DETAILED ACTION
The Final Rejection sent October 9, 2025, is withdrawn. A superseding Final Rejection is disclosed herein.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-8 in the response filed July 28, 2025, are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-8 are pending in the current action.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Drawings
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome some, but not all, of the Examiner’s objections. Specifically, “d. Expansion screws set (4) at different angles for up/down and side/side growth and development (5), consisting of two screws capable of 0-30 degrees vertically to reverse downward growth and laterally for width control, enabling treatment impact over canines through acrylic without direct screw coverage;” remains unshown.
All other elements noted in the Office Actions sent January 19, 2025, are now identified in the Specifications.
In response to the Specifications
Applicant has not addressed the lack of individual Drawing descriptions within the section “Brief Description of the Drawings” at [44]. Examiner suggests adding a sentence for each of Drawings 1 to 8 including broad details of what the Drawing shows. See 37 C.F.R. 1.74 Reference to drawings- When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).
The objection is maintained.
In response to the Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to claim 4 have overcome the corresponding claim objection, it is withdrawn.
In response to the Claim Rejections 35 USC 101
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have overcome the corresponding 101 rejection, it is withdrawn.
In response to the Claim Rejections 35 USC 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-3, 5, 7, have overcome the claim rejections under 112b. The previous rejections are withdrawn.
The claim 4 rejection regarding “the expander” remains, it is unclear what is intended by this reference. What is the expander? Is the expander the device as a whole or the screw set? An “expander” has not been introduced in the claims. The remainder of the claim 4 112b rejections were overcome and are withdrawn.
The claim 8 rejection regarding “the removable airway appliance” is overcome, the rejection is withdrawn.
The claim 8 rejection regarding “Up-down angle” was not addressed and therefore remains. Examiner suggests clarifying section b. to include “the Up-down angle” so it is clear the claim referring to the previously introduced up-down angle.
The claim 8 rejection regarding section c. remains as the amendments did not clarify whether the elements listed are the same or alternatives. It is also suggested that each of “passive retention means” and “clasping system” are introduced with an “a”.
The claim 8 rejection regarding “/” is withdrawn.
The claim 8 rejection regarding antecedent basis of “acrylic cover plate” remains as it was not addressed.
In response to the Claim Rejections 35 USC 103
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).
With respect to Hamm-
Applicant argues that Hamm does not meet each limitation of the amended claim. As necessitated by the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been made. A different embodiment of Hamm is relied upon for the current rejections, so arguments regarding the previous embodiments are moot (bullet 6).
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., bullets 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) 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).
Arguments regarding limitations and elements that are now rejected under 112a for new matter are moot (bullet 3).
Arguments regarding limitations and elements that are now rejected under 112b for indefiniteness are not persuasive (bullet 11). The claims are unclear and so arguments regarding whether a prior art meets the unclear limitations are moot.
Applicant argues limitations for which Hamm is not relied (bullet 10), these arguments are moot.
With respect to Witzig and Lipohar -
Applicant’s arguments regarding Witzig and Lipohar are moot as they are no longer relied upon.
With respect to Giardino-
Applicant argues limitations for which Giardino is not relied (bullets 2, 5, and 7), these arguments are moot.
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., bullets 1 and 6) 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).
Arguments regarding limitations and elements that are now rejected under 112a for new matter are moot (bullets 3 and 4).
Arguments regarding limitations and elements that are now rejected under 112b for indefiniteness are not persuasive. The claims are unclear and so arguments regarding whether a prior art meets the unclear limitations are moot.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the expander 9 as described in the specification and claims. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “d. Expansion screws set (4) at different angles for up/down and side/side growth and development (5), consisting of two screws capable of 0-30 degrees vertically to reverse downward growth and laterally for width control, enabling treatment impact over canines through acrylic without direct screw coverage” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 14 recites “in front section for” and is suggested to recite “in the front section for”
Claim 1 line 16 recites “d. Expansion screws set (4)” is suggested to recite “d. an expansion screws set (4)”
Claim 1 lines 20-21 are suggested to recite “e. Hang clasps (6) for retention, including a front clasp (6.1) and a back clasp (6.2), made of chrome/cobalt alloy wire engaging four posterior teeth;” (the limitation elements are suggested to have introductions)
Claim 3 line 3 is suggested to recite “jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1, wherein a mean” (the limitation had two consecutive commas)
Claim 5 line 4 is suggested to recite “screws set (4) is positioned at a zero degree to thirty degrees, using a higher degree angle if the” (the “if” was unnecessarily capitalized)
Claim 8 line 1 is suggested to recite “A process for application of a removable airway appliance”
Claim 8 line 1 is suggested to recite “a. reversing an Up-down angle at”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-7 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 1 lines 8-11 recite “having full coverage over canines , customizable to cover 0mm, 2mm, 4mm, 6mm, or 8mm of the palate measured from gumline behind front teeth toward throat, and 0mm, 2mm, 4mm, or 6mm on back of front teeth measured from gumline toward edge” which is not supported by the original Specifications nor the Drawings. The limitations are new matter and will not be considered in the current examination, Examiner suggests removing the limitations.
Claim 1 lines 13-14 recite “made of chrome/cobalt alloy” which is not supported by the original Specifications nor the Drawings. The limitations are new matter and will not be considered in the current examination, Examiner suggests removing the limitations.
Claim 1 line 14 recites “for all retention styles and canine configurations” which is not supported by the original Specifications nor the Drawings. The limitations are new matter and will not be considered in the current examination, Examiner suggests removing the limitations.
Claim 1 lines 20-21 recite “made of chrome/cobalt alloy wire” which is not supported by the original Specifications nor the Drawings. The limitations are new matter and will not be considered in the current examination, Examiner suggests removing the limitations.
Claim 1 line 21 recites “engaging four posterior teeth” which is not supported by the original Specifications nor the Drawings. The limitations are new matter and will not be considered in the current examination, Examiner suggests removing the limitations.
Claim 1 lines 22-23 recite “being embedded chrome/cobalt alloy wire for strength” which is not supported by the original Specifications nor the Drawings. The limitations are new matter and will not be considered in the current examination, Examiner suggests removing the limitations.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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 1 lines 2-3 recite “having two protruded portions (8) on the front side” but the Drawings show member 8 on the back of the device, so it is unclear what is intended by the limitations. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will omit the location limitation of the protruded portions.
Claim 1 line 7 recites “a. Anterior/Front acrylic material section” rendering the claim unclear. Claim 1 line 4 recites a front/anterior section but not that it is acrylic. Is this the same section? If so, as the Examiner will interpret, the sections should be referenced in the same manner as introduced. Examiner suggests modifying the line 4 recitation to include “acrylic material”. Further, the line 7 limitation is suggested to include “the” before the claimed element.
Claim 1 line 15 recites “c. Posterior/back acrylic material section” rendering the claim unclear. Claim 1 line 4 recites a Posterior/back section but not that it is acrylic. Is this the same section? If so, as the Examiner will interpret, the sections should be referenced in the same manner as introduced. Examiner suggests modifying the line 4 recitation to include “acrylic material”. Further, the line 15 limitation is suggested to include “the” before the claimed element.
Claim 1 line 16 introduces “d. expansion screws set” rendering the claim unclear. There is a screw set introduced in line 4, is this the same set of screws? They perform the same function, so they will be interpreted as the same screws.
Claim 1 line 17 recites “two screws capable of 0-30 degrees” implies that the screws themselves are capable of a variety of angles, this is not supported in the Specifications so it is unclear. The Specifications imply that the device may have a device with screws set at anywhere between 0-30 degrees, not that the screws are movable between angles. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitations broadly in light of the prior art.
Claim 1 line 22 recites “front support wire screw” but later recites “not a screw.” It unclear what the limitation covers if the wire screw is not a screw. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the wire to be the same wire as introduced previously.
Claims 2-7 are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected claim above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the said mean thickness" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See claim objection above for Examiner suggestions and interpretation. Examiner suggested the claim read “a mean thickness”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the expander" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the reference to be to the appliance. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the expander as the expansion screw set.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the expander" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the reference to be to the appliance. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the expander as the expansion screw set.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the arrow" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation broadly in light of the prior art. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the arrow as introduced.
Claim 7 appears to claim multiple devices under the guise of a single device. How can the same invention fit and be worn by an adult and also a child? For the sake of patent prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitations as alternatives.
It is unclear what is being claimed in Claim 8. Section “a.” recites “reversing Up-down angle” but it is not clear what element has an up-down angle that is being reversed. The same issue is present in section “b.” (the limitation “resetting Up-down angle”), “d.” (the limitation “controlling the amount of lateral/sideways growth”), and section “e.” (the limitation “controlling forces of forward/upward growth and development”). Section “b.” also recites “for upward and forward development” but it is unclear what is developing forward and upward. Section “c.” appears to claim a single device that fits all baby teeth and also permanent teeth, but if all baby teeth are present then there cannot be permanent teeth so it is unclear what is intended by the claim. Section “d.” also recites “using side angle for development” but it is unclear what is developing and it is unclear what element has a side angle. Section “e.” states “helping acrylic covering palate…” but it is unclear what or who is helping and what or who it is helping the palate to do. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the claims in light of the strongest prior art.
Claim 8 line 3 introduced an up-down angle that is already introduced, so it is unclear if these are the same angle. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the elements as the same.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the amount of lateral/sideways growth" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation broadly in light of the prior art.
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 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamm, US 2021/0007831 (priority to 2019) in view of Jeckel, US 5,022,855.
With respect to claim 1, Hamm discloses A "U" shaped removable airway appliance (Fig 5, device 530 shown) having two protruded portions (Annotated Fig 5) on the front side (omitted, see 112b above), configured to reverse excess vertical/downward growth and develop the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position ([0047], “an upper jaw structure of a patient to provide anterior, anterior-lateral, and/or vertical movement to components of an upper jaw structure”), the appliance having two sections including a front/anterior section and a back/posterior section (Annotated Fig 5) held together with a set of two screws that can be adjusted in a lateral or vertical direction for controlling or reversing the direction of growth while enhancing the palate and airway space (Annotated Fig 5, a set of two screws 538 and 540), comprising:
a. Anterior/Front acrylic material section (Annotated Fig 5, [0006], front section is made of acrylic) capable of covering an amount of the palate/roof of the mouth and lingual side/inside of top front teeth development ([0047], “The dental device has been molded to fit an individual patient's upper palate structure to sit flush against the upper front teeth.”) …
b. a support wire embedded in the acrylic material for added strength ([0010], Annotated Fig 5, “a wire connects the first posterior portion, the first anterior portion, the second anterior portion,”), made of chrome/cobalt alloy in front section for all retention styles and canine configurations (omitted, see 112a rejection above);
c. Posterior/back acrylic material section (Annotated Fig 5, back section, also made of acrylic) providing retention over the primary /baby molars ([0047], “Dental device 530 includes posterior teeth anchors 532, 534”);
d. Expansion screws set (4) at different angles for up/down and side/side growth and development (5), consisting of two screws capable of 0-30 degrees vertically to reverse downward growth and laterally for width control, enabling treatment impact over canines through acrylic without direct screw coverage ([0041], “The adjustable and locking hinge can include gears, screws, or other mechanical mechanisms.”; [0047], “expanding hinges 538, 540 allow for slow, gradual movement and expansion”; [0037], “For example as shown, anterior rotational separation component 208 allows for anterior movement in direction A as connecting wire 206 moves in direction A, in one embodiment with the turn of a screw (described in more detail with respect to FIGS. 3A and 3B), and anterior rotational separation component 208 also allows for vertical movement of anterior portion in direction of arrow V by rotation R of anterior rotational separation component 208.”; the two screws one making of each of hinges 538 and 540 may be set to a variety angles in the production process so that the desired anterior and vertical direction is obtained; see 112b rejection above);
e. Hang clasps (Fig 5, clasps 534, 536, 532) (for retention including front clasp (Fig 5, front clasp 536) and back clasp (Fig 5, back clasp 532, 534)), made of chrome/cobalt alloy wire engaging four posterior teeth (limitation omitted, see 112a above);
f. Front support wire screw at 30° (Annotated Fig 5, wire), being embedded chrome/cobalt alloy wire for strength (limitation omitted, see 112a rejection above), not a screw (See 112b rejection above).
Hamm is silent on having full coverage over canines, customizable to cover 0mm, 2mm, 4mm, 6mm, or 8mm of the palate measured from gumline behind front teeth toward throat, and 0mm, 2mm, 4mm, or 6mm on back of front teeth measured from gumline toward edge (limitation omitted, see 112a rejection above), with encapsulating canines for bodily forward movement or lingual adaptation for crowding in front 6 teeth;
Jeckel teaches an analogous maxillary expansion system with a front portion having full coverage over canines (Fig 3, col 7 ll 10-20), with encapsulating canines for bodily forward movement or lingual adaptation for crowding in front 6 teeth (“or” read in the alternative, so that the prior art encapsulated the canines for forward movement the limitation is met; col 8 ll 40-50, force applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front section of Hamm to cover the canines as taught by Jeckel in order to improve comfort (Jeckel col 2 ll 65-70).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 5, Hamm
With respect to claim 2, Hamm/Jeckel discloses The "U" shaped removable airway appliance having two protruded portions on the front side, configured to reverse excessing vertical/downward growth and develop the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the said appliance is configured to use all primary dentition (all baby teeth) and permanent teeth for people from age 1 (with 16 baby teeth) to older adults (Hamm [0005], system can be used with children and the teeth connecting systems can be modified to fit larger or smaller teeth).
Further, mere scaling up or scaling down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 3, Hamm/Jeckel discloses The "U" shaped removable airway appliance having two protruded portions on the front side, configured to reverse excess vertical/downward growth and develop the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1,, wherein the said mean thickness of the expander is assessed using calipers and the lowest cusp on either side is measured from left to right to ensure proper thickness, the mean thickness being the acrylic thickness over the biting surface or occlusal surface of the teeth (Hamm Fig 5, device has a thickness that is capable of being measured; see 112b rejection above).
With respect to claim 4, Hamm/Jeckel discloses The "U" shaped removable airway appliance having two protruded portions on the front side, configured to reverse excess vertical/downward growth and develop the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the expander is configured to be applied in patient's mouth and held securely for insertion of a key into the hole and is configured to turning of the key in the direction of the arrow at an angle of 90 (Hamm [0041] [0037], hinges can require turning of a key, arrow interpreted as a direction as detailed in [0037]).
With respect to claim 6, Hamm/Jeckel discloses The "U" shaped removable airway appliance having two protruded portions on the front side, configured to reverse excess vertical/downward growth and develop the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the said appliance is configured to be combined in different ways for different applications such as for; severe overbite, moderate overbite, slight overbite, open bite, Class I, II, or III with Maxillary deficiency, and narrow or wide jaws (Hamm Fig 5, [0046], movement of the screw would impact and allow for different device applications including at least some of those listed).
With respect to claim 7, Hamm/Jeckel discloses The "U" shaped removable airway appliance having two protruded portions on the front side, configured to reverse excess vertical/downward growth and developing the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1, wherein the said appliance is configured to worn 24 hours a day (only removing a few minutes a day to brush) for younger children (age 1-13) and worn 22 hours a day for older teenagers and adults age 14+ (Hamm [0005], “and allow for 24-hour wear and slow, controlled movement.”, see 112b rejection above, long time wear for adults).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamm/Jeckel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giardino US 2017/0290643.
With respect to claim 5, Hamm/Jeckel discloses The "U" shaped removable airway appliance having two protruded portions on the front side, configured to reverse excess vertical/downward growth and develop the upper and lower jaws bones permanently in a forward position, as claimed in claim 1.
Hamm/Jeckel is silent on wherein the said expansion screws set is positioned at a zero degree to thirty degrees, using a higher degree angle If the direction of growth and development is in the forward direction.
Giardino teaches an analogous anterior and vertical expansion screw system wherein the said expansion screws set is positioned at a zero degree to thirty degrees, using a higher degree angle If the direction of growth and development is in the forward direction (Fig 2, [0055], [0069], clamp 62 and 620 allow for rotation of the front system relative to the rail 40, as rail can be a polygon of any size and clamp system 620 is a cuff system the screw can be placed at any angle, including 30ᵒ relative to the occipital plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screw angle of Hamm/Jeckel to be angled as taught by Giardino in order to ensure the proper expansion of the mouth (Giardino [0063], [0009]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giardino in view of Hamm.
With respect to claim 8, Giardino discloses A process for application of removable airway appliance (Fig 1, device 100) comprising the steps of;
a. reversing Up-down angle at 0 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 15 degrees, 20 degrees, 25 degrees, 30 degrees for excess vertical/downward growth (Fig 2, [0055], [0069], clamp 62 and 620 allow for rotation of the front system relative to the rail 40, as rail can be a polygon of any size and clamp system 620 is a cuff system the screw can be placed at any angle, including 0-30ᵒ relative to the occipital plane, see 112b rejection above);
b. resetting Up-down angle parallel to teeth for upward and forward development (Fig 2, [0055], [0069], clamp 62 and 620 allow for rotation of the front system relative to the rail 40, see 112b rejection above);
c. Passive retention means for all baby teeth and clasping system for permanent teeth (Fig 1, clasps 26, limitation read as alternative features, see 112b rejection above);
d. controlling the amount of lateral/sideways growth using Side angle for development ([0059], controlled palate expansion, see 112b rejection above);
Giardino is silent on e. helping acrylic covering palate and back of front teeth for controlling forces of forward/upward growth and development.
Hamm teaches an analogous anterior wired system which pushes the palate and front teeth (Fig 5), where the material is acrylic and wire so that the device teaches helping acrylic covering palate and back of front teeth for controlling forces of forward/upward growth and development.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the front wire of Giardino to have acrylic as taught by Hamm in order to improve user comfort by reducing direct pressure (Hamm [0005]).
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 ADAM D BAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3333. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at (571)270-5237. 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.
/ADAM BAKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786