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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the generally cylindrical radial bore must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The Examiner notes that [0050] of the instant disclosure appears to support a circular bore, which would form a cylindrical bore.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (US 3238619) in view of Lin (CN 112545686A) in view of Buddemeyer et al (US 2021/0346128 A1) in view of Pitnick et al (US 8303300 B2).
Regarding claims 1-5, Brunson et al discloses an orthodontic post (see Figs. 1-3) comprising: a generally cylindrical main body (20) comprising: a bottom end (where connected to band 10) and an opposing top end (where screw 14 is located); a radial bore (16) disposed radially in said main body (e.g. bore extends in radial directions from body); and an axial bore (15) in communication with the radial bore and sized and shaped to receive an attaching element (14; see Figs. 1-3); and a base element (10) comprising a top side (outer surface of 10) and an opposing bottom side (inner surface of 10), the top side attached to the bottom end of the main body (see Figs. 1-3). Brunson et al further discloses wherein the axial bore extends from the top end to the bottom end and comprises a threaded portion disposed at the top end (26; per claim 2); wherein the radial bore is sized and shaped to receive an archwire (see Figs. 1-3); the radial bore extends from one side of the main body to an opposing side (see Figs. 1-3); a major axis (e.g. width) of the radial bore generally perpendicularly intersects the main axis of the main body (see Figs. 1-3); and said radial bore is disposed at said bottom end (see Figs. 1-3; per claim 4). Brunson et al, however, does not teach wherein the radial bore is generally cylindrical having a major axis disposed radially in the main body, a generally annular retaining element, or a bonding pattern disposed on the bottom side of the base element as required.
Lin, however, teaches a similar orthodontic retaining device (see Fig. 1 and 4) comprising a generally cylindrical main body (3, Fig. 4) with an axial bore (4) adapted to receive an attaching element (screw, Fig. 2), and a generally cylindrical radial bore (7, Fig. 4), having a major axis disposed radially in the main body, extending from one side of the main body to an opposing side, the major axis of the radial bore generally perpendicular and intersects the main axis of the main body, and the radial bore is disposed at a bottom end of the body, such that the axial bore is in communication with the radial bore and the attaching element secures a wire therein (see page 11, step S4, machine translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the bore of Brunson to include Lin’s generally cylindrical radial bore shape having a major axis disposed radially in the main body, as such modification would provide a more secure connection of the body to the archwire, reducing the risk of inadvertent dislocation thereof, and sinch such modification would merely involve a change of shape of the bore, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). The Examiner notes that in the instant disclosure the particular shape of the radial bore is described as merely preferable (see [0050] instant specification).
Buddemeyer et al, however, teaches a similar orthodontic post comprising a generally cylindrical main body (100) with bottom and top ends, an axial bore (104) and a radial bore (103), and a generally annular retaining element (120) disposed circumferentially around the main body (see Figs. 2-5; per claim 1); and wherein the retaining element is disposed coaxially with a major axis of the main body and has a radius greater than a radius of the main body (see Figs. 2-5; per claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Brunson/Lin, as combined above, to include Buddemeyer’s retaining element, as such modification would provide a means to attach or otherwise securely connect springs, elastics and/or other wires or devices to the post with improved retention thereof.
Pitnick et al additionally discloses a similar orthodontic post (330) having a base element (wider portion of 330 with 360) with a top and opposing bottom side, the top side attached to the bottom end of a main body (e.g. smaller diameter portion of 330 that wire is secured to), and a bonding pattern (360) disposed on the bottom side (per claim 1); the bonding pattern comprising a plurality of interconnecting channels (e.g. between ridges) being sized, shaped and configured to increase a bondable surface area of the bottom side (ridges implicitly increase surface area compared to a flat surface; per claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer, as combined above, to include Pitnick’s base with bonding pattern, as such modification would improve retention of the base onto the tooth, reducing the risk of movement, slippage or separation thereof.
Claim(s) 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al in view of Lin in view of Buddemeyer et al in view of Pitnick et al, as combined above, further in view of Dickerson (US 9539066 B2).
Regarding claims 6-8, Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick, as combined above, does not teach wherein the base is in the configuration of a rectangular prism having a flexed arcuate cross section in at least a first dimension, a generally rectangular cross section in a second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension, and wherein the main body is attached to and centered on, and extends from, said top side of the base element such that the major axis of the main body generally perpendicularly intersects a tangent line of the arcuate cross section at a midpoint of the top side of the base element as required.
Dickerson, however, teaches a similar orthodontic post (30, see Figs. 2-4), comprising a generally cylindrical main body (34/30) connected to a base element (32), wherein the base element is generally in the configuration of a rectangular prism having a flexed arcuate cross section in at least a first dimension (see Figs. 2-4, arcuate cross section of 32 shown in Fig. 3; per claim 6); wherein the base element has a generally rectangular cross section in a second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension (see Fig. 2; per claim 7); and wherein the main body is attached, centered and extends from the top side of the base element (see Fig. 2), such that the major axis of the main body generally perpendicularly intersects a tangent line of the arcuate cross section at a midpoint of the top side of the base element (e.g. tangent line to midpoint of base intersects axis of main body (see Fig. 3); per claim 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick, as combined above, to include Dickerson’s arcuate and rectangular base member, as such modification would merely involve the simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (e.g. a band vs bonding pad; see MPEP 2143), while providing a low profile shape with improved adherence to the natural tooth shape, without excessive size or irritation to the patient.
Regarding claims 9-10, Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick/Dickerson, as combined above, teaches wherein at least one channel in the plurality of channels in the base terminates at a lateral edge of the base element (see Pitnick’s channel pattern extending to edges of base, Fig. 3), and wherein the bottom side of the base element is sized and shaped to adhere to a tooth (see Pitnick and Dickerson, citations above).
Regarding claim 11, Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick/Dickerson, as combined above, teaches wherein a major axis of the radial bore (e.g. horizontal extent across main body, see Brunson/Lin) is generally parallel to the tangent line (tangent line of base of Dickerson extends horizontally, see Figs. 1 and 3), and generally perpendicularly intersects the major axis of the main body (see Brunson, Figs. 1-3 and Lin).
Regarding claims 12-13, Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick/Dickerson, as combined above, teaches an orthodontic system comprising the post of claim 11 (see above), and an attaching element (see Brunson 14) having an attached pin extending into the main body along the main axis, the pin having threads (27) corresponding to the threaded portion of the axial bore (see Figs. 1-3), and wherein the attaching element is a hybrid orthodontic screw (screw is interpreted as a hybrid screw as it can contain different sized and shaped wires). Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick/Dickerson, as combined above does not teach wherein the attaching element comprises a head element having a radius greater than the radius of the main body with the pin extending generally perpendicularly from a main axis of the head as required.
Buddemeyer, however, additionally discloses that the orthodontic post is provided and configured to be used with an attaching element (e.g. pin, see [0036]-[0037], [0045] and Fig. 5), comprising a head element having a radius greater than the radius of the main body (see above and Fig. 5), and a pin (screw threaded section) extending generally perpendicularly from a main axis of the head element, forming a hybrid orthodontic screw (implicitly in order to be secured in post as described, see citations above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Brunson/Lin/Buddemeyer/Pitnick/Dickerson, as combined above, to further include the enlarged head of the attaching element of Buddemeyer, as such modification would provide additional means for securing, attaching and connecting supplemental springs, wires, elastics or other components to the post, reducing the risk of the components slipping off, and would provide an additional means of removal of the attaching element, should the socket of the attaching element become damaged or clogged (e.g. the larger head can be grasped by the fingers or pliers to unscrew if needed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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 at 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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights