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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 15 September 2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 September 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10 January 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. No copy of the Foreign Patent Document KR 1020090024977 A (Citation No. 2) has been provided. Instead, a copy of KR 100998979 B1, “System and Method for Network Composition Management of Mobility Object” was provided. KR 100998979 B1 is not cited in the IDS but appears to have been accidentally included instead of a copy of KR 1020090024977 A. Examiner suggests Applicant submit a copy of Foreign Patent Document KR 1020090024977 A and a corresponding English translation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the manually manipulated tool of claim 12 and the dental plier of claim 36, the force exerting element of claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 34, and 35, the elastic of claims 6, 8, and 34, and the spring and open coil spring of claims 7, 9, 15, and 35 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests amending “radios of the ball” in the specification para. 0040 to “radius of the ball”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 13 lines 3-4 to “a first ball; and a first socket”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 15 lines 4-5 to “pulling said second pad toward said first pad”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) are: “structural element” in claims 1 lines 23 and 26, and claim 12 lines 23, 25, 27, and 30, which has the generic placeholder term “element”, is modified by functional language “configured to affix a length of said telescopic connector” and “configured to affix said length of said telescopic connector” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 34 are unclear. Claims 8 and 34 recite the limitation “Wherein said force exerting element comprises an elastic…configured for exerting a pushing force onto said first pad”. It is unclear how an elastic can apply a pushing force, and in the Specification, pushing forces are associated with a spring or coil spring (paras. 0014-0015 and 0054), and no figure of an elastic providing a pushing force is provided in the drawings. Examiner suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claims 9 and 35 are unclear. Claims 9 and 35 recite the limitation "pushing said second pad toward said second pad" in claim 9 line 4 and in claim 35 lines 3-4. This limitation is unclear as it is unclear how the second pad can be pushed toward itself. Examiner suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claims 12 recites the limitation "at least one force exerting element" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one force exerting element” prior to line 21 in lines 18-19. Further, claims 14, 34, and 35 refer to “said force exerting element” however it is unclear which of the “at least one force exerting element” limitations of claim 12 is being referred to. In light of the specification and drawings, and claim 1 lines 19-22, it does not appear that the orthodontic apparatus has a second at least one force exerting element. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 12 lines 20-21 as “connected to said at least one force exerting element”.
Claims 30, 32, and 33 recite the limitation “said first ball” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 12 does not recite the limitation “a first ball”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claims 30 line 2, claim 32 line 2, and claim 33 line 2 as “a first ball”.
Claims 31 recites the limitation “said second ball” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 12 does not recite the limitation “a second ball”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claims 33 line 2 as “a second ball”.
Claims 1 lines 23 and 26, and claim 12 lines 23, 25, 27, and 30, recite the limitation “structural element” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not include the limitation “structural element”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In light of the specification and drawings, it appears that the “structural element” which is present on the first cylinder configured to affix a length of the telescopic connector is a plurality of cuts or a crimpable stop (Specification para. 0019), and it appears that the “structural element” which is present on the second cylinder configured to affix said length of said telescopic connector is holes or crimpable stop (Specification para. 0019). For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the structural element of the first cylinder as referring to a plurality of cuts or a crimpable stop and the structural element of the second cylinder as referring to holes or a crimpable stop (Specification para. 0019, 0058).
Claims 2-7, 10-11, 15, 29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornburg et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,620,321 A, hereinafter Thornburg) in view of Cope (U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0146782 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Thornburg discloses an orthodontic apparatus (Figs. 1-21) for modifying spaces between a group of teeth (Abstract) comprises:
(a) a telescopic connector (telescopic connector in annotated Fig. 2) comprising:
a male element comprising a first cylinder (1st cylinder in annotated Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 25-27);
(II) a female element comprising a second cylinder (2nd cylinder in annotated Fig. 2, col. 3 lines 42-43), wherein said second cylinder is capable of being slid over said first cylinder (Fig. 2);
(b) a first pad (1st pad in annotated Fig. 2) associated with said male element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2), capable of being bonded to at least one first tooth (col. 3 lines 34-41, Fig. 21);
(c) a second pad (2nd pad in annotated Fig. 2) associated with
(d) a first adaptor (1st adaptor in annotated Fig. 2), capable of interconnecting said first pad with said male element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2);
(e) a second adaptor (2nd adaptor in annotated Fig. 2), capable of interconnecting said second pad with said female element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2);
(h) at least one structural element (spacer in annotated Fig. 2) of said first cylinder of said male element (Figs. 1, 2), capable of affixing a length of said telescopic connector (col. 5 lines 13-23), and
(i) at least one structural element (end point in annotated Fig. 2) of said second cylinder of said female element (Fig. 2), capable of affixing said length of said telescopic connector (col. 5 lines 13-23).
Thornburg does not disclose (f) a first hook, associated with said first pad, configured to be connected to at least one force exerting element; and (g) a second hook, associated with said second pad, configured to be connected to said at least one force exerting element;
Cope teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 10) for repositioning of teeth which comprises an elongate bar (100 in Fig. 1), a first pad (125 in Fig. 1) capable of being bonded to at least one first tooth (Fig. 10) and a second pad (120 in Fig. 1, para. 0033) capable of being bonded to at least one second tooth (para. 0033, Fig. 10), a first hook (130d in Fig. 1), associated with said first pad (Fig. 1), capable of being connected to at least one force exerting element (para. 0033-0034); and a second hook (130b in Fig. 1), associated with said second pad (Fig. 1), capable of being connected to said at least one force exerting element (paras. 0033-0034).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 first and second pads of Thornburg by adding the first and second hooks as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth (Cope para. 0035).
In regard to claim 2, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg further discloses said first adaptor comprises: (a) a first ball (1st ball in annotated Fig. 2); (b) a first socket (1st socket in annotated Fig. 2) capable of being associated with said first ball (col. 3 lines 57-63, Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 3, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg further discloses said second adaptor comprises: (a) a second ball (2nd ball in annotated Fig. 2); (b) a second socket (2nd socket in annotated Fig. 2) capable of being associated with said second ball (col. 3 lines 57-63, Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 4, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 2. Thornburg further discloses wherein said first adaptor is capable of placing said first ball in an angle relative to said male cylinder (1st angle in annotated Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 5, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 3. Thornburg further discloses wherein said second adaptor is capable of placing said second ball in an angle relative to said female cylinder (2nd angle in annotated Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 6, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, configured for exerting a pulling force onto said first pad, pulling said first pad towards said second pad.
Cope teaches wherein said force exerting element (1005 in Fig. 10) comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, capable of exerting a pulling force onto said first pad (para. 0034-0035), pulling said first pad towards said second pad (Fig. 10).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg by specifying the force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, capable of exerting a pulling force onto said first pad and pulling said first pad towards said second pad as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth (Cope para. 0035).
In regard to claim 7, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises a spring or an open coil spring associated with said second pad, configured for exerting a pulling force onto said second pad, pulling said second pad towards said first pad.
Cope teaches an apparatus (Fig. 12) wherein said force exerting element comprises a spring (1205 in Fig. 12, para. 0062 “1205 which can be, for example, springs”) associated with said second pad (Fig. 12), capable of exerting a pulling force onto said second pad (Fig. 12), pulling said second pad towards said first pad (Fig. 12, para. 0062).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg by specifying the force exerting element comprises a spring associated with said second pad for exerting a pulling force onto said second pad, pulling said second pad towards said first pad as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth (Cope para. 0035).
In regard to claim 8, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, configured for exerting a pushing force onto said first pad, pushing said first pad away from said second pad.
Cope teaches wherein said force exerting element (1005 in Fig. 10) comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, capable of exerting a pushing force onto said first pad (para. 0034-0035), pushing said first pad away from said second pad (para. 0035, “the forces applied by this mechanism can include, but are not limited to, distal-mesial forces (i.e. forward)”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg by specifying the force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, capable of exerting a pushing force onto said first pad and pushing said first pad away from said second pad as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth (Cope para. 0035).
In regard to claim 10, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle formable between said first ball and said male cylinder ranges between 100 to 170 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Thornburg to have an angle formable between said first ball and said male cylinder ranging between 100 to 170 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Thornburg would not operate differently with the claimed angles and since Thornburg discloses there is an angle between the first ball and the mail cylinder, the apparatus would function appropriately with the claimed values.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the angle ranging between 100-170 degrees claimed, indicating simply that the value “can” be within the claimed ranges (Specification paragraph 008).
In regard to claim 11, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle formable between said first ball and said male cylinder is 135 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Thornburg to have an angle formable between said first ball and said male cylinder at 135 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Thornburg would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since Thornburg discloses there is an angle between the first ball and the mail cylinder, the apparatus would function appropriately with the claimed values.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the angle of 135 degrees claimed, indicating simply that the value of 135 degrees is an example and the value “can” be in a range between 100-170 degrees (Specification paragraph 008).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Vogt (U.S. Patent No. 5,711,667 A).
In regard to claim 9, Thornburg in view of Cope discloses the invention of claim 1. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises a spring or an open coil spring associated with said second pad, configured for exerting a pushing force onto said second pad, pushing said second pad towards said second pad.
Vogt teaches an apparatus (Fig. 8) wherein said force exerting element (24 in Fig. 8) comprises an open coil spring associated with a second hook (71 in Fig. 8), capable of exerting a pushing force onto said second hook (Abstract, col. 10 lines 32-34), pushing said second hook towards said second hook (Abstract, col. 10 lines 32-34).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg in view of Cope by specifying the force exerting element comprises an open coil spring associated with said second part and pushing said second part towards itself as taught by Vogt in order to allow for achievement of desired activation of the device (Vogt col. 10 lines 33-34).
Claims 12-15, 29-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger (U.S. 8,905,754 B1).
The claimed phrase “forming” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the product reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
In regard to claim 12, Thornburg discloses an orthodontic apparatus (Figs. 1-21) for modifying spaces between a group of teeth (Abstract) which comprises: (a) a telescopic connector (telescopic connector in annotated Fig. 2) comprising:
a male element comprising a first cylinder (1st cylinder in annotated Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 25-27);
(II) a female element comprising a second cylinder (2nd cylinder in annotated Fig. 2, col. 3 lines 42-43), wherein said second cylinder is capable of being slid over said first cylinder (Fig. 2);
(b) a first pad (1st pad in annotated Fig. 2) associated with said male element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2), capable of being bonded to at least one first tooth (col. 3 lines 34-41, Fig. 21);
(c) a second pad (2nd pad in annotated Fig. 2) associated with said female element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2), capable of being bonded to at least one second tooth (col. 3 lines 34-41, Fig. 21);
(d) a first adaptor (1st adaptor in annotated Fig. 2), capable of interconnecting said first pad with said male element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2);
(e) a second adaptor (2nd adaptor in annotated Fig. 2), capable of interconnecting said second pad with said female element of said telescopic connector (Fig. 2);
(h) a manually manipulated tool (col. 6 line 56, “pliers”) capable of: (I) forming at least one structural element (spacer in annotated Fig. 2) on said first cylinder of said male element (col. 5 lines 13-23, col. 6 lines 55-57); wherein said at least one structural element formable by said tool on said first cylinder of said male element is configured to affix a length of said telescopic connector (col. 5 lines 13-23).
Thornburg does not disclose (f) a first hook, associated with said first pad, capable of being connected to at least one force exerting element;(g) a second hook, associated with said second pad, capable of being connected to said at least one force exerting element; (II) forming at least one structural element on said second cylinder of said female element; and wherein said at least one structural element formable by said tool on said second cylinder of said female element is capable of affixing said length of said telescopic connector.
Cope teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1 and 10) for repositioning of teeth which comprises an elongate bar (100 in Fig. 1), a first pad (125 in Fig. 1) capable of being bonded to at least one first tooth (Fig. 10) and a second pad (120 in Fig. 1, para. 0033) capable of being bonded to at least one second tooth (para. 0033, Fig. 10), a first hook (130d in Fig. 1), associated with said first pad (Fig. 1), capable of being connected to at least one force exerting element (para. 0033-0034); and a second hook (130b in Fig. 1), associated with said second pad (Fig. 1), capable of being connected to said at least one force exerting element (paras. 0033-0034).
Ernstberger teaches an apparatus (Fig. 3C) comprising a male element comprising a first cylinder (40 in Fig. 3C) and a female element comprising a second cylinder (20 in Fig. 3C), wherein said second cylinder is capable of being slid over said first cylinder (col. 8 lines 1-5), (II) forming at least one structural element (25 in Fig. 3C) on said second cylinder of said female element (col. 8 lines 1-5); and wherein said at least one structural element formable by a tool on said second cylinder of said female element is capable of affixing said length of said telescopic connector (col. 8 lines 3-5).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices.
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 first and second pads of Thornburg by adding the first and second hooks as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth.
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 second cylinder of Thornburg by adding the at least one structural element formable by a tool and capable of affixing said length of said telescopic connector as taught by Ernstberger in order to allow for fixing the length of the connector (col. 8 lines 3-5).
In regard to claim 13, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg further discloses wherein said first adaptor comprises: (i) a first ball (1st ball in annotated Fig. 2); and a first socket (1st socket in annotated Fig. 2) capable of being associated with said first ball (col. 3 lines 57-63, Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 14, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, pulling said first pad towards said second pad.
Cope teaches wherein said force exerting element (1005 in Fig. 10) comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, pulling said first pad towards said second pad (paras. 0034-0035, Fig. 10).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger by specifying the force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, pulling said first pad towards said second pad as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth.
In regard to claim 15, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises a spring or an open coil spring associated with said second pad, configured for exerting a pulling force onto said second pad, pulling said second pad towards said first pad.
Cope teaches an apparatus (Fig. 12) wherein said force exerting element comprises a spring (1205 in Fig. 12, para. 0062 “1205 which can be, for example, springs”) associated with said second pad (Fig. 12), capable of exerting a pulling force onto said second pad (Fig. 12), pulling said second pad towards said first pad (Fig. 12, para. 0062).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger by specifying the force exerting element comprises a spring associated with said second pad for exerting a pulling force onto said second pad, pulling said second pad towards said first pad as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth.
In regard to claim 29, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg further discloses wherein said second adaptor comprises:(a) a second ball (2nd ball in annotated Fig. 2); (b) a second socket (2nd socket in annotated Fig. 2) capable of being associated with said second ball (col. 3 lines 57-63, Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 30, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg further discloses wherein said first adaptor is capable of placing a first ball in an angle relative to said male cylinder (1st angle in annotated Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 31, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg further discloses wherein said second adaptor is capable of placing a second ball in an angle relative to said female cylinder (2nd angle in annotated Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 32, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle formable between a first ball and said male cylinder ranges between 100 and 170 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Thornburg to have an angle formable between a first ball and said male cylinder ranging between 100 to 170 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Thornburg would not operate differently with the claimed angles and since Thornburg discloses there is an angle between a first ball and the mail cylinder, the apparatus would function appropriately with the claimed values.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the angle ranging between 100-170 degrees claimed, indicating simply that the value “can” be within the claimed ranges (Specification paragraph 008).
In regard to claim 33, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle formable between a first ball and said male cylinder is 135 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Thornburg to have an angle formable between a first ball and said male cylinder at 135 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Thornburg would not operate differently with the claimed angle and since Thornburg discloses there is an angle between a first ball and the mail cylinder, the apparatus would function appropriately with the claimed values.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the angle of 135 degrees claimed, indicating simply that the value of 135 degrees is an example and the value “can” be in a range between 100-170 degrees (Specification paragraph 008).
In regard to claim 34, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, configured for exerting a pushing force onto said first pad, pushing said first pad away from said second pad.
Cope teaches wherein said force exerting element (1005 in Fig. 10) comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, capable of exerting a pushing force onto said first pad (para. 0034-0035), pushing said first pad away from said second pad (para. 0035, “the forces applied by this mechanism can include, but are not limited to, distal-mesial forces (i.e. forward)”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger by specifying the force exerting element comprises an elastic associated with said first pad, capable of exerting a pushing force onto said first pad and pushing said first pad away from said second pad as taught by Cope in order to allow for further control of the forces acting on the teeth.
In regard to claim 36, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg further discloses wherein said manually manipulated tool is a dental plier (col. 6 lines 55-57).
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger in view of Vogt.
In regard to claim 35, Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger discloses the invention of claim 12. Thornburg does not disclose wherein said force exerting element comprises a spring or an open coil spring associated with said second pad, configured for exerting a pushing force onto said second pad, pushing said second pad towards said second pad.
Vogt teaches an apparatus (Fig. 8) wherein said force exerting element (24 in Fig. 8) comprises an open coil spring associated with a second hook (71 in Fig. 8), capable of exerting a pushing force onto said second hook (Abstract, col. 10 lines 32-34), pushing said second hook towards said second hook (Abstract, col. 10 lines 32-34).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dental repositioning devices. 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 apparatus of Thornburg in view of Cope in view of Ernstberger by specifying the force exerting element comprises an open coil spring associated with said second part and pushing said second part towards itself as taught by Vogt in order to allow for achievement of desired activation of the device (Vogt col. 10 lines 33-34).
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, Cris Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/Cris L. Rodriguez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights