Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 13-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR20150009765A) in view of Lai (US 20190175306).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho discloses an orthodontic appliance (100; Figures 1-7) comprising a base (112; figure 3) having a bonding surface (119; figure 3), a body (110; figure 3) extending outwardly from the base (Figure 3), the body including a mesial-distally extending archwire slot (114; figure 3) having a bottom wall (figure 3) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (116; figure 4) offset from a central axis of the body (Figures 4-7, such that the central axis would be through 117); a mesial door support section (see illustrated figure 4) and a distal door support section (see illustrated figure 4) formed on the body (figure 4) and separated by the channel (Figure 4), wherein the mesial door support section has a greater volume than the distal door support section (figure 4); a door (120; figure 2) being slidably coupled to the body (Figure 2, pg. 4 second full paragraph of translation) and moveable between an open state (figure 2), in which an archwire is positionable within the archwire slot (figure 2), and a closed state (figure 3), in which the archwire is retained within the archwire slot (figure 3), wherein, in the closed state, the door extends over and covers the mesial door support section and the distal door support section (figure 3), and a portion of the door is positioned above a central portion of the archwire slot (figure 3) and above at least a portion of each of the mesial and distal door support sections (figure 3), and wherein a lingual surface of the door (Figure 3) includes at least one groove (between 123 and 124, the width of the door is smaller) extending through at least a portion of an occlusal-gingival height of the door (figure 3), and wherein, in the closed state, a portion of the groove is positioned over the archwire slot (figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
725
881
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cho does not disclose wherein the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to a bottom wall of the archwire slot.
Lai discloses an orthodontic appliance (100; Figures 1-10) comprising a base (102; figure 1) having a bonding surface (106; figure 5), a body (104; figure 1) extending outwardly from the base (Figure 1), the body including a mesial-distally extending archwire slot (108; figure 4) having a bottom wall (110; figure 4) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (121; figure 3); a door (130; figure 2) being slidably coupled to the body (Figures 1-4) the door moveable between an open state (figure 3) and a closed state (Figure 2), the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to a bottom wall of the archwire slot (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the angle of the door to the bottom wall of the archwire slot as taught by Cho to be oblique as taught by Lai in order to exert more torque on the tooth.
Regarding Claim 2, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device of claim 1. Cho discloses the door includes a strut (123; figure 3) extending from a lingual surface (figures 3 and 5) and dividing the lingual surface into first and second side surfaces on either side of the strut (Figure 3), wherein the strut is slidably received in the channel (figure 3), and wherein an area of a first side surface is greater than an area of a second side surface (see illustrated figure 3 and 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
373
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Cho discloses the wherein the door has a lingual surface (figure 6a-6b) that includes coplanar mesial and distal surfaces (figures 6a-6b), and wherein the bottom wall forms an acute angle with the mesial and distal surfaces (figures 6a-6b), and wherein the lingual surface has a leading-edge region (figure 6a) that includes planar contacting surfaces that are substantially parallel to the bottom wall (Figure 6a and 7a-7b).
Regarding claim 4, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Cho discloses the channel further comprises a latch (118; figures 4-5) oriented generally perpendicular to the channel (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Cho discloses the strut includes at least one channel (between the guide protrusions 123 on door 120; Figure 5) extending along a mesial or distal side of the strut (Figures 5-6), and wherein the body includes at least one guide rail (between 116 and 116; figure 5), that is slidably engaged in the strut at least one channel (Figure 5) of the strut.
Regarding claim 8, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Cho discloses the door opens in a generally gingival direction (figures 2-5).
Regarding claim 13, Cho as modified by Lai the device as claimed in Claim 1. Cho discloses the door includes a strut (between 116 and 117; figure 5), the channel (figure 4) includes a latch (118; figure 5), wherein the latch is disposed between an occlusal leading projection of the strut and a gingival trailing projection of the strut when the orthodontic appliance is assembled (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Cho as modified by Lai the device as claimed in Claim 1. Cho discloses a mesial edge of the mesial door support section is generally parallel to a distal edge of the distal door support section (Figure 3), and wherein a longitudinal axis of the channel is substantially parallel to the distal edge (figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Cho as modified by Lai the device as claimed in Claim 1. Cho discloses a mesial edge of the channel is displaced from the central axis of a bracket (figures 3 and 5).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device of claim 1. Cho does disclose the each of the mesial and distal door support sections includes a maximum width (figure 4), and wherein the maximum width of the mesial door support section is greater than the maximum width of the distal door support section (figure 4).
Cho does not disclose the maximum width of the mesial door support section is at least 1.75 times greater than the maximum width of the distal door support section.
However, 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 Lai to have the maximum width of the mesial door support section is at least 1.75 times greater than the maximum width of the distal door support section 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 bracket of Cho would not operate differently with the claimed values and since something is disclosed similar would function appropriately with the claimed values. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the value “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Cho as modified by Lai discloses the device of Claim 17. Cho discloses the mesial door support section includes a mesial edge (figure 4) and a distal edge (Figure 4) adjacent the channel, and wherein the maximum width is measured between the mesial edge and the distal edge (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Cho discloses the device of Claim 1. Cho a lingual surface of the door includes a mesial groove and a distal groove on opposing sides of the strut (between 123 and 124; figures 3-6) but does not disclose, and wherein a mesial-distal width of the mesial groove is at least 1.25 times greater than a mesial-distal width of the distal groove.
However, 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 Cho to a mesial-distal width of the mesial groove is at least 1.25 times greater than a mesial-distal width of the distal groove 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 bracket of Cho would not operate differently with the claimed values and since something is disclosed similar would function appropriately with the claimed values. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the value “may” be within the claimed ranges (page 8).
Regarding Claim 21, Cho discloses an orthodontic appliance (100; Figures 1-7) comprising a base (112; figure 3) having a bonding surface (119; figure 3), a body (110; figure 3) extending outwardly from the base (Figure 3), the body including a mesial-distally extending archwire slot (114; figure 3) having a bottom wall (figure 3) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (116; figure 4) offset from a central axis of the body (Figures 4-7, such that the central axis would be through 117); a door (120; figure 2) being slidably coupled to the body (Figure 2, pg. 4 second full paragraph of translation) the door moveable between an open state (figure 2) and a closed state (Figure 3), wherein the door includes a strut (123; figure 3) having an occlusal leading projection (122; figure 5), a gingival trailing projection (122; figure 5), and a protrusion (124; figure 3) disposed between the occlusal leading and the gingival trailing projection (figures 2-3), and wherein the strut is slidably received in the channel (figures 2-3); wherein, in the closed state, the door extends over and covers a plurality of door support sections formed on the body (figures 2-3), and a portion of the door is positioned above a central portion of the archwire slot (figure 3) and above at least a portion of the plurality of door support sections (figures 1-3).
Cho does not disclose wherein the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to a bottom wall of the archwire slot.
Lai discloses an orthodontic appliance (100; Figures 1-10) comprising a base (102; figure 1) having a bonding surface (106; figure 5), a body (104; figure 1) extending outwardly from the base (Figure 1), the body including a mesial-distally extending archwire slot (108; figure 4) having a bottom wall (110; figure 4) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (121; figure 3); a door (130; figure 2) being slidably coupled to the body (Figures 1-4) the door moveable between an open state (figure 3) and a closed state (Figure 2), the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to a bottom wall of the archwire slot (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the angle of the door to the bottom wall of the archwire slot as taught by Cho to be oblique as taught by Lai in order to exert more torque on the tooth.
Regarding Claim 22, Cho does disclose an orthodontic appliance (100; figures 1-7) comprising: a base (112; figure 3) having a bonding surface (119; figure 3); a body (110; figure 3) extending outwardly (figure 3) from the base, the body including a mesial-distally extending archwire slot (114; figure 3) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (see illustrated figure 4) offset from a central axis of the body (see illustrated figure 4); and a door slidably coupled to the body and movable between an open state and a closed state (figures 2-3), wherein at least one groove extending through at least a portion of an occlusal-gingival height of the door (between 123 and 124, the width of the door is smaller), wherein in the closed state, a portion of the groove is positioned over the archwire slot (Figure 3); wherein, in the closed state, the door extends over and covers a plurality of door support sections formed on the body (figure 3), and a portion of the door is positioned above a central portion of the archwire slot (figure 3)and above at least a portion of the plurality of door support sections (figure 3),
Cho does not disclose wherein the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to a bottom wall of the archwire slot (figure 8a).
Lai discloses an orthodontic appliance (100; Figures 1-10) comprising a base (102; figure 1) having a bonding surface (106; figure 5), a body (104; figure 1) extending outwardly from the base (Figure 1), the body including a mesial-distally extending archwire slot (108; figure 4) having a bottom wall (110; figure 4) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (121; figure 3); a door (130; figure 2) being slidably coupled to the body (Figures 1-4) the door moveable between an open state (figure 3) and a closed state (Figure 2), the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to a bottom wall of the archwire slot (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the angle of the door to the bottom wall of the archwire slot as taught by Cho to be oblique as taught by Lai in order to exert more torque on the tooth.
Regarding Claim 23, Cho as modified by Lai discloses an orthodontic appliance of claim 22. Cho discloses the door is slidable along a channel that extends in an occlusal-gingival direction, and wherein the bottom wall extends in a mesial-distal direction (Figures 1-3).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR20150009765A) in view of Lai (US 20190175306), further in view of Payne et al. (US 20170119501, hereinafter Payne).
Regarding Claim 9, Cho as modified by Lai disclose the device of Claim 1. Cho does not disclose the body includes a hook protruding from a gingival region of the body.
Payne discloses an orthodontic appliance (Figure 8) comprising a base (figure 8) having a bonding surface (22; figure 8), a body (figure 8) extending outwardly from the base (Figure 8), the body including a mesial-distally extending arch wire slot (figure 8) having a bottom wall (24; figure 8) and an occlusal-gingivally extending channel (28; figure 2) arranged generally offset from a central axis of the body (Figures 2), a door (18; figure 1) slidably coupled to the body (Figure 1) the door moveable between an open state (figure 1) in which an archwire can be ligated in the archwire slot (Figure 1) and a closed state (Figure 9) in which an archwire can be retained in the archwire slot (Figure 9), a hook protruding from a gingival region of the body (27; figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body of Cho/Lai to include a hook protruding from a gingival region of the body as taught by Payne in order to increase the torque exerted upon the tooth.
Regarding Claim 10, Cho as modified by Lai and Payne disclose the device of Claim 9. Cho does not disclose the hook includes a distally extending portion that protrudes to an end point, with the end point residing substantially adjacent the central axis of a bracket.
Payne discloses the hook includes a distally extending portion that protrudes to an end point (figures 1-2), with the end point residing substantially adjacent the central axis of a bracket (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body of Cho/Lai so that the hook includes a distally extending portion that protrudes to an end point, with the end point residing substantially adjacent the central axis of a bracket as taught by Payne in order to allow a ligature to attach the to bracket without coming into contact with the gingiva (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 11, Cho as modified by Lai and Payne disclose the device of Claim 9. Cho does not disclose the end point of the hook does not extend to a mesial edge of the channel.
Payne discloses the end point of the hook does not extend to a mesial edge of the channel (figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body of Cho/Lai to have the end point of the hook does not extend to a mesial edge of the channel as taught by Payne in order to easily ligate the bracket door.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Cho and that Cho does not disclose the door is slidable along a direction that is oblique to the bottom wall of the archwire slot, the Examiner agrees and such limitation is taught by Lai.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Cho does not disclose nor render obvious: a beam is deflectable in a direction toward a bottom of the channel to allow the door to transition between the open state and the closed state..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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 on (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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772