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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 13, 15-17, 19-23, 80-82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bach (US 2017/0319295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bach teaches an attachment for an orthodontic appliance (abstract), the attachment comprising:
a base (1040) configured to be rigidly mounted to a tooth surface (see Figures);
an interface surface (1020) movably coupled to the base (see claim 1; at least one of the head or the neck is flexible and therefore the head/interface is fully capable of being movable relative to the base),
wherein the interface surface comprises an outer surface configured to removably engage with an orthodontic appliance to be worn on a patient's teeth ([0004] and see 1060 in Figs. 10A-10D and [0098]); and
an actuator (1030) secured to the base and the interface surface (see Figs. 10A-10D, [0098]), wherein the actuator is configured to transition to a predetermined shape when the actuator is actuated, thereby moving the interface surface from a first position or orientation to a second position or orientation relative to the base, wherein a force applied to the interface surface to move the interface surface toward the first position or orientation causes the actuator to transfer the force to the tooth ([0041], [0066], [0076], [0092-0101]; the actuator/neck may be made of a nitinol spring and deformation of the neck creates an actuation force that will be released as it returns to its original shape to then be transmitted onto the tooth via the neck and the base).
Regarding claim 3, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator comprises one or more of: a shape-memory material ([0076] and see claim 7), one or more gears, a spring, a thermal bimorph, and a piezoelectric.
Regarding claim 4, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator is movably coupled to the base (see claim 1; the neck is flexible and therefore it is fully capable of being movable relative to the base).
Regarding claim 5, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator is movably coupled to the interface surface (see claim 1; the neck is flexible and therefore it is fully capable of being movable relative to the head).
Regarding claim 13, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the outer surface comprises a rigid outer housing that is configured to engage with an engagement site on the orthodontic appliance ([0012], [0082]; the head can be made of a rigid material).
According to Merriam Webster, a housing can be defined as “a support”. Therefore, the outer surface of the head/interface that engages with the aligner shell is considered a housing.
Regarding claim 15, Bach teaches an attachment for an orthodontic appliance (see rejection above), the attachment comprising:
a base (1040) configured to be rigidly mounted to a tooth (see Figures);
an actuator (1030) coupled to the base (see Figs. 10A-10D), wherein the actuator is configured to transition to a predetermined shape when actuated ([0041], [0066], [0076], [0092-0101]; the actuator/neck may be a nitinol spring and deformation of the neck creates an actuation force that will be released as it returns to its original shape to then be transmitted onto the tooth via the neck and the base); and
an interface surface coupled to the actuator (1020), wherein the interface surface comprises an outer surface configured to removably engage with an orthodontic appliance to be worn on a patient's teeth ([0004] and see 1060 in Figs. 10A-10D and [0098]), further wherein actuating the actuator moves the interface surface from a first position or orientation to a second position or orientation relative to the base, wherein a force applied to the interface surface to move the interface surface toward the first position or orientation causes the actuator to transfer the force to the tooth ([0041], [0066], [0076], [0092-0101]; the actuator/neck may be a nitinol spring and deformation of the neck creates an actuation force that will be released as it returns to its original shape to then be transmitted onto the tooth via the neck and the base).
Regarding claim 16, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator comprises a shape-memory material ([0076] and see claim 7).
Regarding claim 17, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator comprises a nitinol member ([0076] and see claim 7).
Regarding claim 19, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator comprises one or more of: a spring ([0076] and see claim 7), a thermal bimorph, and a piezoelectric.
Regarding claim 20, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator is movably coupled to the base (see claim 1; the neck is flexible and therefore it is fully capable of being movable relative to the base).
Regarding claim 21, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the actuator is movably coupled to the interface surface (see claim 1; the neck is flexible and therefore it is fully capable of being movable relative to the head).
Regarding claim 22, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), further comprising one or more bearing surfaces within either or both the interface surface and the base (the top surface of the base which supports the neck is a bearing surface as it supports the loads exerted by the neck and head due to the actuation).
Regarding claim 23, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the outer surface comprises a rigid outer housing that is configured to engage with an engagement site on the orthodontic appliance ([0012], [0082]; the head can be made of a rigid material).
According to Merriam Webster, a housing can be defined as “a support”. Therefore, the outer surface of the head/interface that engages with the aligner shell is considered a housing.
Regarding claim 80, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), wherein the transferred force to the tooth causes translation, rotation or tilting of the tooth ([0068], [0092], [0097]).
Regarding claim 81, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the transferred force to the tooth causes translation, rotation or tilting of the tooth ([0068], [0092], [0097]).
Regarding claim 82, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), further comprising one or more bearing surfaces within either or both the interface surface and the base (the top surface of the base which supports the neck is a bearing surface as it supports the loads exerted by the neck and head due to the actuation).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (US 2017/0319295 A1), in view of Cosse (US 2015/0305833 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the actuator comprises one or more gears.
Bach teaches force generating mechanisms being used to translate desired forces to the teeth ([0042]). Bach further teaches the neck can be made of different materials ([0012]), may be absent ([0042]), may be a plurality of elements acting as necks ([0052]) or may have any geometric or suitable configuration capable of generating desired forces ([0061]). Bach further discloses rotational movements being applied to reposition teeth ([0068], [0092], [0097]).
Cosse teaches a bracket for orthodontic treatment (abstract), the bracket comprising a base (60), an adjustment mechanism having a drive structure (78) and a body (70). Cosse discloses the body (70) is adjusted relative to the base (60) by the adjustment mechanism ([0023], see Fig. 2) and the adjustment may include rotational movement ([0023], [0037]). Cosse further discloses the drive structure (78) may be a gear assembly ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the force generating mechanism of Bach to be a gear or gear assembly, as taught by Cosse, because Bach contemplates different force generating mechanisms and different configurations/materials of the neck depending on the desired forces. Replacing the neck with a gear would allow generation of desired rotational forces for tooth repositioning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 13, 15-23, 80-82 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, 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
1/8/2026