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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 4 to “the hardenable adhesive layer”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 5 to “the first region”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8-12, 17-19, 21, 23-24, 26-27, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan et al (U.S. 2005/0136370 A1, hereinafter “Brennan”) in view of Primus et al (U.S. 2007/0111152 A1, hereinafter “Primus”).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Brennan discloses an orthodontic appliance (30 in Figs 1-8) comprising: a base (base in annotated Fig. 4, Figs. 3-6, para. 0057); and a hardenable adhesive layer (adhesive layer in annotated Fig. 4, Figs. 3-6, para. 0008) disposed on the base (Fig. 3-6), the hardenable adhesive layer comprising a first region (36 in Figs. 3-6) and a second region (34 in Figs. 3-6), each of the first region and the second region being on the base (Fig. 4; paras. 0056-0060; para. 0058-0059 teaches that both layer 34 and 36 can be discontinuous, and para. 0060 teaches “Alternatively, in embodiments where adhesive layer 34 represents a discontinuous layer that covers only the lighter stipled areas, adhesive layer 36 may extend across the portions of base or adhesive transfer area 32”), the first region comprising an adhesive composition (para. 0060), and the second region comprising an adhesive composition (para. 0060), wherein the first region is at least partly surrounded by the second region (Figs. 3-6, paras. 0059-0061), wherein the first region and the second region are capable of contacting a tooth surface (para. 0008), wherein the adhesive compositions may differ in properties including viscosity (para. 0039),
Brennan is silent regarding the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition and the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition. However, there are a limited number of known choices pertaining to the viscosities of the first and second regions, that being the first having a higher viscosity than the second, or the second having a higher viscosity than the first.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition and the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition since it is has been held to be obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Brennan does not disclose that the high-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by having a viscosity of about 10 Pa ∙ s to about 1,500,000 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 at 25°C, and does not disclose that the low-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by having a viscosity of about 0.1 Pa ∙ s to about 100 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 at 25°C, wherein the viscosity of the high-viscosity adhesive composition is greater than the viscosity of the low-viscosity adhesive composition.
Primus teaches a similar apparatus (10’’ in Fig. 3) having a hardenable adhesive layer (26 and 28 in Fig. 3) disposed on a base (20 in Fig. 3), the adhesive layer comprising a first region (28 in Fig. 3, para. 0054) and a second region (26 in Fig. 3, para. 0053), the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition (para. 0054), and the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition (para. 0053), wherein the viscosity of the high-viscosity adhesive composition is greater than the viscosity of the low-viscosity adhesive composition (paras. 0053-0054).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. 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 adhesive compositions by specifying the viscosity of the high-viscosity adhesive composition is greater than the viscosity of the low-viscosity adhesive composition as taught by Primus in order to allow for both the penetration of low-viscosity adhesive into retentive features and the prevention of drift (Primus paras. 0060-0061).
Though Primus does not explicitly disclose that the high-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by having a viscosity of about 10 Pa ∙ s to about 1,500,000 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 at 25°C, and does not disclose that the low-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by having a viscosity of about 0.1 Pa ∙ s to about 100 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 at 25°C, Primus does teach that an adhesive with a low viscosity is advantageous in that it is flowable and capable of penetrating into retentive elements of an appliance (Abstract), however the bracket may drift (paras. 0060-0061), while an adhesive with a high viscosity prevents drifting of the bracket but is difficult to force into retentive elements of an appliance (paras. 0042-0043). Primus further teaches that the viscosity of the low viscosity adhesive is in within a range to allow for effective penetration, and the viscosity of the high viscosity adhesive is within a range to prevent drifting of the bracket (paras. 0060-0061). Primus further teaches that the viscosity of the low viscosity adhesive can be modified for desired effectiveness on brackets with differently sized retentive features, which would result in an increase or decrease in the effective penetration of the mesh (paras. 0060-0061), and that the viscosity of the high viscosity adhesive can be modified for the prevention of drifting (paras. 0060-0061).
Therefore, Primus recognizes that the viscosity is a result effective variable that will either increase or decrease the ability of the adhesive to flow into retentive features, and either increase or decrease the ability of the bracket to adhere without drifting.
Therefore, since Primus sets forth that the viscosity is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the high-viscosity adhesive composition characterized by having a viscosity of about 10 Pa ∙ s to about 1,500,000 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 at 25°C, and make the low-viscosity adhesive composition characterized by having a viscosity of about 0.1 Pa ∙ s to about 100 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 at 25°C, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, which would effectively meet the needs of an application in which brackets must be adhered to teeth without drifting from their position but must also have adhesive flow through the retentive features of the bracket. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
In regard to claim 9, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses wherein the hardenable adhesive layer is in a shape similar to a trapezoid when viewed from a cross-sectional side view of the base (Fig. 2, a single layer).
In regard to claim 10, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses wherein the adhesive composition of the first region is in a shape of, or similar to, a polygon, or a quadrilateral when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the base (Fig. 4).
Brennan is silent regarding the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition. However, there are a limited number of known choices pertaining to the viscosities of the first and second regions, that being the first having a higher viscosity than the second, or the second having a higher viscosity than the first.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition and the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition since it is has been held to be obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
In regard to claim 11, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition has a volume that is about 40 percent to about 85 percent of the volume of the hardenable adhesive layer.
The instant disclosure describes the volume claimed above does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the orthodontic appliance. As such, the claimed volume is merely an engineering choice of design lacking in any criticality, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the effective volume of the high-viscosity adhesive composition to be 40 percent to about 85 percent of the volume of the hardenable adhesive layer.
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In regard to claim 12, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not explicitly disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition extends over about 20 percent to about 50 percent of the total area of the base, though Brennan does disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition extends over about what appears to be about 50 percent of the total area of the base (Fig. 5).
The instant disclosure describes the area claimed above does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the orthodontic appliance. As such, the claimed area is merely an engineering choice of design lacking in any criticality, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the effective area of the high-viscosity adhesive composition to extend over about 20 percent to about 50 percent of the total area of the base.
In regard to claim 18, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses wherein adhesive composition of the second region is in a shape of a rectangular annulus when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the base (Fig. 4).
Brennan is silent regarding the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition. However, there are a limited number of known choices pertaining to the viscosities of the first and second regions, that being the first having a higher viscosity than the second, or the second having a higher viscosity than the first.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition and the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition since it is has been held to be obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
In regard to claim 19, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not explicitly disclose wherein the low-viscosity adhesive composition extends over about 50 percent to about 80 percent of the total area of the base, though Brennan does disclose wherein the low-viscosity adhesive composition extends over what appears to be about 50 percent of the total area of the base (Fig. 5).
The instant disclosure describes the area claimed above does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the orthodontic appliance. As such, the claimed area is merely an engineering choice of design lacking in any criticality, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the effective area of the low-viscosity adhesive composition extends over about 50 percent to about 80 percent of the total area of the base.
In regard to claim 21, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein one or more of: the high-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a viscosity of about 100 Pa ∙ s to about 13,000 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1and the low-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a viscosity of about 0.1 Pa ∙ s to about 10 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1.
Primus teaches a similar apparatus (10’’ in Fig. 3) having a hardenable adhesive layer (26 and 28 in Fig. 3) comprising a first region (28 in Fig. 3, para. 0054) comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition (para. 0054) and a second region (26 in Fig. 3, para. 0053) comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition (para. 0053).
Though Primus does not explicitly disclose that the high-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a viscosity of about 100 Pa ∙ s to about 13,000 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1 and the low-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a viscosity of about 0.1 Pa ∙ s to about 10 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1, Primus does teach that an adhesive with a low viscosity is advantageous in that it is flowable and capable of penetrating into retentive elements of an appliance (Abstract), however the bracket may drift (paras. 0060-0061), while an adhesive with a high viscosity prevents drifting of the bracket but is difficult to force into retentive elements of an appliance (paras. 0042-0043). Primus further teaches that the viscosity of the low viscosity adhesive is in within a range to allow for effective penetration, and the viscosity of the high viscosity adhesive is within a range to prevent drifting of the bracket (paras. 0060-0061). Primus further teaches that the viscosity of the low viscosity adhesive can be modified for desired effectiveness on brackets with differently sized retentive features, which would result in an increase or decrease in the effective penetration of the mesh (paras. 0060-0061), and that the viscosity of the high viscosity adhesive can be modified for the prevention of drifting (paras. 0060-0061).
Therefore, Primus recognizes that the viscosity is a result effective variable that will either increase or decrease the ability of the adhesive to flow into retentive features, and either increase or decrease the ability of the bracket to adhere without drifting.
Therefore, since Primus sets forth that the viscosity is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make one or more of the high-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a viscosity of about 100 Pa ∙ s to about 13,000 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1and the low-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a viscosity of about 0.1 Pa ∙ s to about 10 Pa ∙ s at a shear rate of 1 s-1, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, which would effectively meet the needs of an application in which brackets must be adhered to teeth without drifting from their position but must also have adhesive flow through the retentive features of the bracket. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
In regard to claim 23, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition and the low-viscosity adhesive composition differ in viscosity by at least 10-fold.
Primus further teaches wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition and the low-viscosity adhesive composition differ in viscosity (paras. 0060-0061).
Though Primus does not explicitly disclose the high-viscosity adhesive composition and the low-viscosity adhesive composition differ in viscosity by at least 10-fold, Primus does teach that an adhesive with a low viscosity is advantageous in that it is flowable and capable of penetrating into retentive elements of an appliance (Abstract), however the bracket may drift (paras. 0060-0061), while an adhesive with a high viscosity prevents drifting of the bracket but is difficult to force into retentive elements of an appliance (paras. 0042-0043). Primus further teaches that the viscosity of the low viscosity adhesive is in within a range to allow for effective penetration, and the viscosity of the high viscosity adhesive is within a range to prevent drifting of the bracket (paras. 0060-0061). Primus further teaches that the viscosity of the low viscosity adhesive can be modified for desired effectiveness on brackets with differently sized retentive features, which would result in an increase or decrease in the effective penetration of the mesh (paras. 0060-0061), and that the viscosity of the high viscosity adhesive can be modified for the prevention of drifting (paras. 0060-0061).
Therefore, Primus recognizes that the viscosity is a result effective variable that will either increase or decrease the ability of the adhesive to flow into retentive features, and either increase or decrease the ability of the bracket to adhere without drifting.
Therefore, since Primus sets forth that the viscosity is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the high-viscosity adhesive composition and the low-viscosity adhesive composition differ in viscosity by at least 10-fold, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, which would effectively meet the needs of an application in which brackets must be adhered to teeth without drifting from their position but must also have adhesive flow through the retentive features of the bracket. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05)
In regard to claim 24, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose the high-viscosity adhesive composition has a maximum thickness that is greater than an average thickness of the low-viscosity adhesive composition.
The instant disclosure describes the area claimed above does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the orthodontic appliance. As such, the claimed maximum thickness of the high-viscosity adhesive and average thickness of the low-viscosity adhesive is merely an engineering choice of design lacking in any criticality, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the effective maximum thickness of the high-viscosity adhesive composition be greater than an average thickness of the low-viscosity adhesive composition.
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In regard to claim 26, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses the appliance being void of a compressible mat (Figs. 1-8).
In regard to claim 27, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses a method for seating an orthodontic appliance (30 in Figs 1-8) to a tooth surface (Abstract), the method comprising: providing an orthodontic appliance of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1; para. 0080); contacting the orthodontic appliance to the tooth surface (para. 0081); applying pressure to the orthodontic appliance such that the hardenable adhesive layer compresses against the tooth surface (para. 0081); and hardening the hardenable adhesive layer to form a hardened adhesive (paras. 0081).
In regard to claim 41, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses a method of preparing an orthodontic appliance of claim 1 (see above rejection), the method comprising: providing a base (para. 0079); and forming a hardenable adhesive layer on the base (para. 0079), the forming comprising: applying an adhesive composition to the base at a first region (36 in Fig. 4), and applying an adhesive composition to the base at a second region (34 in Fig. 4), wherein the first region is at least partly surrounded by the second region (Fig. 4).
Brennan does not explicitly disclose that the adhesive composition of the first region is a high-viscosity adhesive composition, and that the adhesive composition of the second region is a low-viscosity adhesive composition. However, there are a limited number of known choices pertaining to the viscosities of the first and second regions, that being the first having a higher viscosity than the second, or the second having a higher viscosity than the first.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to have the first region comprising a high-viscosity adhesive composition and the second region comprising a low-viscosity adhesive composition since it is has been held to be obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claims 2, 7, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and Brennan914 et al (U.S. 2003/0198914 A1, hereinafter “Brennan914”).
In regard to claim 2, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition does not extend beyond the base by more than 0.2 mm when the hardenable adhesive layer is compressed against the tooth surface.
Brennan914 teaches wherein the adhesive composition does not extend beyond the base by more than 0.2 mm when the hardenable adhesive layer is compressed against the tooth surface (para. 0033 and 0113, 0 flow-out is most preferable and 0.02 inch is detectable to naked eye and can lead to problems of adhesive separation).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. 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 high-viscosity adhesive composition of Brennan in view of Primus by formulating the adhesive composition so that the high-viscosity adhesive composition does not extend beyond the base by more than 0.2 mm when the hardenable adhesive layer is compressed against the tooth surface as taught by Brennan 914 in order to prevent the adhesive from being seen with the naked eye and prevent separation problems (Brennan914 para. 0113).
In regard to claim 7, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein one or more of: the high-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a static yield stress at 28°C of at least 7000 dynes/cm2 and the low-viscosity adhesive composition is characterized by a flow where the difference of the thicknesses of the adhesive composition at the top and at the bottom is less than about 15%, as determined by the Vertical Flow Test.
Brennan914 teaches wherein the adhesive composition is characterized by a static yield stress at 28°C of at least 7000 dynes/cm2 (para. 0091).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. 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 high-viscosity adhesive composition of Brennan in view of Primus by formulating the composition so that the adhesive composition is characterized by a static yield stress at 28°C of at least 7000 dynes/cm2 as taught by Brennan914 in order to allow for desired handling properties of the adhesive and no observable slip when placed on a tooth (Brennan914 para. 0088).
In regard to claim 38, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan further discloses a kit (Fig. 7) comprising: an orthodontic appliance of claim 1 (see above rejection). Brennan does not disclose a set of instructions directing a user to seat the orthodontic appliance to a tooth surface.
Brennan914 teaches a kit (Fig. 1) comprising an orthodontic appliance and a set of instructions directing a user to seat the orthodontic appliance to a tooth surface (paras. 0012 and 0097).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. 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 kit of Brennan in view of Primus by adding a set of instructions directing a user to seat the orthodontic appliance to a tooth surface as taught by Brennan914 in order to allow for instructing a user in using the orthodontic appliance (Brennan914 paras. 0012 and 0097).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and Cinader et al (U.S. 2013/0280669 A1, hereinafter “Cinader”).
In regard to claim 3, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition comprises a filler present in an amount of about 50 to about 86 wt% with respect to the weight of the high-viscosity adhesive.
Cinader teaches wherein an adhesive composition comprises a filler present in an amount of about 50 to about 86 wt% (para. 0059, 60 to 90 wt%) with respect to the weight of the adhesive (para. 0059).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formulated the high-viscosity adhesive composition of Brennan in view of Primus with a filler present in an amount of about 50 to about 86 wt% (60 to 90 wt%) with respect to the weight of the adhesive as taught by Cinader in order to allow for the bracket to be securely fixed to the tooth with sufficient strength to resist unintended detachment (Cinader para. 0060).
In regard to claim 14, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the low-viscosity adhesive composition has a filler loading of about 0 to about 50 wt%.
Cinader teaches wherein a second adhesive composition has a filler loading of about 0 to about 50 wt% (para. 0059, less than 60 wt%).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formulated the low-viscosity adhesive composition of Brennan in view of Primus with a filler loading of about 0 to about 50 wt% (less than 60 wt%) as taught by Cinader in order to allow for the bracket to be securely fixed to the tooth with sufficient strength to resist unintended detachment (Cinader para. 0060).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and Randklev (U.S. 5,015,180 A).
In regard to claim 8, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the high-viscosity adhesive composition has a thickness of about 0.38 mm to about 1.2 mm.
Randklev further discloses wherein an adhesive composition has a thickness of about 0.38 mm to about 1.2 mm (col. 6 lines 57-59, 0.3675 mm).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formulated the high-viscosity adhesive composition has a thickness of about 0.38 mm to about 1.2 mm as taught by Randklev in order to allow for good adhesion requiring little or no clean-up of excess adhesive (Randklev col. 6 lines 57-59).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and Dickens et al (U.S. 2005/0020720 A1, hereinafter “Dickens”).
In regard to claim 17, Brennan in view of Primus discloses the invention of claim 1. Brennan does not disclose wherein the low-viscosity adhesive composition has a thickness of about 0.06 mm to about 0.16 mm.
Dickens further discloses wherein the adhesive composition has a thickness of about 0.06 mm to about 0.16 mm (para. 0032, 100 μm = 0.10 mm).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fixing orthodontic brackets to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formulated the low-viscosity adhesive composition has a thickness of about 0.06 mm to about 0.16 mm as taught by Dickens in order to allow for protection of the enamel around the bracket (Dickens para. 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in regard to the rejections of claims 1, 8-12, 17-19, 21, 23-24, 26-27, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus, Brennan appears to teach a multiple layer adhesive wherein the "first region" is one layer and the "second region" is another layer, i.e., the layers are on top of one another, and argues that Brennan does not teach or suggest a construction wherein each of the first region and the second region are on the base, and does not teach that any such construction would be effective in reducing or eliminating flash. Applicant argues that nothing in the disclosure of Primus would motivate a skilled artisan to arrange the adhesive compositions on the base, as claimed, to achieve a device capable of mitigating "flash."
Examiner notes that in regard to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations. Examiner notes that claim 1 does not recite limitations regarding reducing or eliminating flash. Examiner also notes that Brennan discloses a hardenable adhesive layer comprising a first region (36 in Figs. 3-6) and a second region (34 in Figs. 3-6), each of the first region and the second region being on the base (Fig. 4; paras. 0056-0060; para. 0058-0059 teaches that both layer 34 and 36 can be discontinuous, and para. 0060 teaches “Alternatively, in embodiments where adhesive layer 34 represents a discontinuous layer that covers only the lighter stipled areas, adhesive layer 36 may extend across the portions of base or adhesive transfer area 32”), as claimed. Because both layer 34 and 36 can be discontinuous, Brennan discloses each of the first region 36 and the second region 34 being on the base. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejections of claims 2, 7, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and further in view of Brennan914, the rejections of claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and further in view of Cinader, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and further in view of Randklev, and the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brennan in view of Primus and further in view of Dickens, Applicant argues that claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 17, and 38 are dependent upon claim 1, claim 1 is nonobvious over Brennan in view of Primus for at least the above reasons, and that Brennan914, Cinader, Randklev, and Dickens does not cure the deficiencies.
Examiner notes that as noted in the above response to Applicant’s argument, Brennan discloses each of the first region and the second region being on the base (Fig. 4; paras. 0056-0060), as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights