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 § 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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (WO 2018/140771A1), in view of Cinader JR. (US 2019/0046298 A1), and further in view of Fujita (US 4,575,337), and Maijer et al. (US 2006/0257810 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson et al. teaches a method for repositioning a first maloccluded tooth of a patient (abstract), the method comprising:
a wire driven phase (stage 1; page 10 l. 13-18), comprising:
providing a plurality of attachments (200), each attachment comprising a wire-retaining region (212), an engagement region (extending body of the bracket/attachment), and a body (220);
bonding each attachment in the plurality of attachments to a tooth of the patient (see Figures and page 11 l. 16-18);
inserting an archwire in to the wire-retaining regions in the attachments to move the first maloccluded tooth from a first position to a second position different from the first position (see Figures and page 10 l. 13-18); and
an aligner phase following the wire driven phase (stage 2; page 10 l. 13-18), the aligner phase comprising: removing the archwire from the wire-retaining regions in the plurality of attachments, and applying an aligner tray over the teeth of the patient (page 10 l. 4-5), wherein the aligner tray comprises a plurality of cavities shaped to receive and resiliently position the first maloccluded tooth from the second position to a third position different from the second position (see Fig. 12).
Jackson teaches different embodiments of brackets (see Figures) and discloses that embodiments may be combined or sub-combined (page 13 lines 6-14). Jackson teaches the attachment has an engagement region comprising a shoulder (210) and the shoulder (210) is configured to releasably engage a corresponding indentation in an aligner tray (it must engage the aligner (see Figures)). However, Jackson is silent to explicitly to wherein the aligner tray further comprises an arrangement of indentations configured to releasably engage at least a portion of the engagement regions on the attachments.
Cinader teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic systems. The system comprising a bracket (220) for use with an aligner appliance (100) (see Figure 4). Cinader teaches the bracket comprises a base surface (210), a front surface and a shoulder (222) (see Figures 1-4) and the appliance having indentations with engagement regions (122) for engaging with the bracket to achieve coordinated force application (see Fig. 4 and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the aligner to include indentations configured to receive engagement regions of the bracket/attachment and to have the bracket include engagement regions for receiving the indentations as shown and taught by Cinader, as it would allow the aligner and the brackets to have improved and coordinated transmission of the desired forces in order to reposition the teeth.
Jackson does not teach wherein the body comprises a catch having an internal surface, defining a wire-retaining groove that has a non-linear path in which a distance in a labial-lingual direction between the wire-retaining groove and a surface of a corresponding tooth of teeth of the patient is non-uniform along a mesial-distal direction.
Fujita teaches an orthodontic appliance (1) comprising a catch having an internal surface that defines a wire retaining groove (5) having a curved/non-linear path in a labial-lingual direction between the groove and the bonding surface (6) that is configured to bond on a tooth (see Figures 3, 5-6). Fujita teaches the groove curvature and direction is varied as to accommodate a variety of applications (Col. 2 lines 35-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a catch defining a wire retaining groove that is curved, as shown and described by Fujita, because it would provide and direct forces for a certain desired/intended application and therefore outcome (e.g., such as for lingual placement vs. buccal placement).
Jackson also does not teach a retaining region overlying at least a portion of the wire-retaining groove.
Maijer et al. teaches an orthodontic bracket system comprising a bracket (10) having an arcwhire retaining groove (16) configured to receive an archwire (202) and a retaining region (32) overlying a portion of the groove as to retain the archwire within the groove (see Figure 6 and [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a retaining region that overlies a portion of the groove, as taught by Maijer, as it would lock the archwire into place and prevent it from sliding out of the groove while allowing it to be easily inserted.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to it specifically further comprising a second wire-driven phase following the aligner phase.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include a second wire-driven phase as it would allow adjustments using the bracket-archwire system if necessary. One would be motivated to do so because conventional braces are known to provide greater force and control and overall better results in more complex treatments.
Regarding claim 3, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Jackson teaches the body comprises a bonding portion (222) configured for bonding a surface of the corresponding tooth (see Figures) and a spacer extending away from the bonding portion (length of body extending from the bonding portion).
Regarding claim 4, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Fujita teaches wherein the internal surface of the wire-retaining groove comprises a shape configured to retain an archwire against the body of the attachment or between the body of the attachment and the surface of the corresponding tooth (see Figures; the wire-retaining groove extends to a top surface of the appliance and is closed off on the sides by surfaces of the appliance and therefore would retain the archwire between the attachment body).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a catch defining a wire retaining groove that is curved, as shown and described by Fujita, because it would provide and direct forces for a certain desired/intended application and therefore outcome (e.g., such as for lingual placement vs. buccal placement).
Regarding claims 6-7, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches method of claim 3 (see rejection above). Jackson teaches the spacer being the body portion extending away from the bonding portion, as broadly interpreted. Fujita teaches a spacer that is specifically configured to be positioned between the bonding portion and wire when it is installed (see annotated Figure below). Fujita teaches the spacer has a first surface and a second surface (see annotated Figure below), and wherein the bonding portion resides in a region between the first surface and the second surface of the spacer and/or occupies a region that extends beyond either the first surface or the second surface of the spacer (see annotated Fig. below; the bonding surface extends between and beyond and beyond the upper and lower surfaces of the spacer).
PNG
media_image2.png
341
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket/appliance having a spacer as taught by Fujita, because it would provide a top-open groove and the catch that would provide and direct forces for a certain desired/intended application and therefore outcome as compared to a fully enclosed groove.
Regarding claim 9, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Cinader teaches wherein the shoulder comprises a sloped segment (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify bracket to have engagement regions for engaging with the appliance, as taught by Cinader, as it would allow the aligner appliance and the brackets to have improved and coordinated transmission of the desired forces in order to reposition the teeth.
Regarding claim 10, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Cinader teaches wherein the shoulder comprises a rounded portion connected to an undercut region (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify bracket to have engagement regions for engaging with the appliance, as taught by Cinader, as it would allow the aligner appliance and the brackets to have improved and coordinated transmission of the desired forces in order to reposition the teeth.
Regarding claim 11, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Cinader teaches wherein the indentation in the aligner tray is chosen from a protrusion, a bubble, an envelope, a slot, an aperture, an annulus, a wedge, a prism, and combinations thereof (see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify bracket to have engagement regions for engaging with the appliance, as taught by Cinader, as it would allow the aligner appliance and the brackets to have improved and coordinated transmission of the desired forces in order to reposition the teeth.
Regarding claim 12, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above). Cinader teaches wherein at least some of the indentations in the aligner tray are configured to provide an insertion path to releasably receive at least one of the attachments (see Fig. 4 and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify bracket to have engagement regions for engaging with the appliance, as taught by Cinader, as it would allow the aligner appliance and the brackets to have improved and coordinated transmission of the desired forces in order to reposition the teeth.
Regarding claim 14, Jackson teaches an orthodontic treatment system (abstract), comprising:
a plurality of attachments (200), each attachment comprising a body with a first end comprising a bonding portion (222) configured to be bonded to a surface of a tooth of a patient (see Figures); and a second end opposite the first end (see Figures),
an engagement region with a shoulder (see 210 in Fig. 7C);
an archwire (260) insertable into the wire retaining hooks in the attachments (see Figures); and
at least one aligner tray (see Figures), each aligner tray comprising a plurality of cavities shaped to receive and resiliently position at least one tooth of the patient (see Fig. 12).
the aligner tray further comprising at least one indentation configured to releasably engage with the shoulder in the engagement region of at least one attachment in the plurality of attachments (see Figures).
Jackson teaches different embodiments of brackets (see Figures) and discloses that embodiments may be combined or sub-combined (page 13 lines 6-14). Jackson teaches the attachment has an engagement region comprising a shoulder (210) and the shoulder (210) is configured to releasably engage a corresponding indentation in an aligner tray (it must engage the aligner (see Figures)). However, Jackson is silent to explicitly to wherein the aligner tray further comprises an arrangement of indentations configured to releasably engage at least a portion of the engagement regions on the attachments.
Cinader teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic systems. The system comprising a bracket (220) for use with an aligner appliance (100) (see Figure 4). Cinader teaches the bracket comprises a base surface (210), a front surface and a shoulder (222) (see Figures 1-4) and the appliance having indentations with engagement regions (122) for engaging with the bracket to achieve coordinated force application (see Fig. 4 and [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the aligner to include indentations configured to receive engagement regions of the bracket/attachment and to have the bracket include engagement regions for receiving the indentations as shown and taught by Cinader, as it would allow the aligner and the brackets to have improved and coordinated transmission of the desired forces in order to reposition the teeth.
Jackson does not teach wherein the body comprises a catch having an internal surface, defining a wire-retaining groove that has a non-linear path in which a distance in a labial-lingual direction between the wire-retaining groove and a surface of a corresponding tooth of teeth of the patient is non-uniform along a mesial-distal direction.
Fujita teaches an orthodontic appliance (1) comprising a catch having an internal surface that defines a wire retaining groove (5) having a curved/non-linear path in a labial-lingual direction between the groove and the bonding surface (6) that is configured to bond on a tooth (see Figures 3, 5-6). Fujita teaches the groove curvature and direction is varied as to accommodate a variety of applications (Col. 2 lines 35-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a catch defining a wire retaining groove that is curved, as shown and described by Fujita, because it would provide and direct forces for a certain desired/intended application and therefore outcome (e.g., such as for lingual placement vs. buccal placement).
Jackson also does not teach a retaining region overlying at least a portion of the wire-retaining groove.
Maijer et al. teaches an orthodontic bracket system comprising a bracket (10) having an arcwhire retaining groove (16) configured to receive an archwire (202) and a retaining region (32) overlying a portion of the groove as to retain the archwire within the groove (see Figure 6 and [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a retaining region that overlies a portion of the groove, as taught by Maijer, as it would lock the archwire into place and prevent it from sliding out of the groove while allowing it to be easily inserted.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), Fujita teaches wherein the wire-retaining groove has opposing ends extending in a labial direction away from the surface of the corresponding tooth (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
303
263
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a catch defining a wire retaining groove that is curved, as shown and described by Fujita, because it would provide and direct forces for a certain desired/intended application and therefore outcome (e.g., such as for lingual placement vs. buccal placement).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (WO 2018/140771A1), in view of Cinader JR. (US 2019/0046298 A1), Fujita (US 4,575,337), Maijer et al. (US 2006/0257810 A1), and further in view of Knopp (US 2003/0198911 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jackson in view of Cinader, Fujita and Maijer teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the aligner tray, in a region of the arrangement of indentations comprise a shortened wall extending less than an entire distance between an occlusal portion of at least one tooth having an attachment thereon and a gingival line of the at least one tooth having the attachment thereon, wherein the shortened shell wall extends partially over the at least one attachment when the tooth having the attachment thereon is received within the plurality of cavities.
Knopp teaches a method of orthodontic treatment (abstract), the method comprising using an aligner appliance (106) and an attachment device (100) having an attachment body (101) that engages the aligner to form a movable locus of engagement that permits relative motion between the appliance and attachment and transmits force from the appliance to the attachment and tooth over a range of motion (see Fig. 13A and [0074]). Knopp teaches a channel (192) formed by a space between the lower portion of the appliance and the surface of the tooth, where the aligner does not cover a lower part of the attachment (see Fig. 13a). Knopp discloses that the channel permits relative motion of the tooth relative to the appliance over a substantial range of motion ([0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to have the lower edge of the aligner be configured to be spaced from the tooth such that a lower part of the attachment is not enclosed by the aligner, as shown in Knopp, as it would permit relative motion of the tooth over a substantial range of motion.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (US 4,575,337), in view of Maijer et al. (US 2006/0257810 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Fujita teaches an attachment device for an orthodontic treatment (abstract), the attachment device comprising:
a body (1), comprising:
a first end comprising a bonding portion (6) configured to be bonded to a surface of a tooth (Col. 2 lines 36-38); and
a second end (7) opposite the first end, wherein the second end comprises a wire- retaining groove having a non-linear path in which a distance in a labial-lingual direction between the wire-retaining groove and a surface of a corresponding tooth of teeth of the patient is non-uniform along a mesial-distal direction (see Figures 5-6 and Col. 2 lines 35-68), and an external surface comprising an engagement region (see annotated Figure below), wherein the engagement region comprises a shoulder (see annotated Figure below) configured to releasably engage a corresponding indentation in an aligner tray (the engagement region is fully capable of engaging with an aligner tray).
PNG
media_image6.png
282
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fujita does not teach a retaining region overlying at least a portion of the wire-retaining groove.
Maijer et al. teaches an orthodontic bracket system comprising a bracket (10) having an arcwhire retaining groove (16) configured to receive an archwire (202) and a retaining region (32) overlying a portion of the groove as to retain the archwire within the groove (see Figure 6 and [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bracket to include a retaining region that overlies a portion of the groove, as taught by Maijer, as it would lock the archwire into place and prevent it from sliding out of the groove while allowing it to be easily inserted.
Regarding claim 17, Fujita in view of Maijer teaches the attachment device of claim 16 (see rejection above). Fujita teaches wherein an internal surface of the wire-retaining groove comprises a shape configured to retain a wire against the body of the device (see Figures 3, 5-6 and Col. 2 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 18, Fujita in view of Maijer teaches the attachment device of claim 16 (see rejection above). Fujita teaches wherein an internal surface of the wire-retaining groove comprises a shape configured to retain a wire therein between the body of the device and the surface of the tooth (see Figures 3, 5-6 and Col. 2 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 20, Fujita in view of Maijer teaches the attachment device of claim 16 (see rejection above). Fujita teaches wherein the wire- retaining groove comprises one of a U-shaped cross-section, configured to translate a force applied therein to a tooth-movement force in a direction substantially parallel to a plane of the bonding pad (see Figures 5, 8, 12; such that the archwire slot is U-shaped and is fully capable of applying translation forces as claimed), or a J-shaped cross-section configured to translate a force applied therein to a tooth-movement force in a direction substantially normal to a plane of the bonding pad.
Regarding claim 21, Fujita in view of Maijer teaches the attachment device of claim 16 (see rejection above). Fujita teaches wherein: the body further comprises a spacer extending away from the bonding pad (see annotated Figure below), and a catch extending from the spacer in a first direction with respect to a plane of the spacer (see annotated Figure below), wherein the catch comprises the wire-retaining groove with a C-shaped cross-section configured to translate a force applied therein to a tooth-movement force in a direction substantially normal to a plane of the bonding pad (see annotated Figure below; the slot has a C-shaped cross-section and is fully capable of applying the claimed forces).
PNG
media_image7.png
282
389
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Fujita in view of Maijer teaches the attachment device of claim 16 (see rejection above). Fujita teaches wherein the body comprises: a spacer extending away from the bonding pad (see annotated Figure below), a catch extending from the spacer in a first direction normal to a plane of the spacer (see annotated Figure below), wherein the catch extends along a portion of a length of the spacer along a second direction normal to the first direction and parallel to the plane of the spacer (see annotated Figure below), and wherein a cross-section of the wire-retaining groove is configured to translate a force applied therein to a tooth-movement force substantially parallel to a plane of the bonding pad (the groove is fully capable of translating the forces as claimed).
PNG
media_image8.png
282
389
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-18, 20-22, 24 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.
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
6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights