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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 10, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings filed November 10, 2025 are approved.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 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 10 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 10 confusingly repeats limitations found in amended parent claim 1. It is unclear what further limitations applicant is attempting to impose upon the claimed device.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voudouris (US 2013/0260329).
Vourdouris discloses an orthodontic bracket very similar to that disclosed by applicant and meeting all of the structural limitations of the claimed orthodontic “buccal tube” as identified in the annotated Figure below. The Vourdouris bracket is capable of being used such that the arch wire extends under the identified first and fourth wings as “second” and “third” “channels” as disclosed and claimed by applicant (note the annotated Figure below). A new or intended use of a prior art device does not make the old prior art device patentable; there must be an objectively ascertainable structural distinction between the prior art and applicant’s claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to the newly added limitations identifying the locations of the first, second, third and fourth wings, the claimed wings are/were identified in the annotated Figure 1 of Voudouris above.
In regard to the limitations directed to “connecting lines” and their angular orientation with respect to the mesiodistal direction, it is initially noted that the “mesiodistal direction” is interpreted as referring the direction from the front middle/”mesial” of a patient’s arch shaped jaw to a back/”distal” end of the patient’s jaw. If the patient is upright, then the mesiodistal direction is the line in the horizontal direction running along the patient’s jaw from the front teeth to the back teeth. Accordingly, it is noted that whether or not any particular “connecting line” is at an angular orientation with respect to the mesiodistal direction depends entirely on the orientation in which the bracket is mounted on a particular patient’s tooth. The limitations directed to angular orientations are dependent on the how “straight” a bracket is mounted on a particular tooth and such limitations fail to impose an objectively ascertainable structural distinction on the bracket itself.
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 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voudouris (US 2013/0260329).
Note the annotated Figure and remarks above with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection above. To the limited extent that the identified angular orientations of the “connecting lines” with respect to the “mesiodistal direction” are interpreted as defining the bracket as if it was mounted on a patient’s tooth such that the archwire slot was parallel (or at an angle of -2° to -10° as required by claim 1) with the patient’s mesiodistal jaw line, then the following analysis applies. As illustrated in the annotated Figure 3, the identified “third channel” shares the “connecting line between the first limiting structure and the second limiting structure” and is illustrated roughly at an angle of approximately 45° with respect to the mesiodistal (archwire) direction. While the drawings are not being interpreted as being exactly to scale they do suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art an angle falling within the -30° to -60° range claimed and the selection of such an angle within that broad range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Likewise, the identified “second channel” shares the “connecting line between the second limiting structure and the third limiting structure” and in the annotated Figure appears to be somewhere roughly within the -20° to -30° range claimed. Again, while the drawings are not being relied upon to provide exact measurements, they do suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the obvious selection of an angle falling within the range claimed. As for the connecting line between the first groove and the second groove being at an angle of between -2° and -10°, the limitation requires the bracket to mounted such that the arch wire slot is at an angle to the mesiodistal direction and does not impose any identifiable structural distinction.
In regard to claim 15, the Vourdouris cover plate step like structures as identified above include projections that snap into place in recesses formed in the second and fourth wings to secure the cover in place, merely reversing that structure so that the cover plate step like structures have a recess and the second and fourth wings an interacting projection would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voudouris (US 2013/0260329) in view of Freeman Jr. et al (US 2005/0003320).
Voudouris fails to disclose the third circular groove structure on an inner side wall of the first groove adjacent the second wing as required by claim 6. Freeman Jr. et al, however, teach that it is desirable to curve the sidewall (42) in the archwire groove in order to reduce the frictional engagement with an archwire (note paragraph [0055]). To have curved the sidewall of the Voudouris archwire groove adjacent the wings (including the second wing) in order to reduce the friction with the archwire as taught by Freeman Jr. et al would have been obvious tone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks have been addressed in the rejections above.
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, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. 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