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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11 November 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 227 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 227 line 2 to “capture [[the]] image data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 215-216, 218-220, 225-226, and 229-233 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without anything significantly more. The claims recite steps of determining an orthodontic force profile and selecting a first sliding mode and a second sliding mode to design an orthodontic treatment system but do not integrate the method steps into a practical application.
Regarding claims 215-216 and 218-220:
Claims 215-216 and 218-220 are directed to a method of designing an orthodontic treatment system which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 215 recites the limitations of “determining an orthodontic force profile”…., “selecting a first sliding mode…”, and “selecting a second non-sliding mode…”, claim 216 recites “obtaining image data…” and “processing the obtained image data”, claim 218 recites “selecting the first sliding mode…” and “selecting the second non-sliding mode”, claim 219 recites “determining the malocclusion characteristics…”, and claim 220 recites “switching at least the first sliding mode…”. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as these limitations could be done mentally for example using a pen and paper to create a graph to determine an orthodontic force profile to be applied to teeth and then selecting a first sliding mode and a second non-sliding mode based on the determined orthodontic force profile by choosing the modes based on the pen and paper graph. These limitations describe a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind. Thus, nothing in claims 215-216 and 218-220 precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Claims 215-216 and 218-220 do not recite elements in addition to abstract concepts. Though Claim 215 was amended to add the limitations “the first orthodontic device comprising…”, “the second orthodontic device comprising…”, and “wherein when the first orthodontic device is in the first sliding mode”, these limitations further describe the mental processes “selecting a first sliding mode” and “selecting a second sliding mode”. Thus, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and is only directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. No additional claimed elements recite integration into a practical application)
Claims 215-216 and 218-220 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Thus, claims 215-216 and 218-220 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
However, Examiner notes that claim 217 recites a practical application of “manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices”, which is NOT directed to an abstract idea and would meet the “Particular Transformation” requirement of 2106.05(c). Examiner suggests amending this limitation into claim 215 and cancelling claim 217.
Regarding claims 225-226, 229-233:
Claims 225-226 and 229-233 are directed a system for creating a patient-specific orthodontic system, the system comprising an orthodontic design system having processing electronics, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Claims 225 recites the limitations of “determine an orthodontic force profile”…., “select a first sliding mode…”, “select a second non-sliding mode…”, claim 226 recites “obtain image data…” and “process the obtained image data”, claim 229 recites “select the first sliding mode…” and “select the second non-sliding mode”, claim 230 recites “switch at least the first sliding mode…”. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as these limitations could be done mentally for example using a pen and paper to create a graph to determine an orthodontic force profile to be applied to teeth and then selecting a first sliding mode and a second non-sliding mode based on the determined orthodontic force profile by choosing the modes based on the pen and paper graph. These limitations describe a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, nothing in claims 225-226 and 229-230 precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Claims 225-226 and 229-233 do not recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in addition to abstract concepts. Thus, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and is only directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. No additional claimed elements recite integration into a practical application)
Claims 225-226 and 229-233 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Though Claim 225 does recite the limitations “a first orthodontic device configured to be secured to a first tooth”, “a second orthodontic device configured to be secured to a second tooth” and “an orthodontic design system having processing electronics”, these limitations append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III). In regard to “a first orthodontic device configured to be secured to a first tooth” and “a second orthodontic device configured to be secured to a second tooth”, Jordan et al (US 20030163291 A1) discloses that orthodontic devices configured to be secured to a tooth are in widespread use (para. 0004). In regard to “an orthodontic design system having processing electronics”, Jordan et al discloses that generally, orthodontic design systems have processing electronics (para. 0014 and 0017). Additionally, Applicant’s specification para. 0198 discloses using computing devices; however, MPEP 2106.05(f) provides that applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more as well as MPEP 2106.05(d), as well as MPEP 2106.05(g), if applicable. Accordingly, these additionally disclosed elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 225-226 and 229-233 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
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.
Claims 215 and 220 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,226,803 B2, hereinafter “Cosse”) in view of Pitts et al (KR 2020/0010398 A and translated PDF).
In regard to claim 215, Cosse discloses a method for designing an orthodontic treatment system (Figs. 28-29, Abstract, col. 23 lines 19-37), the method comprising: selecting a first sliding mode for a first orthodontic device to be secured to a first tooth (col. 5 lines 36-39, col. 23 lines 19-37, col. 27 lines 48-49 and 52-62), the first orthodontic device (10 in Fig. 28) comprising a first clip (32 in Fig. 29) independently movable of a first wedge member (102 in Fig. 28, col. 23 lines 19-37, col. 27 lines 48-49 and 52-62, first sliding mode removes first wedge member); and selecting a second non-sliding mode for a second orthodontic device to be secured to a second tooth (col. 5 lines 36-39, col. 23 lines 19-37, col. 27 lines 39-44 and 51-53), the second orthodontic device (para. 17 lines 31-33, several bracket assemblies attached to teeth of patient, see 10 in Fig. 28) comprising a second wedge member (para. 17 lines 31-33, see 102 in Fig. 28) independently movable of a second clip (para. 17 lines 31-33, see 32 in Fig. 29); wherein when the first orthodontic device is in the first sliding mode, the first clip is positioned over an orthodontic wire to prevent the orthodontic wire from moving vertically (Figs. 28-29, col. 27 lines 48-49 and 52-62) and wherein when the second orthodontic device is in the second non-sliding mode, the second wedge member is positioned at the orthodontic wire to exert a locking force against the orthodontic wire (Figs. 28-29, col. 27 lines 39-44 and 51-53).
Cosse does not disclose determining an orthodontic force profile to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth; and that the selection is based on the determined orthodontic force profile.
Pitts teaches determining an orthodontic force profile to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth (para. 0057); and that the selection of devices is based on the determined orthodontic force profile (para. 0064).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse by adding the steps of determining an orthodontic force profile to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth; and specifying that the selection is based on the determined orthodontic force profile as taught by Pitts in order to allow for optimal control of the movements of each tooth (Pitts para. 0064).
In regard to claim 220, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse further discloses further comprising switching at least the first sliding mode to a first non-sliding mode for the first orthodontic device on the first tooth (col. 23 lines 19-37, col. 27 lines 37-62).
Claims 216-219 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts and Sherwood et al (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0238065 A1, hereinafter “Sherwood”).
In regard to claim 216, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose further comprising obtaining image data of a patient's teeth and processing the obtained image data to determine malocclusion characteristics of the patient.
Sherwood teaches a method (para. 0070) further comprising obtaining image data of a patient's teeth (para. 0113) and processing the obtained image data to determine malocclusion characteristics of the patient (paras. 0113-0114, 0233).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitts by adding the step of further comprising obtaining image data of a patient's teeth and processing the obtained image data to determine malocclusion characteristics of the patient as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for obtaining information about the position and structure of the teeth, jaws, gums, and other tissue (Sherwood para. 0113).
In regard to claim 217, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose further comprising manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices.
Cosse teaches further comprising manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices (180 in Fig. 2A, paras. 0070, 0111, 0120).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitts by adding the step of further comprising manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for production of devices according to a specific approved treatment plan (Sherwood para. 0111).
In regard to claim 218, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse further discloses further comprising selecting the first sliding mode and selecting the second non-sliding mode (para. 0132) but does not disclose selection based on a look-up table (LUT) that maps a plurality of clinical scenarios to operational modes of the first and second orthodontic devices.
Sherwood teaches further comprising a look-up table (LUT) that maps a plurality of clinical scenarios (para. 0320, classification information associated with malocclusion) to operational movements (para. 0320).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitts by adding the step of further comprising selection based on a look-up table (LUT) as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for correct assessment of the malocclusion of the tooth (Sherwood para. 0320).
In regard to claim 219, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose further comprising determining the malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth based on at least image data of the patient's teeth.
Sherwood teaches a method (para. 0070) further comprising determining the malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth (paras. 0113-0114, 0233) based on at least image data of the patient's teeth (para. 0113).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitts by adding the step of further comprising determining the malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth based on at least image data of the patient's teeth as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for obtaining information about the position and structure of the teeth, jaws, gums, and other tissue (Sherwood para. 0113).
Claim 221 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts and Ribeiro et al (Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment, see attached PDF, hereinafter “Ribeiro”).
In regard to claim 221, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose wherein the method further comprises, when a gap is between the first tooth and the second tooth is to be closed, forming a loop in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the loop is between the first tooth and the second tooth.
Ribeiro teaches a similar method wherein, when a gap is between the first tooth and the second tooth is to be closed (Fig. 15), forming a loop in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device (Fig. 15B, Fig. 17J “T-loop”), wherein the loop is between the first tooth and the second tooth (Fig. 15).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitt by specifying that when a gap is between the first tooth and the second tooth is to be closed, forming a loop in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the loop is between the first tooth and the second tooth as taught by Ribeiro in order to allow for generation of constant forces over a large span (Ribeiro p. 119).
Claim 222 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts and Jiang et al (Prediction Model and Examination of Open Vertical Loop Orthodontic Force, see attached PDF, hereinafter “Jiang”).
In regard to claim 222, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose further comprising, when the first tooth and the second tooth are to be separated apart, forming a kink in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the kink is between the first tooth and the second tooth.
Jiang teaches when the first tooth and the second tooth are to be separated apart, forming a kink in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device (Fig. 1 of p. 1491), wherein the kink is between the first tooth and the second tooth (p. 1491, first paragraph of left column, “The vertical loop is mostly used to expand the clearance between two teeth”; the described open vertical loop is a kink in as much as Applicant’s is).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitts by specifying that when the first tooth and the second tooth are to be separated apart, forming a kink in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the kink is between the first tooth and the second tooth as taught by Jiang in order to allow for opening a space with a widely used wire structure (Jiang p. 1491, left column lines 2-3).
Claims 223 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts and Isaacson et al (Two-Couple Orthodontic Appliance Systems: Torquing Arches, hereinafter “Isaacson”).
In regard to claim 223, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose further comprising, when a crown of the first tooth is angularly misaligned with a crown of the second tooth, forming a bend in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the bend is between the first tooth and the second tooth and configured to impart a torque at the crown of the first tooth.
Isaacson teaches when a crown of the first tooth is angularly misaligned with a crown of the second tooth (Fig. 5), forming a bend in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the bend is between the first tooth and the second tooth and capable of imparting a torque at the crown of the first tooth (Fig. 5).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitt by specifying that when a crown of the first tooth is angularly misaligned with a crown of the second tooth, forming a bend in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the bend is between the first tooth and the second tooth and configured to impart a torque at the crown of the first tooth as taught by Isaacson in order to allow for the tooth to be moved with the net result of the forces present (Isaacson p. 33 right column para. 1).
Claim 224 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts and Johnson (Selecting custom torque prescriptions for the straight-wire appliance, see attached PDF).
In regard to claim 224, Cosse in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 215. Cosse does not disclose further comprising, when the second tooth is an incisor, and a crown of the first tooth is tilted labially, using a rectangular wire to extend through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device.
Johnson further discloses when the second tooth is an incisor, and a crown of the first tooth is tilted labially (Table I p. S163, lateral incisor and canine, mandible), using a rectangular wire to extend through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device (p. S161 left column para. 2).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cosse in view of Pitt by specifying that when the second tooth is an incisor, and a crown of the first tooth is tilted labially, using a rectangular wire to extend through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device as taught by Johnson in order to allow for torque correction and control (Johnson p. S161, left column para. 3).
Claims 225-230 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin (U.S. Patent No. 2017/0000588 A1) in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts.
In regard to claim 225, Alauddin discloses a system (Figs. 1-10, paras. 0002 and 0132) for creating a patient-specific orthodontic system, the system comprising: a first orthodontic device capable of being secured to a first tooth (Figs. 5-7, paras. 0013 and 0132); a second orthodontic device capable of being secured to a second tooth (Figs. 8-10, paras. 0013, 0132 and 0133), and selecting a first sliding mode for the first orthodontic device (Figs. 5-7, para. 0132, one closed position for passive ligation, which in para. 0004 is a technique in which the archwire may be more free to slide relative to the bracket); and selecting a second non-sliding mode for the second orthodontic device (Figs. 8-10, paras. 0132 and 0133, a second closed position for active ligation, which in para. 0004 is treatment in which the archwire is not generally free to move relative to the bracket, ligation selected on a bracket-by-bracket basis along arch).
Alauddin does not disclose an orthodontic design system having processing electronics configured to: determine an orthodontic force profile to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth; and based on the determined orthodontic force profile, select a first sliding mode; and based on the determined orthodontic force profile, select a second non-sliding mode.
Sherwood teaches a method (Fig. 2A) comprising an orthodontic design system having processing electronics (para. 0112) capable of: determining an orthodontic force to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth (para. 0119); and based on the determined orthodontic force, selecting an orthodontic device (paras. 0119-0120).
Pitts teaches determining an orthodontic force profile to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth (para. 0057); and that the selection of devices is based on the determined orthodontic force profile (para. 0064).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin by specifying that the system further comprises an orthodontic design system having processing electronics capable of: determining an orthodontic force to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth; and based on the determined orthodontic force, selecting an orthodontic device as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to cause no more than an acceptable amount of patient discomfort and achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood by specifying that the selection is based on the determined orthodontic force profile as taught by Pitts in order to allow for optimal control of the movements of each tooth (Pitts para. 0064).
In regard to claim 226, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin does not disclose wherein the processing electronics are configured to obtain image data of a patient's teeth and to process the obtained image data to determine malocclusion characteristics of the patient.
Sherwood further teaches wherein the processing electronics are capable of obtaining image data of a patient's teeth (para. 0113) and to process the obtained image data to determine malocclusion characteristics of the patient (paras. 0113-0114, 0233).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that the processing electronics are capable of obtaining image data of a patient's teeth and to process the obtained image data to determine malocclusion characteristics of the patient as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to cause no more than an acceptable amount of patient discomfort and achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303).
In regard to claim 227, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin does not disclose further comprising an imaging device configured to capture image data.
Sherwood further discloses further comprising an imaging device capable of capturing image data (1103 in Fig. 11, paras. 0152-0153).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that system further comprises an imaging device capable of capturing image data as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to cause no more than an acceptable amount of patient discomfort and achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303).
In regard to claim 228, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin does not disclose further comprising a manufacturing system capable of manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices
Sherwood further discloses further comprising a manufacturing system capable of manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices (paras. 0070, 0111, 0120).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that the system further comprises a manufacturing system capable of manufacturing the first and second orthodontic devices as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for facilitation of manufacturing under numerical control (Sherwood para. 0303).
In regard to claim 229, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin further discloses selecting the first sliding mode and selecting the second non-sliding mode (para. 0132). Alauddin does not disclose wherein the processing electronics are configured to comprise a look-up table (LUT) that maps a plurality of clinical scenarios to operational movements.
Sherwood further discloses wherein the processing electronics are capable of comprising a look-up table (LUT) that maps a plurality of clinical scenarios to operational movements (para. 0320).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that the processing electronics are capable of comprising a look-up table (LUT) that maps a plurality of clinical scenarios to operational movements as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for finely tuning the performance of the orthodontic devices with respect to particular constraints (Sherwood para. 0303).
In regard to claim 230, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin further discloses switching at least the first sliding mode to a first non-sliding for the first orthodontic device on the first tooth (para. 0132). Alauddin does not disclose processing electronics.
Sherwood further processing electronics (para. 0112).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sherwood in view of Alauddin and Pitts by adding processing electronics as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for finely tuning the performance of the orthodontic devices with respect to particular constraints (Sherwood para. 0303).
Claim 231 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts in view of Ribeiro.
In regard to claim 231, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin does not disclose wherein the processing electronics are configured to, when a gap is between the first tooth and the second tooth is to be closed, form a loop in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the loop is between the first tooth and the second tooth.
Sherwood teaches processing electronics (para. 0112).
Ribeiro teaches a method wherein, when a gap is between the first tooth and the second tooth is to be closed (Fig. 15), forming a loop in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device (Fig. 15B, Fig. 17J “T-loop”), wherein the loop is between the first tooth and the second tooth (Fig. 15).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that the system further comprises processing electronics as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing electronics of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying they are capable of, when a gap is between the first tooth and the second tooth is to be closed, forming a loop in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the loop is between the first tooth and the second tooth as taught by Ribeiro in order to allow for generation of constant forces over a large span (Ribeiro p. 119).
Claim 232 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts in view of Jiang.
In regard to claim 232, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin does not disclose wherein the processing electronics are configured to, when the first tooth and the second tooth are to be separated apart, form a kink in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the kink is between the first tooth and the second tooth.
Sherwood further discloses processing electronics (para. 0112).
Jiang teaches when the first tooth and the second tooth are to be separated apart, forming a kink in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device (Fig. 1 of p. 1491), wherein the kink is between the first tooth and the second tooth (p. 1491, first paragraph of left column, “The vertical loop is mostly used to expand the clearance between two teeth”; the described open vertical loop is a kink in as much as Applicant’s is).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that the system further comprises processing electronics as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing electronics of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that that they are capable of, when the first tooth and the second tooth are to be separated apart, forming a kink in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the kink is between the first tooth and the second tooth as taught by Jiang in order to allow for opening a space with a widely used wire structure (Jiang p. 1491, left column lines 2-3).
Claim 233 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts in view of Isaacson.
In regard to claim 233, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts discloses the invention of claim 225.
Alauddin does not disclose wherein the processing electronics are configured to, when a crown of the first tooth is angularly misaligned with a crown of the second tooth, form a bend in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the bend is between the first tooth and the second tooth and configured to impart a torque at the crown of the first tooth.
Sherwood teaches processing electronics (para. 0112).
Isaacson teaches when a crown of the first tooth is angularly misaligned with a crown of the second tooth (Fig. 5), forming a bend in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the bend is between the first tooth and the second tooth and capable of imparting a torque at the crown of the first tooth (Fig. 5).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that the system further comprises processing electronics as taught by Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing electronics of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that they are capable of, when a crown of the first tooth is angularly misaligned with a crown of the second tooth, form a bend in a wire extending through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device, wherein the bend is between the first tooth and the second tooth and capable of imparting a torque at the crown of the first tooth, as taught by Isaacson in order to allow for the tooth to be moved with the net result of the forces present (Isaacson p. 33 right column para. 1).
Claim 234 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts and Johnson.
In regard to claim 234, Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts disclose the invention of claim 225. Alauddin does not disclose wherein, when the second tooth is an incisor, and a crown of the first tooth is tilted labially, a rectangular wire is used with the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device.
Johnson further discloses when the second tooth is an incisor, and a crown of the first tooth is tilted labially (Table I p. S163, lateral incisor and canine, mandible), using a rectangular wire to extend through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device (p. S161 left column para. 2).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic bracket systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts by specifying that when the second tooth is an incisor, and a crown of the first tooth is tilted labially, using a rectangular wire to extend through the first orthodontic device and the second orthodontic device as taught by Johnson in order to allow for torque correction and control (Johnson p. S161, left column para. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. Examiner notes that the amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and directs Applicant to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection above.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of amended independent claim 215, Applicant argues that the amendments overcome Alauddin and Pitts. Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Claim 215 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts. Cosse discloses the first orthodontic device comprising a first clip independently movable of a first wedge member (Fig. 28, col. 23 lines 19-37, col. 27 lines 48-49 and 52-62), the second orthodontic device comprising a second wedge member independently movable of a second clip (para. 17 lines 31-33, Fig. 29); wherein when the first orthodontic device is in the first sliding mode, the first clip is positioned over an orthodontic wire to prevent the orthodontic wire from moving vertically (Figs. 28-29, col. 27 lines 48-49 and 52-62) and wherein when the second orthodontic device is in the second non-sliding mode, the second wedge member is positioned at the orthodontic wire to exert a locking force against the orthodontic wire (Figs. 28-29, col. 27 lines 39-44 and 51-53). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to claim 225, Applicant argues that Pitts discloses the generalized idea of a "force profile," but it does not disclose "based on the determined orthodontic force profile, select[ing] a first sliding mode for [a] first orthodontic device," nor does it disclose "based on the determined orthodontic force profile, select[ing] a second non-sliding mode for [a] second orthodontic device," as claimed. Applicant argues that Alauddin and Sherwood also do not disclose these limitations as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Claim 225 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts. Alauddin discloses selecting a first sliding mode for the first orthodontic device (Figs. 5-7, para. 0132) and selecting a second non-sliding mode for the second orthodontic device (Figs. 8-10, paras. 0132 and 0133). Sherwood teaches a method (Fig. 2A) comprising an orthodontic design system having processing electronics (para. 0112) capable of: determining an orthodontic force to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth (para. 0119); and based on the determined orthodontic force, selecting an orthodontic device (paras. 0119-0120). Pitts teaches an orthodontic force profile to be applied to a patient's teeth to treat the patient based on malocclusion characteristics of the patient's teeth (para. 0057); and that the selection of devices is based on the determined orthodontic force profile (para. 0064). The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic treatment systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the system of Alauddin by the teachings of Sherwood in order to allow for the orthodontic devices to cause no more than an acceptable amount of patient discomfort and achieve the desired increment of tooth repositioning in an acceptable period of time (Sherwood para. 0303). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the system of Alauddin in view of Sherwood by specifying that the selection is based on the determined orthodontic force profile as taught by Pitts in order to allow for optimal control of the movements of each tooth (Pitts para. 0064). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable not only because each of these claims depend from an allowable base claim, but also because each recites limitations not taught or suggested by the prior art, and requests withdrawal of the present rejections.
Examiner notes that as noted by the above response to arguments, in the above rejection, amended independent Claim 215 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosse in view of Pitts, and amended independent Claim 225 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alauddin in view of Sherwood in view of Pitts. Applicant is directed to the above rejections of the dependent claims in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772