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 Objections
Claims 21, 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 31 should read “wherein a magnetic field from the first magnet is configured to be centered with a magnetic field from the second magnet” for clarity.
In claim 21 lines 7-8, “and secured to the one of the teeth” should read “and configured to be secured to the tooth” for clarity and to avoid positively claiming the human anatomy.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 41 recites the limitation the magnets having “wherein each of the first and second magnets occupy no more than approximately one quarter of the tooth surface area of the at least one of the labial and buccal oriented tooth.”. There is not enough support for said limitation. It is shown that magnets are smaller than the tooth surface area in the drawings. However, specific discussion regarding a specific surface area ratio of the magnets and the tooth surface is not provided.
Claim 42 recites the limitation the magnets having “wherein the at least one pocket and the pocket volume thereof is partitioned by at least one of a medial inner surface of the body of the aligner and a magnet cap which spaces the first magnet and the second magnet from one another”. There is insufficient support for said limitation. Paragraphs [024-026] of the specification discuss that it is possible for the magnets to be on opposite sides of the shell aligner (i.e. a magnet on the interior surface and a magnet on the exterior surface), providing support for the magnets being separated by a wall of the aligner. However, the specification and drawings are silent to the pocket including a partition or the magnets comprising a cap or the combination of the two.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22, 25-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “at least one closed pocket having a pocket volume for housing at least one pair of magnets, wherein a first magnet of the at least one pair of magnets is disposed within the pocket and secured to an inner surface of the body, wherein the inner surface of the body and a tooth are configured to define a closed space of the pocket volume, wherein a second magnet of the at least one pair of magnets is disposed within the pocket and secured to the one of the teeth”. It is unclear how the pocket is closed exactly as it appears that the pocket is closed on one side by the tray surface and open on the opposite side, such that when it engages the tooth, the open side is configured to be closed by the tooth. Therefore, it is unclear how the pocket itself is closed and how the tooth is related to the closed pocket. For examining purposes, it was understood that the pocket is closed on one side by the tray and has an opposite opening that is configured to be closed by the tooth when worn by the patient (i.e., the tooth closes the pocket when in use).
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the at least one pocket is occupied by a pair of magnets of a same polarity or an opposite polarity”. In claim 21, it is recited that the magnets are spaced apart from one another during use of the aligner. It is unclear how a pair of magnets with opposite polarities would be spaced apart from each other during use since they would inherently attract each other in order to interact. It is unclear whether they are spaced from one another by some layer or whether they are spaced each other as they are of same polarity. For examining purposes, the limitation was understood as “the at least one pocket is occupied by a pair of magnets of a same polarity
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the pocket is sized to receive and retain at least one of the first and second magnets”. Claim 21 recites that the pocket houses both the first and the second magnets. Therefore, it is unclear how it can be sized to receive and retain at least one of the first and second magnets, as it should be sized to receive and retain both. Considering the possibility of it receiving and retaining only one of the magnets, the pocket would not be able to provide a “closed space” around both magnets as recited, since it would be smaller than summed size of both magnets. For examining purposes, it was understood that “wherein the pocket is sized to receive and retain
Claim 32 recites the limitation “wherein the pocket volume of the at least one pocket is defined as a closed space between two of a distal inner surface of the body, a medial inner surface of the body, a proximal inner surface of the body, and the tooth surface”. It is unclear what is meant by a medial inner surface of the body and proximal inner surface of the body. For examining purposes, it was understood that the medial inner surface of the body is referring to a side wall of the pocket, and that the proximal inner surface of the body is a lower end/border of the pocket that is configured to be closer to the tooth surface. Furthermore, claim 32 also recites the limitation “one closed pocket… wherein the pocket volume of the at least one pocket is defined as a closed space between two of a distal inner surface of the body, a medial inner surface of the body, a proximal inner surface of the body, and the tooth surface”. It is unclear how the pocket is closed exactly as it appears that the pocket is closed on one side by the tray surface and open on the opposite side, such that when it engages the tooth, the open side is configured to be closed by the tooth. Therefore, it is unclear how the pocket itself is closed and how the tooth is related to the closed pocket. For examining purposes, it was understood that the pocket is closed on one side by the tray and has an opposite opening that is configured to be closed by the tooth when worn by the patient (i.e., the tooth closes the pocket when in use).
Claim 34 recites the limitation “improve predictability of general tooth movement”. The term “improve” is considered relative such that it makes it unclear what the predictability is being improved relative to. For examining purposes, it is understood that predictability is achieved and not improved.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “a first pair of magnets is at least one of greater than, equal to, or less than the force exerting on the teeth by at least one of the aligner and a second pair of magnets, thereby enhancing accuracy of tooth movement”. It is unclear whether the claimed first and second pairs of magnets include the first and second magnets recited in claim 32. For examining purposes, it was understood as “a first pair of magnets including the first and the second magnets, is at least one of greater than, equal to, or less than the force exerting on the teeth by at least one of the aligner and a second pair of magnets, thereby enhancing accuracy of tooth movement”.
Claims 25-27, 29-31, 33, 35-36, 38 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the inner surface of the body and a tooth are configured to define a closed space”, which appears to be positively reciting the tooth. For examining purposes, it was understood that the inner surface of the body is configured to engage the tooth such that in use, the tooth closes the pocket formed within the inner surface of the body.
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) 21-22, 25, 27, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darendeliller (US 2010/0183997 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Darendeliller teaches an orthodontic aligner (17), comprising:
a clear, plastic body having a plurality of indentations for accepting teeth (see Figures and [0045]) and at least one closed pocket having a pocket volume for housing at least one pair of magnets (see annotated Fig. below; such that the pocket is closed on one side by the shell and on the other side by the tooth when it is engaged with the teeth and houses a pair of magnets, see 19 and 21), wherein a first magnet (21) of the at least one pair of magnets is disposed within the pocket and secured to an inner surface of the body (see Fig. 1b), wherein the inner surface of the body and a tooth are configured to define a closed space (see annotated Fig. below), wherein a second magnet (19) of the at least one pair of magnets is disposed within the pocket and configured to be secured to the tooth (see Fig. 1b), wherein the first magnet and the second magnet interact with one another ([0045-0046]), and wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are spaced apart from one another throughout use of the aligner ([0027-0030], [0046-0047]; magnets 19 and 21 repel one another and therefore are fully capable of being spaced apart even during use of the aligner on the teeth and the pocket is fully capable of being closed by the tooth when the two magnets interact as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above), wherein the at least one pocket is occupied by the pair of magnets of a same polarity ([0046]; the magnets repel one another and therefore they have the same polarity) or an opposite polarity.
Regarding claim 25, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above), wherein the first magnet is offset relative to the second magnet (see Figures 3, 8 and [0066]).
Regarding claim 27, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above), wherein the pocket is spaced apart from the second magnet (the aligner and the second magnet are spaced apart before the appliance is worn).
Regarding claim 31, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above), wherein a magnetic field from the first magnet is configured to be centered with a magnetic field from the second magnet ([0045-0046], and [0062]; movement of the teeth relies on alignment of the magnets relative to one another and therefore their magnetic fields are centered in order for them to align).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Dellinger (US 2009/0305182 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above). Darendelliler teaches the magnets may be coated or sealed with any suitable material ([0086]), but is silent to explicitly the magnets are coated in at least one of a metal or a metallic alloy.
Dellinger teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic systems comprising magnets (abstract). Dellinger teaches the system comprises magnets (44) that are placed in the patient’s mouth to apply orthodontic forces and may be formed of a biocompatible material to allow its implantation in the mouth for a period of time such that for example, each magnet may have a gold coating ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnets to have a gold coating, as taught by Dellinger, such that it is a proper and biologically safe material for magnets used orthodontically.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Patel (US 10,052,175 B1).
Regarding claim 28, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above). Daredelliler teaches wherein each of the first and second magnets have dimensions measuring less than at least one of a labial and buccal oriented tooth surface area (see Figures 1b-2d; such the magnets are smaller than the tooth surface), and wherein the pocket is sized to receive and retain the first and second magnets (see Figure 1b), but is silent to wherein the first and second magnets enhance a fit of the plastic body on the tooth by applying orthodontic forces of 15 grams and 150 grams that micro-deform the plastic body.
Patel teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic appliances using magnets (abstract). Patel teaches the magnets exert a magnetic force on the teeth between about 20 grams and about 100 grams (see claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnets to exert an orthodontic force between 20 grams and 100 grams, as taught by Patel, such that said range is proper for moving the teeth orthodontically as to achieve desired repositioning. Forces within the same range as claimed would also result in micro-deformation of the plastic body since the magnets are applying said forces to the plastic body and the appliance deforms to move the teeth over time.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly wherein the magnets are biologically safe. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the magnets be biologically safe, since they must be compatible and non-toxic for use in the human body (i.e. the patient’s mouth).
Claim(s) 30, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1),
Regarding claim 30, Darendeliller teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above). In another embodiment, Darendeliller teaches the pocket has a surface facing the tooth are configured to be non-parallel to a surface of the second magnet (see 61 and 63 of Fig. 3; the magnets may be angled relative to each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pocket surface to be non-parallel to the tooth surface, as shown by the other embodiment, because it may be necessary depending on the position of the tooth that is intended to be moved and depending on the force system and vector directions required to move a tooth.
PNG
media_image2.png
531
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, Darendeliler in view of Hoybjerg teaches the method of claim 32 (see rejection above). In another embodiment, Darendeliller teaches wherein the pocket has a surface facing the tooth configured to be non-parallel to a surface of the second magnet (see annotated Figure below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pocket surface to be non-parallel to the tooth surface, as shown by the other embodiment, because it may be necessary depending on the position of the tooth that is intended to be moved and depending on the force system and vector directions required to move a tooth.
PNG
media_image3.png
590
816
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 32-35, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Hoyberg (US 11,083,542 B1).
Regarding claim 32, Darendeliller teaches a method of aligning teeth (abstract), comprising:
obtaining a digital scan or rendering of a patient's teeth ([0084]) and providing aligners for orthodontic treatment ([0020], [0078]); and
manufacturing a series of aligners ([0084]; the magnets may be added to the appliances during the production stage, and therefore multiple appliances are manufactured), wherein each aligner in the series of aligners includes a body having at least one closed pocket, each pocket having a pocket volume, (see annotated Fig. below; such that the pocket is closed on one side by the shell and on the other side by the tooth when it is engaged with the teeth and houses a pair of magnets, see 19 and 21),
wherein the pocket volume of the at least one pocket is defined as a closed space between two of a distal inner surface of the body, a medial inner surface of the body, a proximal inner surface of the body, and the tooth surface (see annotated Figure below; the pocket is enclosed by the inner surface of the aligner on one end and by the tooth surface on an opposite end);
wherein, for each aligner in the series of aligners:
a first magnet (21) is disposed within the one pocket and secured to an inner surface of the body (see annotated Fig. below), and at least while the aligner is initially worn by the patient: a second magnet (19) that is secured to the tooth is disposed in the pocket volume (see Fig. 1b);
the first magnet interacts with the second magnet ([0045-0046]); and
the first magnet and the second magnet are spaced apart from one another throughout use of the aligner ([0027-0030], [0046-0047]; magnets 19 and 21 repel one another and therefore are fully capable of being spaced apart even during use of the aligner on the teeth and the pocket is fully capable of being closed by the tooth when the two magnets interact as shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
330
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Darendeliller is silent to explicitly creating a treatment plan, wherein creating a treatment plan includes simulating movement of one or more of the teeth over time.
Hoybjerg teaches a device and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic aligners comprising magnets (abstract). Hoybjerg teaches the appliance comprises a plastic body having a plurality of indentations for accepting teeth (see Figures 6-7), a pocket providing a space sized to receive (see Figures 6-7) a pair of magnets (26/28 and 40), a first (40) of the pair of magnets being coupled to the body of the aligner and the second being coupled to the tooth (see Figures 6-7). Hoybjerg teaches the method includes taking a 3D scan of the patient’s dentition and uploading it to a server to then be used to form the aligner trays, to determine one or more of size, strength, location and number of primary magnets on the teeth and other parameters (Col. 8 l. 41-64). Hoyberg teaches the series of aligners and magnets may be computer simulated or ghenerated using software that models the movement of the teeth based on magnetic and other forces over time (Col. 13. L. 20-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Delendeliler to include manipulating the scans and simulating movement of the teeth over time, as taught by Hoybjerg, as it would allow accurate planning of the aligners and therefore application of proper forces by the magnets for repositioning.
Regarding claim 33, Darendelliler in view of Hoyberg teaches the method of claim 32 (see rejection above). Hoyberg teaches wherein the software creates sequential steps in a treatment plan to move the teeth into ideal positions are created in software each treatment plan step includes at least one micromovement of at least one the teeth such that the pocket is also moved by at least one micromovement per treatment plan step (Col. 8 l. 21-64; the system considers the locations and size of the magnets when creating the aligner for each of the sequential aligners, and the aligners include pockets sized to surround the magnets and Col. 6 lines 3-11, the movements are incremental).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Delendeliler to include manipulating the scans to estimate the size of the pocket according to the size, location and number of the magnets, as taught by Hoybjerg, as it would allow accurate planning of the aligners and therefore application of proper forces by the magnets for repositioning.
Regarding claims 34-37, Darendeliller in view of Hoybjerg teaches the method of claim 32 (see rejection above). Darendeliller teaches wherein the magnet achieve predictable and improved orthodontic correction (abstract, [0010-0011]; and the movements are planned and therefore are predictable), and wherein a magnetic force between the magnets is operable to selectively shift different teeth at varying rates of speed ([0043, 0045-0067; the magnets are selected for achieving different results for different teeth with varying vectors depending on the necessary movements and therefore it is fully capable of being functionally operating as claimed, since the magnetic force is variable).
Darendelliler teaches wherein the magnetic force between a first pair of magnets is at least one of greater than, equal to, or less than the force exerting on the teeth by at least one of the aligner and a second pair of magnets ([0045-0067; the pairs of magnets are selected for achieving different results for different teeth with varying vectors depending on the necessary movements and therefore one pair of magnets may exert more, less or equal forces compared to another pair of magnets).
Darendeliller discusses that the main weaknesses of sequential removable appliances are their three dimensional control and their very short active stage ([0009]) and it is an object of the present invention to provide an improved sequential orthodontic appliance that overcomes the aforementioned problems and shortcomings associated with sequential removable appliances of the prior art as well as to provide an improved sequential orthodontic appliance that is aesthetically pleasing and will not lead to poor oral hygiene (([0010-0011]). Please note that having an improved orthodontic predictability or accuracy would depend on factors including how well the patient responds to the treatment, what the correction is being compared to, wear compliance, as well as other conditions that may vary from patient to patient.
Regarding claim 35, Darendeliller in view of Hoyberg teaches the method of claim 32 (see rejection above). Darendelliler teaches wherein the pocket creates has an approximately parallel surface to the second magnet (see Fig. 1b), and wherein a surface of the tooth to which the second magnet is configured to be secured to is curved (see Fig. 1B).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Hoybjerg (US 11,083,542B1), and further in view of Shanjani et al. (US 2018/0153648 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Darendeliller in view of Hoybjerg teaches the method of claim 32 (see rejection above). Hoybjerg teaches the appliance may be thermoformed (Col. 7 l. 16-27), but is silent to wherein the steps in the treatment plan are created by directly 3D printing an aligner or 3D printing a model and then thermoforming the aligner.
Shanjani et al. teaches a system and methods in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic treatments (abstract). Shanjani teaches an orthodontic appliance is formed by fabricated a digital model using a 3D printer and then thermoforming a sheet of material on the mold created by the digital model ([0203], [0208]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include using a 3D printed model of the patient’s dentition and then thermoforming the appliance, as taught by Shanjani, as it would allow accurately planning and designing the appliances specifically to the patient’s scanned dentition.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Hoybjerg (US 11,083,542B1), and further in view of Patel (US10,052,175 B1).
Regarding claim 38, Darendeliller in view of Hoybjerg teaches the method of claim 32 (see rejection above). Hoybjerg teaches the method involving further comprising the step of selecting an appropriate magnet that creates magnetic forces (see rejection of claim 32 above) and each magnet having a diameter measuring approximately 2 mm and a thickness of or of about 1-2 mm (Col. 12 l. 47-49). Hoybjerg also teaches the magnets’ thickness may be about 0.5 mm (Col. 10 l. 11-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select magnets with a diameter 2 mm and a height of 0.5 mm, as taught by Hoybjerg, such that they may be appropriate dimensions for applying proper orthodontic forces. Applicant does not show any criticality or unexpected results to the claimed values. Therefore, the range taught by Hoybjerg reads on the limitations as broadly understood in light of the disclosure.
However, it is silent to the magnetic forces being less than 150g and more than 15g.
Patel teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of orthodontic appliances using magnets 9abstract). Patel teaches the magnets exert a magnetic force on the teeth between about 20 grams and about 100 grams (see claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnets to exert an orthodontic force between 20 grams and 100 grams, as taught by Patel, such that said range is proper for moving the teeth orthodontically as to achieve desired repositioning.
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Hoybjerg (US 11,083,542B1), and further in view of Patel (US10,052,175 B1) and evidenced by Piyadanai (NPL, 2017).
Regarding claim 41, Darendelliler in view of Hoyberg and Patel teaches the method of Claim 38 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly wherein each of the first and second magnets occupy no more than approximately one quarter of the tooth surface area of the at least one of the labial and buccal oriented tooth.
Hoyberg teaches the magnets each have a diameter of 2 mm. Piyadanai teaches average surface areas of tooth surfaces depending on tooth types may range between 180 sq. mm and 447 sq. mm (see Figure 5). That makes the surface area of the magnet π(1mm)2 = 3.14 mm)2. Taking a smaller tooth surface area of 180 mm2, the 2 mm magnets would take up 1.74% and even less for a larger tooth and therefore less than a quarter of its surface area.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a surface area smaller than a quarter of a surface area of a tooth, because it is suitable for applying orthodontic forces to the teeth.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darendeliler (US 2010/0183997 A1), in view of Park (US 2020/0253694 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Darendelliler teaches the aligner of claim 21 (see rejection above), but does not teach wherein the at least one pocket and the pocket volume thereof is partitioned by at least one of a medial inner surface of the body of the aligner and a magnet cap which spaces the first magnet and the second magnet from one another.
Park teaches an orthodontic aligner comprising a pair of magnetic attachments (abstract) and one magnet (26) being positioned on a tooth and received by an inner surface of the aligner and a second magnet (18) being on the exterior surface of the aligner (see Figures 6-7) and therefore a medial inner surface of the aligner separates one magnet from the other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnets to be divided by the body of the aligner, as taught by Park, because it would reduce bulk, allow the shell to interact with the force system of the magnets and would allow easier removability, replaceability and modularity of the exterior magnet from the interior magnet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejections are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Darendeliler does not teach a closed space as being claimed. However, the aligner of Darendeliler does form a closed space around the pair of magnets as shown in Figure 1B. The closed space is formed around the magnets when they meet the tooth surface such that the inner surface of the body and the tooth surface are shown to be substantially flush relative to one another. Figure 1B of Darendelliler shows magnets 19 and 21 being housed and enclosed within a pocket formed by an inner surface of the body on one end and the tooth surface on the opposite end. It is noted that although Figure 1B is a top view, it clearly shows the border of the pocket encasing both magnets. Furthermore, the limitation requiring the pocket to be closed is functional, such that the pocket is claimed to be open until it is worn and engages the tooth. Therefore, depending on how the aligner fits on the tooth, it can be configured to be closed by the tooth.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the amended limitation requiring the magnets to be spaced apart during use, please note the new grounds of rejection above. Darendelliler teaches the magnets repel one another, and therefore are fully capable of performing the recited function (i.e., to remain spaced during use).
Darendelliler teaches a pocket being closed as claimed and does not teach away from it. In fact, it is unclear how exactly the pocket of Darendeliller is different than the pocket shown in the Figures and recited in the claims, as they both appear to be “closed” on one side by the inner surface and on the other side by the tooth surface.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the pocket of Darendeliler is not sealed) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Please note that both the claims and the specification do not mention or disclose the pocket being sealed.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Patel teaches away from an orthodontic assembly with an aligner system as a whole, it should be noted that Patel discloses an embodiment comprising magnetic attachments and an aligner shell (1020) in Figures 9-12 and a cap (202) in Figure 4, and therefore would not teach away or destroy the combination. However, it should also be noted that Patel is merely being used to teach a magnetic force that is known in the art to be suitable or safe for orthodontic applications and does not necessarily depend on other structures of the system.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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, 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
3/6/2026