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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07 October 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 12, 18, 25, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyberg (U.S. Patent No. 9,775,687 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
520
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Hoyberg discloses an orthodontic appliance system (Figs. 6-29) comprising: at least one first docking component (1st component in annotated Fig. 7, referring to a 1st component on a tooth as multiple teeth may have magnetizable elements 25 placed on them as seen in Figs. 8 and 9) capable of being attached to a lingual side of at least one respective support tooth (support tooth in annotated Fig. 7, col. 11 lines 55-col. 12 line 5); at least one target magnet (target magnet in annotated Fig. 12, referring to a target magnet on another tooth as multiple teeth may have magnetizable elements 25 placed on them as seen in Figs. 8 and 9), the at least one target magnet comprising at least one of a magnet or paramagnet (col. 14 lines 13-15), the at least one target magnet being capable of being attached to at least one of a distal or mesial surface of at least one respective target tooth (target tooth in annotated Fig. 12); a rigid support arch (34 and 38 in Fig. 7, col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4, col. 7 lines 2-12) having respective at least one second docking component (2nd component in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding to, and for securement to, the at least one first docking component (Fig. 7), the rigid support arch being capable of supporting at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 12) at at least one respective therapeutic position adjacent a respective one of the at least one target magnet (Fig. 12); wherein the rigid support arch includes at least one stop (34 in Fig. 7) configured a protrusion (col. 12 lines 57-59) capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4).
In regard to claim 7, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1 wherein at least one of the at least one target or at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet has a non-planar shape (Figs. 15-17, col. 11 line 55- col. 12 line 5 and Figs. 24-26, col. 13 lines 12-15).
In regard to claim 12, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1 wherein the at least one stop (34 in Figs. 7 and 12) comprises a first stop and a second stop (aligner tray 34 and new aligner tray in col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4), the first stop being capable of making an initial contact during a therapeutic movement of a tooth, thereby limiting a first aspect of the therapeutic movement of the tooth, while the second stop has not yet made a contact, thereby allowing a second aspect of therapeutic movement of the tooth (col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4).
In regard to claim 18, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the at least one therapeutic magnet supports at least a first stop and a second stop (aligner tray 34 in Fig. 12 and new aligner tray in col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4), the first stop being capable of contacting the at least one target magnet during a therapeutic time period before the second stop contacts the at least one target magnet, thereby providing a pivot point for achieving a desired movement of an associated target tooth (col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4).
In regard to claim 25, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the at least one first and the at least one second docking components (1st and 2nd components in annotated Fig. 7) comprise respective at least one attachment (col. 11 lines 43-46) and at least one mounting magnet (col. 13 lines 30-32).
In regard to claim 45, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the rigid support arch (34 and 38 in Fig. 7, col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4) comprises an arch shaped strip including isolated magnetized regions (Figs. 8-9, col. 13 lines 40-45 and col. 13 lines 62-64).
In an alternate rejection, claims 1, 16, 25, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyberg.
PNG
media_image3.png
522
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
507
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In an alternate rejection, in regard to claim 1, Hoyberg discloses an orthodontic appliance system (Figs. 6-29) comprising: at least one first docking component (1st component in annotated Fig. 7, referring to a 1st component on a tooth as multiple teeth may have magnetizable elements 25 placed on them as seen in Figs. 8 and 9) capable of being attached to a lingual side of at least one respective support tooth (support tooth in annotated Fig. 7, col. 11 lines 55-col. 12 line 5); at least one target magnet (target magnet in annotated Fig. 13, referring to a target magnet on another tooth as multiple teeth may have magnetizable elements 25 placed on them as seen in Figs. 8 and 9), the at least one target magnet comprising at least one of a magnet or paramagnet (col. 14 lines 30-32), the at least one target magnet being capable of being attached to at least one of a distal or mesial surface of at least one respective target tooth (target tooth in annotated Fig. 13); a rigid support arch (38 in Fig. 7, col. 7 lines 2-12) having respective at least one second docking component (2nd component in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding to, and for securement to, the at least one first docking component (Fig. 7), the rigid support arch being capable of supporting at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 13) at at least one respective therapeutic position adjacent a respective one of the at least one target magnet (Fig. 13); wherein the at least one therapeutic magnet includes at least one stop (stop in annotated Fig. 13) configured as an extension (stop in annotated Fig. 13 is an extension of 38) capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4).
In regard to claim 16, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one target magnet (target magnet in annotated Fig. 13) and at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 13) are capable of having opposite poles facing each (col. 14 lines 30-33) other while the at least one therapeutic magnet includes at least one stop (stop in annotated Fig. 13) capable of preventing movement of the target tooth toward the therapeutic magnet (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4).
In regard to claim 25, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the at least one first and the at least one second docking components (1st and 2nd components in annotated Fig. 7) comprise respective at least one attachment (col. 11 lines 43-46) and at least one mounting magnet (col. 13 lines 30-32).
In regard to claim 52, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 25 wherein the at least one mounting magnet comprise a stop (stop in annotated Fig. 7).
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 31, 33, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cinader et al (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0027743 A1, hereinafter “Cinader”)
PNG
media_image5.png
430
564
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
431
429
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Cinader discloses an orthodontic appliance system (Figs. 1-9) comprising: at least one first docking component (1st docking in annotated Fig. 2) capable of being attached to a lingual side of at least one respective support tooth (Fig. 1, paras. 0030 and 0034); at least one target magnet (target magnet in Fig. 2), the at least one target magnet comprising at least one of a magnet or paramagnet (para. 0050, in combination with magnetic couplings), the at least one target magnet being capable of being attached to at least one of a lingual surface of at least one respective target tooth (Fig. 1); a rigid support arch (14 in Fig. 2, para. 0031) having respective at least one second docking component (2nd docking in annotated Fig. 2) corresponding to, and for securement to, the at least one first docking component (Fig. 1, para. 0034), the rigid support arch being capable of supporting at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0050, in combination with magnetic couplings) at at least one respective therapeutic position adjacent a respective one of the at least one target magnet (Figs. 1 and 2); wherein at least one of the at least one target magnet includes at least one stop (stop in annotated Fig. 5) configured as a protrusion (Fig. 5) capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (annotated Fig. 5, para. 0040).
In regard to claims 2, 4-7, 10, 31, 33, and 50, Cinader discloses the invention of claim 1. Cinader further discloses wherein the rigid support arch comprises an orthodontic wire (18 in Fig. 2, para. 0033),
wherein the rigid support arch comprises a thermoplastic appliance (para. 0060),
wherein the rigid support arch comprises a resin-based appliance (para. 0060),
wherein the rigid support arch comprises a rigid thermoplastic or resin (para. 0060),
wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet has a non-planar shape (annotated Fig. 5, para. 0050 in combination with magnetic couplings),
wherein the non- planar shape comprises a C-shape in cross section from an occlusal view (annotated Fig. 5),
wherein the rigid support arch comprises orthodontic wire (18 in Fig. 2, para. 0033),
wherein the rigid support arch is capable of following the contour of a palate of a patient (para. 0032, cover the entire palatal region),
wherein the rigid support arch (14 in Fig. 2), at least one mounting magnet (2nd docking in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0050) and the at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 2) are a single unitary manufacture (Fig. 2, paras. 0060-0061).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader in view of Blechman et al (U.S. 4,671,767 A, hereinafter “Blechman”).
In regard to claim 3, Cinader discloses the invention of claim 1. Cinader does not disclose wherein the rigid support arch comprises a metal band.
Blechman teaches an apparatus (Figs. 21-24) wherein a rigid support (100 in Fig. 23) comprising a metal band (103 in Fig. 23, col. 8 lines 59-64).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 rigid support arch of Cinader by adding the metal band as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to precisely fit certain teeth while being reinforced (Blechman col. 8 lines 59-64).
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Blechman.
In regard to claims 8 and 17, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 7. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape, wherein the L- Shaped magnet is configured to urge the target tooth occlusally, lingually and/or laterally.
Blechman teaches a therapeutic magnet (110 in Fig. 24) having a non-planar shape wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape (Fig. 24, col. 9 lines 16-20), wherein the L- shaped magnet is capable of urging the target tooth laterally (col. 9 lines 20-22).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 therapeutic magnet of Hoyberg by specifying it is an L-shape capable of urging the target tooth laterally as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to produce a magnetic force to repositioning the maxilla or for Class II mechanics (Blechman col. 9 lines 20-22).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 7. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape, wherein the L-shape comprises an obtuse angle between legs of the L-shape.
Blechman further discloses a therapeutic magnet (159 in Fig. 37) having a non-planar shape wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape (Fig. 37), wherein the L-shape comprises an obtuse angle between legs of the L-shape (Fig. 37, col. 11 lines 14-21).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 therapeutic magnet of Hoyberg by specifying it is an L-shape which comprises an obtuse angle as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to produce a greater coercive magnetic force (Blechman col. 11 lines 17-21).
In regard to claim 11, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein at least one target magnet of the at least one target magnet comprises an extended target magnet that is larger in at least one dimension than a corresponding dimension of an exposed portion of the at least one associated target tooth.
Blechman teaches at least one target magnet (129 in Fig. 26) which comprises an extended target magnet that is larger in at least one dimension than a corresponding dimension of an exposed portion of the at least one associated target tooth (Fig. 26, col. 10 lines 19-24 “as long as conveniently possible”).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 at least one target magnet of the at least one target magnet of Hoyberg by specifying it is larger in at least one dimension than a corresponding dimension of an exposed portion of the at least one associated target tooth as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to obtain maximum magnetic force (Blechman col. 10 lines 19-24).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Clark (GB 2236953 A).
In regard to claim 19, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the at least one target magnet and the at least one therapeutic magnet comprise complementary triangular shapes whereby respective hypotenuses of the triangular shapes can be configured to face each other.
Clark teaches an at least one target magnet (48 in Fig. 7) and an at least one therapeutic magnet (50 in Fig. 7) which comprise complementary triangular shapes (Fig. 7) whereby respective hypotenuses of the triangular shapes can be configured to face each other (Fig. 7, p. 17 lines 20-28)
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 at least one target and therapeutic magnets of Hoyberg by specifying the magnets comprise complementary triangular shapes whereby respective hypotenuses of the triangular shapes can be configured to face each other as taught by Clark in order to allow for the device to exert a controlled mechanical force even when the mouth is relaxed (Clark p. 17 line 28- p. 18 line 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Patel (U.S. Patent No. 9,498,302 B1).
In regard to claim 20, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the at least one target magnet comprises a first target magnet and a second target magnet configured to be attached to a lingual or palatal side of a same respective target tooth and wherein the rigid support arch is configured to support a first therapeutic magnet and a second therapeutic magnet adjacent the same respective target tooth, wherein the first target magnet and the first therapeutic magnet are configured to produce an attractive force therebetween and the second target magnet and the second therapeutic magnet are configured to produce a repulsive force therebetween.
Patel teaches an apparatus (Figs. 9-12C, col. 12 lines 45-48) wherein an at least one target magnet comprises a first target magnet (1040 in Fig. 11B, paramagnets) and a second target magnet (1050 in Fig. 11B) capable of being attached to a lingual side of a same respective target tooth (Fig. 11B, col. 18 lines 54-65) and wherein the rigid support arch (1020 in Fig. 10) is capable of supporting a first therapeutic magnet and a second therapeutic magnet adjacent the same respective target tooth (col. 13 lines 59-62), wherein the first target magnet and the first therapeutic magnet are capable of producing an attractive force therebetween and the second target magnet and the second therapeutic magnet are capable of producing a repulsive force therebetween (col. 13 line 67-col. 14 line 26).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 at least one target magnet and rigid support arch of Hoyberg by specifying the magnets comprises a first and a second target magnet capable of being attached to a lingual side of a same respective target tooth and that the rigid support arch is capable of support a first and second therapeutic magnet adjacent the same tooth, wherein the first target magnet and therapeutic magnet are capable of producing an attractive force and the second target magnet and therapeutic magnet are capable of producing a repulsive force as taught by Patel in order to allow for the device to apply different magnitude tooth movement forces to different individual teeth in accordance with a custom treatment regimen (Patel col. 14 lines 22-26).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader in view of Vardimon (U.S. 4,869,667 A).
In regard to claims 21 and 22, Cinder discloses the invention of claim 1. Cinader does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet is configured to include a substantially horizontal lever arm longer than the width of an associated target tooth, wherein the substantially horizontal lever arm supports a magnetic attachment at a distal end thereof.
Vardimon teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet (18 in Fig. 1) is capable of including a substantially horizontal lever arm (28 in Fig. 1) longer than the width of an associated target tooth (Fig. 1), wherein the substantially horizontal lever arm supports a magnetic attachment (32 in Fig. 1) at a distal end thereof (Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 33-36).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnets of Cinader by specifying the magnet is capable of including a substantially horizontal lever arm longer than the width of an associated target tooth which supports a magnetic attachment at a distal end as taught by Vardimon in order to allow for the device to stimulate the eruption process of an impacted tooth and guide it into the dental arch (Vardimon col. 1 lines 48-51).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Cinader.
PNG
media_image7.png
386
466
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 46, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 45. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet comprises a therapeutic magnet extension configured to face a mesial side or a distal side of at least one of the at least one target magnet.
Cinader teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-9) wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet (30a in Fig. 3, para. 0043) comprises a therapeutic magnet extension (extension in annotated Fig. 3) capable of facing a mesial side or a distal side of at least one of the at least one target magnet (50a in Fig. 3, para. 0043).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. 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 at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnets of Hoyberg by specifying the magnet comprises a therapeutic magnet extension capable of facing a mesial side or a distal side of at least one of the at least one target magnet as taught by Cinader in order to allow for the device to be self-aligning and facilitate seating of the magnets (Cinader paras. 0043-0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection of Claims 1, 7, 12, 18, 25, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyberg, and the alternate rejection of claims 1, 16, 25, and 52 as being anticipated by Hoyberg, Applicant notes that the amended independent claim 1 recites at least one stop configured as an extension, protrusion or projection and argues that Hoyberg does not fairly disclose such a stop. Applicant argues that the aligner tray 34/38 of Hoyberg is not fairly shown as an extension, protrusion or projection, as disclosed and claimed.
Examiner notes that Hoyberg discloses that the at least one stop 34 (see Figure 7) is configured as a protrusion (col. 12 lines 57-59, custom shaped with a protrusion). In regard to the alternate rejection, Examiner notes that the at least one stop of annotated Fig. 13 located on 38 is configured as an extension (col. 12 lines 57-65, 38 has substantially the same shape as 34 that is custom shaped with a protrusion). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that though the aligner tray of Hoyberg is identified by the Examiner as the rigid support arch, the Examiner's position does not clearly reconcile how the elements 34/38 function as both a rigid support arch and a stop. Applicant argues that aligner tray 34 (and 38) does not fairly represent the 'rigid support arch' as elements 34 and 38 represent two aligner trays, while in the present application, a rigid support arch occupies a position behind the teeth and does not encase the teeth as does an aligner tray. Applicant argues that since the aligner tray has to fit the contours of a tooth, it needs to be flexible, and if it is sufficiently flexible to close, it would not be expected to be sufficiently rigid.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claim 1 recites the limitation that “wherein the at least one of the rigid support arch, at least one of the at least one target magnet or at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet includes at least one stop” in lines 14-16. In the above rejection, 38 and 34 together comprise the rigid support arch as the rigid support arch includes at least one stop 34 as claimed. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claims, as the claims do not specify the rigid support arch occupies a position between the teeth and does not encase the teeth. Examiner notes that the limitation “rigid” is a relative term and the claims do not specify the rigidity of the rigid support arch as preventing fitting the contours of a tooth. Similarly, in regard to the alternate rejection, Examiner notes element 38 of Hoyberg discloses the rigid support arch as claimed, as Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claims as noted above. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that Examiner's asserts do not make clear how elements in Hoyberg correspond to claimed elements. Applicant argues that in the Figs. 7 and 12 used by the Examiner, the Examiner identifies the element 25 as both a docking component and a target magnet, and the element 40 as a second docking component and a therapeutic magnet, and tooth 2 is identified as a target tooth and a support tooth. Applicant argues that for at least these reasons, claim 1 is not anticipated by Hoyberg and all claims dependent on claim 1 are not anticipated by Hoyberg.
Hoyberg discloses there can be multiple elements 25 and multiple teeth 2 within a mouth of a patient (see Fig. 8); because of this Examiner notes that the rejection may not have been clear on which elements were used to reject which parts of the claims as Hoyberg’s figures repeat use of the same reference numbers. Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Examiner rejected the 1st component of annotated Fig. 7, corresponding to element 25, located at the lingual side of one support tooth as the first docking component, and rejected the target magnet of annotated Fig. 12 (and in the alternate rejection, the target magnet of annotated Fig. 13), corresponding to another element 25 located at a distal or mesial surface of another tooth as the target magnet on a target tooth. Examiner has further clarified the rejection in the above rejection and Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 31, 33, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cinader, Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 recites at least one stop configured as an extension, protrusion or projection to prevent or limit an aspect of movement of a tooth. Applicant argues that coupling 50 (or 50c) does not fairly function as a stop configured as an extension, protrusion or projection to prevent or limit an aspect of movement of a tooth as the coupling of Cinader apparently functions to couple elements of the Cinader system. Applicant argues that the "stop" in annotated Fig. 5 does not represent a stop as described in the present application and merely depicts a cross shaped extension which fits into the cross shaped depression of the target magnet. Applicant argues that unlike the present application, where the stops prevent direct abutting of the full face of the magnets, there is nothing which prevents the full contact in the appliance by Cinader.
Examiner notes that the stop of annotated Figure 5 of Cinader is configured as a protrusion (Fig. 5) which is capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (para. 0040); since the stop of annotated Fig. 5 connects the device to the tooth, the tooth is prevented or limited from moving in an undesired direction and is instead moved in a desired direction (paras. 0046 and 0052). Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim, as claim 1 does not recite that the stops prevent direct abutting of the full face of the magnets or exclude coupling, and notes that Cinader discloses the stops of the invention as claimed.
Applicant argues that the wire members 18 of Cinader are made of a wide variety of materials with varying degree of corrective force and stiffness. Applicant argues that, considering the design of the appliance of Cinader, this wire member has to be flexible enough to allow lingual movement so that the first coupling component can be seated into the second coupling component. Applicant argues that in contrast, in the present application, the rigid support arch and the extensions will not flex, hence the entire magnetic force will be used for the movement of the target teeth. Applicant argues that for at least these reasons, claim 1 is not anticipated by Cinader and likewise, all claims dependent on claim 1 are not anticipated by Cinader.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claims. Examiner notes that amended claim 1 does not specify that the rigid support arch and extensions will not flex, and Examiner notes that the limitation “rigid” is a relative term. Examiner notes that the element 14 of Cinader reads on the rigid support arch as claimed (Fig. 2, para. 0031).
In regard to the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Cinader in view of Blechman, the rejections of Claims 8, 9, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Blechman, the rejection of Claim 19 is under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Clark, the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Patel, the rejection of Claims 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Cinader in view of Vardimon, and the rejection of Claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Cinader, Applicant argues that because these claims depends from a claim submitted to be allowable, this claim is submitted to be allowable.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, amended claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyberg, amended claim 1 is alternately rejected as being anticipated by Hoyberg, and claim 1 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cinader. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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