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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 10 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate limitations of claim 2 which was withdrawn as directed to a non-elected species. As such amended claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 10 are now directed to a non-elected species and are withdrawn
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
It is noted that applicant’s submitted claims on 02/26/2026 further incorrectly list claims 3, 4, and 10 as current claims which were withdrawn in the non-final action mailed on 10/01/2025 as being directed to a non-elected species.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Dickenson fails to provide for the new limitation in regard to claim 1 and its depending claims, however claim 1 as amended reads on an unelected species and is currently withdrawn.
Applicant further argues that the prior art of Dickenson fails to provide for the new limitation of a suspension mesh configuration in regard to the cutouts of claim 11, however this limitation is provided for in combination with the new prior art of Murrell et al..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11-14 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.
The term “increase” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “increase” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How the surface area would be considered to be an “increase” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite as for something to be an increase there would first need to be an un-increased surface area which results in the surface area being unclear as requiring an increase compared to the surface are not being increased. For purposes of examination any prior art that discloses cutouts that has a surface area will be deemed to provide for the claim limitation.
Any claim depending upon an indefinite claim is itself indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickenson et al. (US 2019/0142551 A1) in view of Murrell et al. (US 2020/0146781 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Dickenson discloses a dental bracket (Fig. 1/8) having a housing that has a curved surface configured to align with teeth (Fig. 8 element 804, paragraph [0065] lines 1-4 disclosing the tooth facing surface having a “contour that corresponds to a contour of the surface of the tooth to which the apparatus is configured to be secured” and thus curved) and comprises cutouts to increase a surface area of the curved surface (Fig. 8 element 802), wherein the cutouts are configured to improve surface area of the dental bracket where an adhesive is applied to connect with the teeth (paragraph [0122] disclosing that element 802 provides fluid communication with the outer facing tooth surface and thus improves surface area for adhesive application as in paragraph [0123]); and
a connection feature integrated with the housing and configured to connect with a wire (Fig. 8 element similar to element 305 in Fig. 3),
and discloses a wire that is pre-threaded through the connection feature of the bracket (paragraph [0066] lines 1-6 disclosing a wire element located in a passageway/connector of the dental bracket).
Dickenson discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the cutouts are separated by a suspension mesh configuration.
However, Murrell discloses a dental retentive appliance (title and abstract) that includes a curved surface for adhesive to be applied and connected (Fig. 1b element 24) has cut-outs which provide a surface area where adhesive is applied to connect with teeth (Figs. 9a/b) and the cut outs are separated by a suspension mech configuration (Figs. 9a/b showing cut outs 34 separated by a suspension in mesh configuration by elements 40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cut-outs having a suspension mesh configuration that separates them as taught by Murrell into the cutouts as taught by Dickenson for the purpose of providing for a bonding surface which could provide for a bonding surface with would facilitate the escape of any air trapped in an adhesive when applied to avoid weakening of the bond as taught by Murrell (paragraph [0236] lines 9-17).
Regarding claim 12, Dickenson further discloses wherein the connection feature comprises an aperture that extends through one surface of the housing to another surface of the housing so that the wire is thread-able through the bracket (paragraph [0099] lines 1-3 the passageways 105/305 etc. accommodate a wire element to allow the wire to pass through each bracket).
Regarding claim 13, Dickenson further discloses wherein the connection feature comprises a channel that extends through the housing (paragraph [0099] lines 1-3 the passageways 105/305 etc. accommodate a wire element to allow the wire to pass through each bracket).
Regarding claim 14, Dickenson further discloses wherein the dental bracket is detachable from a support member of a dental device that guides application of the dental brackets to the teeth (Figs. 7 and 8 showing the detaching of brackets form a support member).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 05/22/2026
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights