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 .
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the base surface of the orthodontic appliance and the first inner surface of the first tray define a first gap therebetween” “a second gap” and describes it as a gap between the adhesive and the inner surface of the first tray. It is unclear how the first gap can be a first gap if a gap has already been introduced in claim 1. Additionally, in claim 1, the “minimum gap” is described the same way as the second gap is in claim 3. It is unclear what the difference is between the minimum gap, the first gap and the second gap is. For examining purposes, it was understood that the second gap of the claim 3 is the minimum gap of claim 1 defined by the base of the adhesive and the inner surface of the first tray and that the first gap in claim 3 is actually a second gap defined by the base of the appliance and the inner surface of the first tray. Clarification is required.
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(s) 1, 3-5, 9-14, 16-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woschko (DE102016011720 A1), translation provided, in view of Hickham (US 4,501,554).
Regarding claim 1, Woschko teaches an indirect bonding device ([0005-0008]) comprising:
a first tray (2) configured to be detachably coupled to a tooth (1) having a tooth surface (6) the tray comprising:
a first inner surface at least partially conforming to the tooth surface (see annotated Figure below);
a first outer surface opposite to the first inner surface (see annotated Figure below); and
a cavity at least partially extending from the first inner surface to the first outer surface along a longitudinal axis (see Figure 1);
an orthodontic appliance (3) at least partially and detachably received within the cavity (see Fig. 1), the orthodontic appliance comprising:
a base surface (base of 3); and
an adhesive layer (9) disposed on the base surface (see Fig. 1), wherein the adhesive layer is configured to bond the orthodontic appliance to the tooth ([0006]), and
a minimum gap (8) is provided between the adhesive layer and the first inner surface of the first tray (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Woschko teaches the attachment/appliance is pressed toward the tooth to engage the tooth surface ([0006]), but is silent to a second tray configured to be detachably coupled to the first tray.
Hickham teaches an indirect bonding system comprising a first tray (1, 3) having appliance receiving indentations (7) and a second tray (2, 4) configured to be placed over the first tray to ensure proper seating of the appliance (see at least Col. 4 l. 54-68, Col. 5 l. 58-68, Col. 6 l. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously.
The combination of Woschko/Hickham teaches wherein: upon detachable coupling of the first tray to the tooth with the second tray detached from the first tray, the minimum gap remains substantially unchanged (such that before any pressure is applied, the appliance (3) comprising the adhesive layer (9) at its base end is spaced apart from the tooth and the inner surface of the first tray (2)); and
upon detachable coupling of the second tray to the first tray, the second tray engages the first tray to move the orthodontic appliance from a first position within the cavity, towards the tooth surface, to a second position within the cavity, wherein the first position corresponds to the orthodontic appliance being in contact with a cavity wall along the longitudinal axis, and the base surface of the orthodontic appliance being spaced apart from the tooth surface along the longitudinal axis, and wherein the second position corresponds to the orthodontic appliance being spaced apart from the cavity wall along the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1 of Woschko; such that when pressure is applied to the first tray (2), the appliance slides from a first position at a depth of the indentation (7) toward a second position closer to the tooth surface (6)), and
the adhesive layer contacting the tooth surface and being at least flush with the first inner surface of the first tray (see Figure 1 of Woschko; the tooth surface and the inner surface of the first tray are flush with each other and therefore when the adhesive layer (9) contacts the tooth surface, it is inherently also flush with the inner surface of the first tray).
Regarding claim 3, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches wherein: upon receipt of the orthodontic appliance within the cavity of the first tray with the second tray detached from the first tray, the base surface of the orthodontic appliance and the first inner surface of the first tray define a first gap therebetween along the longitudinal axis; and the adhesive layer disposed on the base surface and extending along the longitudinal axis towards the tooth surface to partially fill the first gap, such that the adhesive layer is spaced apart from the tooth surface to define the minimum gap therebetween along the longitudinal axis upon detachable coupling of the first tray to the tooth with the second tray detached from the first tray (see Figure 1; such that before any pressure is applied to the first tray, a gap exists between the base of the appliance (3) and the inner surface of the first tray (3), the gap including the thickness of the adhesive layer (9)),
wherein the minimum gap is smaller than the first gap (see Figure 1; the first gap includes the adhesive layer and therefore making the first gap between the base of the appliance and the inner surface larger than the gap between the adhesive and the inner surface).
Regarding claim 4, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches wherein: the first tray further comprises a tray protrusion disposed on the first outer surface and extending away from the first inner surface of the first tray along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1; the protrusion is formed by the protruding profile of the indentation (7) on the outer surface of the first tray).
Hickham teaches the second tray comprises a second inner surface (inner surface of the second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray).
The combination teaches upon detachable coupling of the second tray to the first tray, the second inner surface of the second tray engages the tray protrusion and at least partially deforms the tray protrusion to move the orthodontic appliance towards the tooth surface along the longitudinal axis, such that the adhesive layer contacts the tooth surface (such that the second tray engages the first tray and applies pressure to the protrusion holding the appliance to urge it toward the tooth surface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously.
Regarding claim 5, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hickham teaches wherein: the second tray comprises a second inner surface (the inner surface of the second tray) and a projection disposed on the second inner surface, the projection extending towards the first outer surface of the first tray (Col. 4 l. 38-39 and see Fig. 1; the appliances extend into indentations within the cavity of the first tray and form a protrusion on the outer surface of the first tray and see claim 1(b); the second tray is complementary to the first tray and therefore has corresponding protrusions); and upon detachable coupling of the second tray to the first tray, the projection at least partially deforms the first tray to move the orthodontic appliance towards the tooth surface along the longitudinal axis, such that the adhesive layer contacts the tooth surface (the second tray is fully capable of pushing the first tray onto the teeth such that the adhesive is applied to the teeth).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously.
Regarding claim 9, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hickham teaches wherein the first tray comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus, wherein the second tray comprises a second material having a second elastic modulus, and wherein the second elastic modulus is greater than the first elastic modulus, such that the second tray is configured to at least partially deform the first tray upon engagement with the first tray (see claim 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations and each tray, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously. It would have further been obvious to have each of the first and second trays be made of a material having different properties, because it would allow them to interact as to function as intended.
Regarding claim 10, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hickham teaches it further comprising a plurality of the orthodontic appliances corresponding to the plurality of teeth, wherein the first tray comprises a plurality of the cavities corresponding to a plurality of teeth, and wherein each orthodontic appliance is at least partially and detachably received within a corresponding cavity from the plurality of the cavities (see figures).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system for the trays to correspond to a plurality of teeth (e.g., an entire jaw), as taught by Hickham, because it allows treating more teeth simultaneously.
Regarding claim 11, Woschko teaches an indirect bonding device ([0005-0008]) comprising:
a first tray (2) comprising: a first inner surface; a first outer surface opposite to the first inner surface; and a cavity at least partially extending from the first inner surface to the first outer surface along a longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. below);
an orthodontic appliance (3) at least partially and detachably received within the cavity (see Fig. 1), the orthodontic appliance comprising a base surface (base of 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Woschko teaches the attachment/appliance is pressed toward the tooth to engage the tooth surface ([0006]), but is silent to a second tray configured to be detachably coupled to the first tray, the second tray comprising a second inner surface and a second outer surface opposite to the second inner surface.
Hickham teaches an indirect bonding system comprising a first tray (1, 3) having appliance receiving indentations (7) and a second tray (2, 4) having an inner surface configured to be placed over the first tray to ensure proper seating of the appliance (see at least Col. 4 l. 54-68, Col. 5 l. 58-68, Col. 6 l. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously.
The combination of Woschko/Hickham teaches wherein: upon receipt of the orthodontic appliance in a first position within the cavity of the first tray with the second tray detached from the first tray, the orthodontic appliance is in contact with a cavity wall in the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1 of Woschko; such that before any pressure is applied, the appliance (3) is positioned at a first position deep within the cavity), and
the base surface of the orthodontic appliance is disposed within the cavity and spaced apart from the first inner surface by a first gap (8) along the longitudinal axis (the first gap being the space between the base of the appliance and the inner surface and including the thickness of the adhesive (9)); and
upon detachable coupling of the second tray to the first tray, the second inner surface of the second tray engages the first tray to move the orthodontic appliance from the first position within the cavity, towards the first inner surface, to a second position within the cavity, wherein the second position corresponds to the orthodontic appliance being spaced apart from the cavity wall along the longitudinal axis (such that when the inner surface of the second tray engages the first tray and therefore applies pressure, the appliance is configured to slide within the cavity to a second position closer to the tooth surface), and
the base surface of the orthodontic appliance being spaced apart from the first inner surface by a second gap along the longitudinal axis, the second gap being less than the first gap (such that the second gap is formed by the thickness of the adhesive only, which remains to between the base of the appliance and the inner surface).
Regarding claim 12, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 11 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches wherein the second gap is substantially zero (the adhesive thickness may be very close to zero since the adhesive is squeezed into a thin layer).
Regarding claim 13, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 11 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches it further comprising an adhesive layer (9) disposed on the base surface of the orthodontic appliance (see Figure 1), wherein the adhesive layer partially fills the first gap (8) prior to detachable coupling of the second tray to the first tray (see Figure 1; such that the first gap includes the thickness of the adhesive (9) prior to application of pressure).
Regarding claim 14, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 13 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches wherein the first gap (8) is greater than a thickness of the adhesive layer (9) (see Figure 1), and wherein the second gap is less than or equal to the thickness of the adhesive layer (such that the second gap is formed by the thickness of adhesive, which makes it equal before application of pressure and less than after application of pressure).
Regarding claim 16, Woschko teaches a method for orthodontic treatment (see [0005-0008] and figure 1), the method comprising:
providing a first tray (2) comprising a cavity and an orthodontic appliance (3), wherein each orthodontic appliance is at least partially and detachably received within a corresponding cavity (see Figure 1), and wherein an adhesive layer (9) is provided on a base surface the orthodontic appliance (see Figure 1);
detachably coupling the first tray to the plurality of teeth (see Figure 1 and [0005-0008]), such that the adhesive layer provided on the base surface of a corresponding orthodontic appliance is spaced apart from the tooth surface (see Figure 1).
Woschko teaches the attachment/appliance is pressed toward the tooth to engage the tooth surface ([0006]) and when pressure is applied, the appliance slides from a first position within the cavity, towards the tooth surface of the corresponding tooth, to a second position within the cavity, wherein the first position corresponds to the orthodontic appliance being spaced apart from the tooth surface of the corresponding tooth in a longitudinal direction by space 8 and in contact with a cavity wall of the cavity, and wherein the second position corresponds to the orthodontic appliance being spaced apart from the cavity wall of the corresponding cavity in the longitudinal direction and the adhesive layer (9) being provided on the base surface of the orthodontic appliance contacting the tooth surface of the tooth (see Figure 1).
Woschko does not explicitly show the tray being used for a plurality of teeth and having a plurality of cavities with a plurality of orthodontic appliances and detachably coupling a second tray to the first tray to apply pressure and move each orthodontic appliance.
Hickham teaches an indirect bonding system comprising a first tray (1, 3) having a plurality of appliance receiving indentations (7) and a second tray (2, 4) configured to be placed over the first tray to ensure proper seating of the appliance (see at least Col. 4 l. 54-68, Col. 5 l. 58-68, Col. 6 l. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations and having a plurality of cavities for treating a plurality of teeth, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously.
Regarding claims 17, 19-20, Woschko in view of Hickham teaches the method of claim 16 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches wherein the first tray comprises: a first inner surface at least partially conforming to the tooth surface (6) of each tooth; and
a first outer surface opposite to the first inner surface (see annotated Figure below).
The combination teaches wherein each cavity from the plurality of cavities at least partially extends from the first inner surface towards the first outer surface along a longitudinal axis (see annotated Figure below; each cavity would be the same),
PNG
media_image1.png
390
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in the first position, the base surface of each orthodontic appliance and the first inner surface of the first tray define a first gap (8) therebetween along the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1), and wherein a thickness of the adhesive layer (9) is less than the first gap (see Figure 1), such that the adhesive layer, provided on the base layer and extending along the longitudinal axis towards the tooth surface into the first gap, is spaced apart from the tooth surface of the corresponding tooth upon detachable coupling of the first tray to the plurality of teeth with the second tray detached from the first tray (see Figure 1; such that before application of pressure, a gap remains within the cavity between the adhesive layer and the inner surface of the first tray), and
wherein detachably coupling the second tray to the first tray further comprises engaging a second inner surface of the second tray with at least one of the first tray and each orthodontic appliance to move each orthodontic appliance towards the tooth surface of the corresponding tooth, such that the adhesive layer contacts the tooth surface (such that when an inner surface of the second tray engages the first tray, pressure is applied to slide/urge the appliance toward the tooth to bond the adhesive layer to the tooth),
wherein detachably coupling the second tray to the first tray further comprises engaging the second inner surface of the second tray with a tray protrusion disposed on the first outer surface of the first tray to at least partially deform the tray protrusion, such that the orthodontic appliance corresponding to the tray protrusion moves towards the tooth surface of the corresponding tooth (see claim 4 of Hickham; the second tray complements the first tray and therefore has corresponding structures to apply the pressure onto the first tray when they engage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include a second tray that applies pressure onto the first tray indentations and having a plurality of cavities for treating a plurality of teeth, as taught by Hickham, because it is one suitable way to urge all the appliances toward tooth surfaces simultaneously.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woschko (DE102016011720 A1), translation provided, in view of Hickham (US 4,501,554), and further in view of Marshall (US 2017/0325911 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Woshcko in view of Hickham teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Woschko teaches wherein the first tray further comprises: a first portion (lingual and occlusal side/face of the tray) at least partially conforming to the tooth surface and configured to be detachably coupled to the tooth; and a second portion (surface/face of 2 that includes the bracket, in this case the buccal side of the tray) comprising the cavity that at least partially and detachably receives the orthodontic appliance therein (see Figure 1).
Woschko/Hickham is silent to a living hinge connecting the first portion to the second portion, the living hinge defining a hinge axis; wherein: the second portion of the first tray is configured to pivot about the hinge axis with respect to the first portion; and the second tray is configured to engage the first tray to pivotally move the second portion about the hinge axis towards the tooth surface, such that the adhesive layer contacts the tooth surface.
Marshall teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of bonding orthodontic brackets (abstract). Marshall teaches the system comprises a tray (11) that is used to position orthodontic brackets (26) onto teeth (see Figures). Marshall teaches tray comprises a first part (12) and a second part (14) holding the bracket and the second part being movably pivotable relative to the first part by a living hinge (28) to place the brackets onto the teeth ([0002], [0021], [0028]). Marshall teaches direct bonding trays that promote access to bonding surfaces and bracket pads during the bonding process can facilitate clean and reliable bonds for the brackets applied to a patient's teeth ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second portion of the tray holding the bracket to be pivotally movable via a hinge, as taught by Marshall, as it would facilitate the process of applying the brackets in a clean and accurate manner. The second tray of Hickham would be fully capable of engaging the portions of the first tray, such that it would move them towards the tooth/teeth to apply the brackets.
Regarding claim 8, Woschko in view of Hickham and Marshall teaches the indirect bonding device of claim 7 (see rejection above). The combination of Woschko/Hickham, and Marshall teaches wherein: the second portion is pivotable between a first position and a second position, the second portion being spaced apart from the tooth surface in the first position, and the second portion engaging the tooth surface in the second position (when the hinge is lifted, the second portion is spaced apart from the tooth and when it is closed, the second portion engages the tooth);
The combination further teaches upon detachable coupling of the first tray to the tooth with the second tray detached from the first tray, the second portion is at the first position, such that the adhesive layer is spaced apart from the tooth surface; and upon detachable coupling of the second tray to the first tray, the second portion pivots about the hinge axis to the second position, such that the adhesive layer contacts the tooth surface (the hinged portion holding the appliance is fully capable of being ‘open’ and therefore in its first position before the tray is placed on the tooth and when the second tray engages the first tray, the second portion is ‘closed’ bringing the bracket onto the tooth surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second portion of the tray holding the bracket to be pivotally movable via a hinge, as taught by Marshall, as it would facilitate the process of applying the brackets in a clean and accurate manner. The second tray of Hickham would be fully capable of engaging the portions of the first tray, such that it would move them towards the tooth/teeth to apply the brackets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 15, 18 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (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 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
3/3/2026