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, 3-5, 13, 15-17, 19-23, 80-82, 84-86, 88-89 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
With respect to the limitation “the actuator coupled to the base at multiple locations that are spaced apart from each other”, Bach teaches the actuator may have a variety of two dimensional and three-dimensional shapes ([0015]). Bach also teaches that in some embodiments, there may be a plurality of elements forming the “neck” portion ([0052]). In another embodiment, Bach discloses that configurations similar to Figures 9A-9D with wings (924) may allow longer moment arm and more specific placement of the force onto the tooth. Therefore, in light of Bach’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the actuator/neck be comprised of a plurality of elements which would be coupled to the base at multiple locations, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
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).
With respect to the limitation “the actuator coupled to the base at multiple locations that are spaced apart from each other”, Bach teaches the actuator may have a variety of two dimensional and three-dimensional shapes ([0015]). Bach also teaches that in some embodiments, there may be a plurality of elements forming the “neck” portion ([0052]). In another embodiment, Bach discloses that configurations similar to Figures 9A-9D with wings (924) may allow longer moment arm and more specific placement of the force onto the tooth. Therefore, in light of Bach’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the actuator/neck be comprised of a plurality of elements which would be coupled to the base at multiple locations, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
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).
Regarding claim 84, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above). The modified neck having a plurality of elements would teach the actuator includes multiple arms (i.e., the plurality of elements) that are coupled to the base at the multiple locations (see Figures; the neck projects from the base and therefore if there are multiple, it would be the same except more than one protruding element/arm).
It would have been obvious to modify the actuator/neck be comprised of a plurality of elements which would be coupled to the base at multiple locations, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
Regarding claim 85, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein a central region of the actuator is coupled to the interface surface (see figures).
Regarding claim 86, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 85 (see rejection above). In an embodiment, Bach teaches the central region of the actuator is coupled to a coupling region that projects from the interface surface (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the interface to include a protruding element that receives the central portion of the neck, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
Regarding claim 88, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above). The modified neck having a plurality of elements would teach the actuator includes multiple arms (i.e., the plurality of elements) that are coupled to the base at the multiple locations (see Figures; the neck projects from the base and therefore if there are multiple, it would be the same except more than one protruding element/arm).
It would have been obvious to modify the actuator/neck be comprised of a plurality of elements which would be coupled to the base at multiple locations, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
Regarding claim 89, Bach teaches the attachment of claim 15 (see rejection above). In an embodiment, Bach teaches the central region of the actuator is coupled to a coupling region that projects from the interface surface (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
476
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the interface to include a protruding element that receives the central portion of the neck, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 83 and 87 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art does not teach the base having multiple posts projecting therefrom and the actuator being coupled to the base via the multiple posts.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Bach/Cosse does not suggest or teach the features of the amended claims including the actuator being coupled to the base at multiple locations that are spaced apart from each other, those arguments are not found to be persuasive. Bach teaches the actuator may have a variety of two dimensional and three-dimensional shapes ([0015]). Bach also teaches that in some embodiments, there may be a plurality of elements forming the “neck” portion ([0052]). In another embodiment, Bach discloses that configurations similar to Figures 9A-9D with wings (924) may allow longer moment arm and more specific placement of the force onto the tooth. Therefore, in light of Bach’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the actuator/neck be comprised of a plurality of elements which would be coupled to the base at multiple locations, because it would be a matter of design choice as to achieve a certain outcome by modifying the points of interaction to control the forces applied by the system.
It is suggested to claim the combination of structures, such that the independent claim would require the base to have multiple protruding posts and the actuator having a plurality of horizontal arms coupled to the multiple posts of the base and the interface having a protruding coupling region coupled to the actuator at a central region relative to the arms.
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
6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights