Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Acknowledgment of Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 17, 2026 has been entered.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abels (US 2008/0102414).
Abels et al disclose a composite orthodontic spacer/bite block comprised of a composite body 126 having a first contact surface for contacting a first tooth (molar in lower jaw) and a second contact surface for contacting a second tooth (molar in upper jaw) and having a thickness. The Abels et al spacer/composite body is comprised of a curable resin formulation that includes a structural frame 104, 106 integral with the composite body and a handle 102 extending outward from the composite body. Abels et al indicate that the ramps/structural frame are substantially planar (paragraph [0030]) and “substantially parallel” to one another (paragraph [0029]). It is further noted that the Abels et al first and second surfaces may be adjusted with respect to one to a desired angle (just like applicant’s malleable composite body).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to the present rejection applicant amended claim 19 to further define the “handle’ as a “removable handle” and argues that the “removable” limitation is similar to the “separating the handle” limitation in claim 11 which was indicated as being allowable. The examiner is not persuaded. Claim 11, is a method claim and includes the required step of separating the handle form the composite body, where as claim 19 is an apparatus claim directed to a spacer where the handle is “removable.” According to applicant’s specification paragraph [0022] the “handle 130 is configured to be separated from (e.g. drilled apart from, cut from, pulled from) the composite body.” Likewise, the identified handle member 102 in Abel et al is capable of being cut from the composite body. The “removable” limitations fails to impose a structural distinction between the claimed device and that disclosed by Abels et al.
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 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abels et al (US 2008/0102414) in view of Franseen et al (US 5,443384).
In regard to claim 19, Abels et al disclose a composite orthodontic spacer/bite block comprised of a composite body 126 having a first contact surface for contacting a first tooth (molar in lower jaw) and a second contact surface for contacting a second tooth (molar in upper jaw) and having a thickness. The Abels et al spacer/composite body is comprised of a curable resin formulation (note paragraph [0009]) that includes a structural frame 104, 106 integral with the composite body and a handle 102 extending outward from the composite body. Abels et al disclose that the composite material “may comprise a curable resin composition applied and cured between the ramp elements” (paragraph [0037]) wherein the “ramp elements” meet applicant’s “structural frame integrated into the composite body” limitation.
Abels et al does not explicitly state that the curable composition that is added between the structural frame ramp elements is “malleable such that the first and second contact surfaces of the composite body are conformable to the first and second teeth,” however, such a physical requirement of the Abels et al curable composition is what one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected and found obvious so that the curable composition could be positioned and formed around the structural frame ramp elements. If the Abels et al curable composition was neither malleable or conformable, then it is unclear how it could be positioned and formed around the structural frame ramp elements prior to curing as required by Abels et al. Furthermore, Franseen et al for a similar spacer/bite block teach that the spacers/bite blocks “may be supplied with the formable layer already adjoined thereto” rather than “applied to the reformed blocks by the practitioner/technician” (column 4, lines 20-28). To have provided the Abels et al spacers/bite blocks with the curable and formable composite material already adjoined to the structural frame ramp elements as taught by Franseen et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the Abels et al spacer within the broad range of thicknesses claimed in order to effectively treat a typical patient.
In regard to claims 21 and 22, the use of conventional prior art resin materials for the composite body of the Abels et al spacer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Applicant Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and remarks have been addressed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, and 14-18 are allowed. Applicant’s amendment and remarks with respect to claims 1-10 are found convincing and the rejection based on Abels et al and Franseen et al with respect thereto is withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 571 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712
Prosecution Insights