a, paras. 0095-0096). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Aguinaldo by the teachings of Parker in order to allow for the appliance to be custom fit to a patient’s mouth (para. 0021). Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations as claims 18, 24, and 25 do not recite limitations regarding coplanarity between the seats of the rods, screw and guides, and do not recites limitations regarding torque, resistance, or stability, and Aguinaldo and Parker disclose the limitations as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that in Huge and Aguinaldo, the housing seats for the segments (22a, 22b) and positioning rods (6), respectively, are formed on the upper surface of the orthodontic screw, and not laterally with respect to the body of the screw. Applicant argues that none of the cited references shows or suggests a seat formed on the external surfaces of the bodies that form the device wherein the arms intended to transmit the force are arranged in an intermediate position between the lower and upper surfaces of these bodies, and not above or below the same bodies. Applicant argues that none of the cited references can provide the same mechanical stability of an appliance realized according to the claimed invention and therefore none of the cited references allows the absence of torque imbalances due precisely to the lateral positioning of the seats formed on the bodies (20) in relation to the positioning means and, consequently, in a better distribution of the force transmitted by the arms (3). Applicant argues that Montalban and Raby likewise do not disclose the above discussed limitations and requests that the § 103 rejections be withdrawn.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the seat is laterally arranged with respect to the body of the screw, and wherein the arms intended to transmit the force are arranged in an intermediate position between the lower and upper surfaces of these bodies, and not above or below the same bodies, and the absence of torque imbalances due precisely to the lateral positioning of the seats formed on the bodies in relation to the positioning means) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. As noted above, in the above rejection, independent claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Parker in view of Huge, and independent claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguinaldo in view of Huge in view of Parker. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights