DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The limitation “body does not include a slot or passage dimensioned to receive an archwire” is not shown in the drawings. The Figures show a slot that is capable of receiving an archwire, therefore the limitation 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “body does not include a slot or passage” limitation of Claim 18 is not supported by the specification.
The amendment filed September 11, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “The attachments may not include a slot or passage dimensioned to receive an archwire” is not found in the original specification or drawings, and therefore represents new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by George (DE2022730A1, translation provided).
Regarding Claim 1, George discloses an orthodontic attachment device ([0001]) comprising an attachment body (Figures 1-4) and a bonding surface (10) underlying the attachment body, where the bonding surface is shaped to correspond to a contour of a portion of a tooth (Figures 1-4). George further discloses that the attachment body
Regarding Claim 5, George discloses that the side surfaces (sides of 12) form a continuous undercut (as seen in Figures 1-3).
Regarding Claim 7, George discloses that a transition surface between any two side surfaces is arcuate (as seen in Figures 1-4 as annotated above).
Regarding Claim 12, George discloses that the bonding surface is shaped to bond at a facial axis of the clinical crown of the tooth (as seen in Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 13, George discloses that the attachment body is dimensioned according to a prescription, the prescription including at least two of in/out, torque, and angulation (as described in [0002]).
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 14-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of George.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu discloses a set of orthodontic attachment devices (abstract and [0002]) comprising a first attachment having a first attachment body (Figures 2A-2E, 30) and a first bonding surface (32), where the first attachment body has a first prescription that represents particular characteristics of the attachment device including at least two defined prescription elements selected from in/out, torque and angulation ([0008] describes multiple attachments which have individual prescriptions as further described in [0009-0012] which would form a set) and a second attachment having a second attachment body and a second bonding surface, wherein the second attachment body has a second prescription that represents particular characteristics of the attachment device including at least two defined prescription elements selected from in/out, torque and angulation, where the first prescription is different from the second prescription ([0008] describes multiple attachments which have individual prescriptions as further described in [0009-0012] which would form a set).
Wu discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose that each of the first attachment body and the second attachment body has a general shape of an inverted frustum and the bonding surface is an underside of the first attachment body or the second attachment body, where the bonding surface is shaped to correspond to a contour of a portion of a tooth, where each attachment body, of the first attachment body and the second attachment body, includes mesial, distal, occlusal, and gingival side surfaces extending between a facial surface of each body and the bonding surface, and where each one of the side surfaces has a continuous, decreasing taper between the facial surface and the bonding surface so that each attachment body has a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape along both a mesial-distal axis and an occlusal-gingival axis.
In the same art of orthodontic attachment devices, George teaches attachment bodies ([0002] discloses the use of multiple brackets) with a general shape of an inverted frustum (Figures 1-3), with a bonding surface that is an underside (10) of the first attachment body or the second attachment body, where the bonding surface is shaped to correspond to a contour of a portion of a tooth, and where each attachment body includes mesial, distal, occlusal, and gingival side surfaces (surfaces of 12 on each of the distal, occlusal, mesial and gingival sides) extending between a facial surface (14, 16, 18, and 20) of each body and the bonding surface (as seen in Figures 1-3), and where each one of the side surfaces has a continuous, decreasing taper between the facial surface and the bonding surface so that each attachment body has a generally trapezoidal cross-sectional shape along both a mesial-distal axis and an occlusal-gingival axis (see Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Wu with the shaping of George in order to provide an attachment device that is stable and yet not obtrusive in an inserted orientation.
Regarding Claim 15, Wu in view of George discloses the invention of Claim 14 as described above and Wu further discloses that the set of orthodontic devices would lack a flared base (Figure 2A). As modified by George, We would have an undercut and trapezoidal shape that is not flared.
Regarding Claim 18, Wu in view of George discloses the invention of Claim 14 as described above and Wu further discloses where the first attachment body does not include a slot or passage dimensioned to receive an archwire (Figures 2A-2E).
Regarding Claim 20, Wu in view of George discloses the invention of Claim 14 as described above and Wu further discloses multiple attachments used concurrently for correction that would form a set, and thus comprise a third attachment having a third attachment body and a third bonding surface, where the third attachment body has a third prescription including at least two defined prescription elements selected from in/out, torque and angulation, where the third prescription is different from either the first or second prescription ([0008] describes multiple attachments which have individual prescriptions as further described in [0009-0012] which would form a set).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of George in further view of Lai et al. (US 2006/0099544 A1, hereinafter “Lai”).
Regarding Claim 21, Wu in view of George discloses the attachment device of Claim 14 as described above, but does not specifically disclose that the underside of each of the first attachment and the second attachment has a contour approximating an expected convex curvature of a dedicated tooth of a dental arch. In the same art of dental attachments, Lai teaches that the bonding surface of an attachment (Figure 9, 30) has a “compound concave contour that precisely matches the convex compound contour of a particular tooth” in [0800]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the bonding surface of the attachment device of Wu in view of George with a precisely matching contour as is taught by Lai that would approximate the buccal radii of the tooth in order to provide a more precise and stable connection between the attachment and the tooth.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Wu in view of George discloses an orthodontic set of attachments of Claim 14 as described above but does not specifically disclose a polymer band configured to couple to and extend over a facial surface of each of the first attachment and the second attachment such that when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the occlusal plane, includes an arch including a non- undulating facial surface.
In the same art of orthodontic attachments, Lai teaches a polymer band (Figure 7, 22 where polymeric material is disclosed in [0087]) that is configured to couple to and extend over a facial surface of each of the appliances that when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the occlusal plane, includes an arch including a non- undulating facial surface (see Figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a polymer band as taught by Lai with the attachments of Wu in view of George in order to further retain and secure the attachment devices.
Response to Arguments
The amended specification is not entered as it contains new matter as described in the objection above, and the specification and drawing objections are maintained. Claim objections directed to Claim 4 are overcome, as Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections and therefore those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, 12-15, 18, and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights