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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Nadav fails to provide for the new limitations of the force generator configured to deliver a periodic force that is a pulsing force, however Nadav does explicitly disclose that the hydraulic force is a pulsing periodic force.
Further applicant has argued that Belfor does not provide for the type of pulsating force, however the means plus function term is linked in the specification to include being achieved by manual use, as such the force generator being configured as claimed would include any prior art that can have its force adjusted manually. Even so, it was not Belfor cited for the pulsing force, which is explicitly taught in Nadav.
The non-guiding shell portions of Nadav are disclosed as being anchor portions for the appliance and would in their force be static. The combination and motivation of incorporating a static force component that is an adjustable threaded screw was provided for by Belfor with does provide for the benefit of providing for a device that would be able to both reposition teeth within a jaw and expand the jaw at the same time which would allow the jaw to accept the proper placement of the repositioned teeth. As such the current claims are still provided for by Nadav in combination with Belfor.
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: “force generator configured to generate a periodic force”, “hydraulic force transmitting structure”, “first anchor for attachment”, and “second anchor for attachment” in claim 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-21, 42-46, 56-59, 62, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadav et al. (US 2007/0065768 A1) in view of Belfor et al. (US 2007/0264605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nadav discloses a device for cranial restructuring, by the expansion, compression, or flexure of a cranial structure located between a first anchor point and a second anchor point, (title and abstract) the device including:
a force generator configured to generate a periodic force, the periodic force being a cyclic force or a pulsating force (Applicant discloses the force generator as comprising any of a motor(stepper, crank, screw thread, cam), or pump( hydraulic, manual, electromechanical, automatic) on pages 5, 20, and 27. Nadav discloses a force generator for the function claimed as being a suitable pressurized source of fluid or a hydraulic pump that is able to pressurize and depressurize by control by a suitable electronic control operated by a user in paragraph [0099] and is configured to provide a pulsating force by period pulses in paragraph [0102] . Because both applicant’s disclosure and Nadav disclose a force generator as a pump for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the fluid pressurizing pump of Nadav would be functionally equivalent structure);
a first anchor for attachment to the first anchor point (Applicant discloses the anchor as comprising any of wires, bands, fixations, wraps, abutments, screws, inflatable structures, or molded structures on pages 7, 8, and 12. Nadav discloses a first anchor for the function claimed as being an abutting plate/molded structure in figures 8/15/17a,b/19 element 40/510 being a wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Nadav disclose a first anchor as an abutting wrap/plate/molded structure for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the abutting wrap/plate/molded structure of Nadav would be functionally equivalent structure);
a second anchor for attachment to a second anchor point(Applicant discloses the anchor as comprising any of wires, bands, fixations, wraps, abutments, screws, inflatable structures, or molded structures on pages 7, 8, and 12. Nadav discloses a second anchor for the function claimed as being an abutting plate/molded structure in figure 8 element 40 being an opposite wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy that would be different than the first anchor point above. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Nadav disclose a second anchor as an abutting wrap/plate/molded structure for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the abutting wrap/plate/molded structure of Nadav would be functionally equivalent structure);
a first component configured to deliver a static force (a suitable retainer/shell in paragraph [0119] lines 11-13 the shell would provide a static force by holding the static tooth)
a second component of a hydraulic force transmitting structure that is hydraulic (Applicant discloses the hydraulic force transmitting structure as comprising any of balloons, bellows, inflatable/collapsible structures on pages 5-6. Nadav discloses a hydraulic force transmitting structure for the function claimed as being a balloon/bellow/inflatable/collapsible structure in figure 8 elements 152/160 being fluid pressure lines and inflatable means in paragraph [0097]. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Nadav disclose a hydraulic force transmitting structure as a balloon/bellow/inflatable/collapsible structure for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the balloon/bellow/inflatable/collapsible structure of Nadav would be functionally equivalent structure) configured to generate a periodic force (paragraph [0102] disclosing the force generated in periodic pulses, the pump 165 could be turned on/off and thus would be configured to be used to generate force periodically),
connected to the force generator, and configured to transmit the force to the first anchor and the second anchor thereby putting the cranial structure in at least one of: tension, compression or flexure (Fig. 8 elements 152/160 are connected to force generator 165 and transmit force to the first and second anchors by putting pressure on the teeth and thus cranial structure in tension, compression and flexure by the forces acting on different teeth).
Nadav discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the device has first component is adjustable by a threaded screw to deliver the static force to the first anchor and/or the second anchor.
However, Belfor discloses a device for cranial restructuring by jaw expansion and individual tooth repositioning (title ) by applying force between a first anchor point and a second anchor point (Fig. 2 any of the teeth on opposite side of the jaw would be an anchor point and thus a first and second anchor points would be where elements 32 in figure one would push against teeth) with a force generator to generate a periodic force (paragraph [0048] and [0049] disclosing the support arms 32 are periodically pushed apart by motors 35) to move different teeth independently by having adjusted force (paragraph [0018] disclosing the appliance applies both individual force each one selected tooth in combination with the application of force to the palate for expansion) and a first anchor and a second anchor (Fig. 1/2 elements 32) including a first component which is adjustable by a threadable screw to deliver a static force to the first and second anchors ( Fig. 1/2 elements 24/25, paragraph [0045] disclosing the screw 24 is moved by motor 25 and when not being turned would be providing a static force) and a second component of a force transmitting structure connected to the force generator and configured to transmit period force to the first anchor and/or the second anchor (Figs. 1/2 elements 35 would applying period force to keep elements 32 in contact with the teeth and would be periodically adjusted as per paragraph [0049] “adjustment of the force of the flap springs can be accomplished during periodic (e.g., one every three to four weeks) visits to the dental health care provider”, and paragraph [0050] disclosing a microcontroller that would automatically perform such periodic adjustments).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a component that would be adjustable by a threaded screw to also deliver a static force to an first and/or second anchor in combination with a another component that transmits a selected period force to the first and second anchors into the first component as taught by Belfor into the device as taught by Nadav for the purpose of providing for a device that would be able to both reposition teeth within a jaw and expand the jaw at the same time which would allow the jaw to accept the proper placement of the repositioned teeth as taught by Belfor (abstract lines 10-20). Further it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 4, Nadav further discloses wherein the hydraulic force transmitting structure includes an inflatable structure (figure 8 elements 152/160, fig. 16a/b elements 552/554 being fluid pressure lines and inflatable means in paragraph [0097],[0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 5, Nadav further discloses wherein the hydraulic force transmitting structure includes a first inflatable structure rigidly connected to the first anchor, and a second inflatable structure rigidly connected to the second anchor (Fig. 8 elements 152 or Fig. 16 elements 552/554 are securely and thus rigidly fixed to the anchors of the cavity walls of 40).
Regarding claim 6, Nadav further discloses wherein the first inflatable structure and the second inflatable structure are connected in series with each other (Figs. 8/15 various of elements 152 or 552/554 are in series, one after the next).
Regarding claim 7, Nadav further discloses wherein the hydraulic force transmitting structure includes a first channel including the inflatable structure (Fig. 8 wall element 40 having channels through which element 160 passes to connect to element 152, a first channel being any one of the channels, Fig. 15 element 552 being within a first channel).
Regarding claim 8, Nadav further discloses wherein the hydraulic force transmitting structure includes a molded structure which includes a first recess which is shaped to conform to at least one of an inner, an outer and an occlusal surface of the first tooth (Fig. 7a element 40/42’/47, Fig. 19 element 547/510), the recess including a first intermediate structure with a surface of which is arranged to contact a surface of the first tooth when the device is in place inside a user's mouth (Fig. 9a-11b element 170/190, Fig. 19 element 582 or inner wall of 554).
Regarding claim 9, Nadav further discloses wherein the first channel is located within the portion of the molded structure which is behind the first intermediate structure (Fig. 8 element 40 wall that forms the channel is behind element 152 and thus behind the intermediate structures of 9a-11b, Fig. 19 the channel within 555 is between 555 and the intermediate structure of the inner wall of 554 or 582) , and the inflatable structure is arranged such that when it is inflated, it exerts a force on the first intermediate structure, and the force is transmitted to the first tooth via the first intermediate structure (Fig. 9a-11b showing inflation moving the intermediate structure towards the tooth surface for applying force Fig. 7a-c showing a force F, Figs 17a,b, 19 showing the inner wall of 554 contacting and providing force against the tooth).
Regarding claim 10, Nadav further discloses wherein the molded structure includes a plurality of recesses, each shaped to conform to an inner surface of a respective tooth, and each recess including a respective intermediate structure, a surface of which is arranged to contact a surface of the respective tooth when the device is in place inside a user's mouth (Figs. 8/15 showing a plurality of recesses for multiple different teeth).
Regarding claim 11, Nadav further discloses wherein the first intermediate structure is a cantilever structure (Fig. 9a/b,11a/b, being a single end connected intermediate cantilever structure,) and the first channel is arcuate, is located behind each of the respective intermediate structures, such that when the inflatable structure is inflated, it exerts a force on each of the intermediate structures, and the force is transmitted to each of teeth via the respective intermediate structures (Figs. 8/15 the channels being arcuate by following several teeth around the arch of the jaw with the intermediate structures Fig. 9a-11b element 170/190, Fig. 19 element 582 or inner wall of 554 having force on them that is then transferred to teeth).
Regarding claim 12, Nadav further discloses wherein the intermediate structure is at least one of a cantilever structure, a sliding member and a weakened portion of a wall of the recess (Fig. 9a/b,11a/b, being a single end connected intermediate cantilever structure, Figs. 10 a/b element 190 or 16a/b element 552’ ends each being a sliding member).
Regarding claim 13, Nadav further discloses wherein the device is modular ( Fig. 8 showing element 160/152 being separate parts from 4, element 165 is modular and disconnect-able from 160/165, fig. 15/16 showing the modules of the shell/anchors and the force transmitting structure take apart).
Regarding claim 14, Nadav further discloses wherein the force generator is removable (fig. 8 element 165 is removable, paragraph [0098] disclosing the fluid supply is disconnect-able from the manifold of the force transmitter).
Regarding claim 15, Nadav further discloses wherein the force generator is connectable to at least a portion of the force transmitting structure by a detachable self-sealing connection (fig. 8 element 165 connectable at 162 by a self-sealing connection 163).
Regarding claim 16, Nadav further discloses wherein the detachable self-sealing connection includes a valve (Fig. 8 element 163).
Regarding claim 17, Nadav further discloses the detachable self-sealing connection includes at least one of a one-way valve and a reversible valve (Fig 8 element 163).
Regarding claim 18, Nadav further discloses the hydraulic force transmitting structure is configured to transmit a first force to the first anchor and a second force to the second anchor, wherein the first force is in the opposite direction from the second force (fig. 8 force applied to the buccal left side of the arch would be opposite from force applied to the buccal right side, or force applied to the lingual left side of the arch would be opposite from force applied to the lingual right side).
Regarding claim 19, Nadav further discloses the hydraulic force transmitting structure is configured to apply the generated force directly to the first anchor only, and wherein in use, the first force is applied to the second anchor via the cranial structure, as a reaction force (fig. 8 where only either buccal or labial forces would be applied there would be a reactionary opposite force through the jaw to a second anchor of another opposite sided tooth).
Regarding claim 20, Nadav further discloses the hydraulic force transmitting structure is configured to apply the generated force directly to the first anchor and the second anchor ( Fig. 8/15 the force transmitters can be the ends of the inflatable balloons themselves).
Regarding claim 21, Nadav further discloses the device defines an expansion mechanism for performing maxillary or mandibular expansion, the hydraulic force transmitting structure comprises a first and a second hydraulic component, a first and a second channel component arranged to house, respectively, the first and second hydraulic components, and a central component arranged to couple the first and second channel components; the first anchor point defines an attachment component of the first channel component and the second anchor point defines an attachment component of the second channel component (Fig. 8 element 160 having separate first, second and third hydraulic components that are in respective channels and central component 162, with the first anchor point and the second anchor point being the first and second channels for receiving teeth that are connected to the device shell itself).
Regarding claim 42, Nadav further discloses wherein the first anchor point is a first tooth, and the first anchor includes a first tooth contacting component which is configured either to: wrap around the first tooth, or abut an inner surface or outer surface of the first tooth ( figures 8/15/17a,b/19 element 40/510 being a wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy).
Regarding claim 43, Nadav further discloses wherein the first tooth-contacting component includes one or more of a wire, a band, or a plate (figures 8/15/17a,b/19 element 40/510 being an abutting plate/band/fixation wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy).
Regarding claim 44, Nadav further discloses wherein the second anchor point is a second tooth, and the second anchor includes a second tooth-contacting component which is configured either to: wrap around the second tooth, or abut an inner surface or outer surface of the second tooth (figure 8 element 40 being an opposite wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy that would be different than the first anchor point above).
Regarding claim 45, Nadav further discloses wherein the second tooth-contacting component includes one or more of: a wire, a band, or a plate ((figures 8/15/17a,b/19 element 40/510 being an abutting plate/band/fixation wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy which would be a different portion that for the first anchor portion).
Regarding claim 46, Nadav further discloses wherein the first tooth-contacting component includes a portion which is shaped to conform to a surface of the first tooth, respectively (figures 8/15/17a,b/19 element 40/510 being a wall of the cavity on any of the left or right teeth either the buccal or lingual sides that acts as an anchor to the anchor point of the associated anatomy and is shaped to conform to the side of the tooth for any first portion of the shell and thus a first component).
Regarding claim 56, Nadav further discloses wherein the force generator is configured to generate a force having a profile including non- periodic regions and periodic regions (paragraph [0102] disclosing the force generated in periodic pulses that is controlled by a control unit. The pump 165 could be turned on/off and thus would be configured to be used to generate force periodically as well as non-periodic such as in paragraph [0100] for a constant force). Further it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). .
Regarding claim 57, Nadav further discloses wherein the force generator is configured to receive input from a measurement device, and to adjust the characteristics of the generated force in response to the input from the measurement device (paragraph [0103] disclosing the measuring and adjusting of input to the controller for the fluid pump to adjust the generated force). Further it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). .
Regarding claim 58, Nadav further discloses wherein the force generator is configured to adjust the characteristics of the force to maintain a constant rate of restructuring of the cranial structure(paragraph [0103] disclosing the measuring and adjusting of input to the controller for the fluid pump to adjust the generated force). Further it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 59, Nadav further discloses wherein the measurement device includes a pressure gauge, a strain gauge, a device for measuring displacement of the cranial structure, an electrocardiogram machine, an electroencephalogram machine, or an electromyography machine (paragraph [0134] disclosing the measuring device includes measuring the needed displacement of the cranial structure, paragraph [0103] disclosing a measuring of the pressure and thus a pressure gauge, it should be noted that the claim does not recite the measurement device is part of the device of claim 1 which should be 57, and the measurement device would only be an intended use source for the input of the cranial device to be used in some adjustment and thus is not part of the device itself. it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 62, Nadav further discloses wherein the force generator is an external force generator (fig. 8 element 165 is external).
Regarding claim 63, Nadav further discloses wherein the hydraulic force transmitting structure is configured to transmit force from outside a user's body to a location inside the user's body (fig. 8 element 160/152 transmits the force from 165 that is outside the body to inside the body).
Claims 22 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadav et al. (US 2007/0065768 A1) in view of Belfor et al. (US 2007/0264605 A1) and further in view of Izugami et al. (US 2015/0245887 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 47, Nadav/Belfor discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including that the attachment component has a main body (Fig. 8/15 the main shell of 210/510) but fails to explicitly disclose where the attachment component comprises a wing portion that extends from the main body and comprises a hole configured to receive a fastener which is configured to fasten the attachment means to a cranial structure of the user, nor wherein the first or second anchor includes a screw that is configured to contact bone or soft tissue directly.
However, Izugami discloses an orthodontic correction device (title and abstract) with a shell/retainer body to reposition individual teeth and simultaneously expand and arch (Fig. 8b elements 10/20/30, Fig. 11c elements 11a-d) where the body has a main body with wings having a hole configured to receive a fastener (Fig. 8b portion of element 10 with wings having element 70) which is configured to fasten an attachment means to a cranial structure of a user (Applicant discloses the attachment means as comprising a screw fastener on page 9. Izugami discloses the attachment means 70 for the function claimed as being a bone screw in paragraph [0082]/[0083]. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Izugami disclose the attachment means as a bone screw for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the bone screw of Izugami would be functionally equivalent structure).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wings with holes and the anchors including screws as taught by Izugami into the attachment component and anchors as taught by Nadav/Belfor for the purpose of providing definitive anchorage at taught by Izugami (paragraph [0017] lines 1-5).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadav et al. (US 2007/0065768 A1) in view of Belfor et al. (US 2007/0264605 A1) in view of Izugami et al. (US 2015/0245887 A1) as applied to claim 22above and further in view of Karl et al. (DE 20008797 U1).
Regarding claim 23, Nadav/Belfor/Izugami as combined discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the hole is configured to releasably couple the wing portion to the fastener by being a screw hole, but fails to further disclose where the hole comprises a location slot that comprises two intersecting holes with a first hole being larger than a diameter of the head portion of the fastener and the smaller hole being larger than a diameter of the shaft and smaller than the diameter of the head of the fastener.
However, Karl discloses a bone distractor (title and abstract) with a bone plate having a hole comprises a location slot that comprises two intersecting holes with a first hole being larger than a diameter of the head portion of the fastener and the smaller hole being larger than a diameter of the shaft and smaller than the diameter of the head of the fastener also called a keyhole-like hole for bone screws (Fig. 1 elements 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the keyhole-like hole with the above configuration as taught by Karl into the hole as taught by Nadav/Belfor/Izugami for the purpose of providing for the sliding release of the medical device without having to unclear the bone screw completely as taught by Karl (provided translation page 2 lines 12-16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 03/20/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772