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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 05/29/2026, have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections in view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive as they do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/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 24 recites “the second end of the at least one stabilizer”; there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5-7, 12-15 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandwick (US 20210267723 A1) in view of Corbett (US 4722689 A), further in view Ouellette’s embodiment according to Figures 8A-8D (US 20160206403 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 14 the claimed phrases “constructed separately from the pontic portion”, “manufactured as a single body using an additive manufacturing process” and “formed through an additive manufacturing process” are being treated as a product-by-process limitation and a product-by-process claim is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 1, Sandwick discloses an appliance constructed for spanning a mesiodistal width of a missing tooth (Figure 11 and [0056]), comprising: a pontic portion (124), the pontic portion constructed to be disposed in the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth (Figure 11); and at least one stabilizer (120) having a first end (end of protruding shapes 128 or 126) extending away from at least one side of the pontic portion (Figure 11) and a portion (132) at least partially disposed in an interior of the pontic portion (136), the at least one stabilizer (120) having a protruding shape (128 or 126) extending laterally from the at least one side of the pontic portion, the protruding shape having an outer perimeter surrounding an open space (see open spaces/holes shown inside protruding shapes 128 or 126), the at least one stabilizer constructed separately from the pontic portion ([0064]) and affixed to a second side of the pontic portion (Figure 12 and [0058]-[0062]), the second side opposite the first side (Figure 11-12), and the at least one stabilizer constructed to couple to one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth (Figure 11). However, Sandwick fails to disclose the “pontic portion at least partially coated with a material that is softer than tooth enamel” and “an archwire connection portion attached to a first side of the pontic portion”.
Corbett discloses a dental restoration for a patient (e.g. a crown, Figure 1 and Abstract) where the restoration is at least partially coated with a material that is softer than tooth enamel (since the crown is coated with a tooth-colored polymer composition; the coating is a very thin layer that will adhere to the crown; the coating can be made of nylon, rubber, or silicone rubber which will carry the pigment to give the natural tooth color; see col 1, line59 to col 2, line 4). The Examiner notes that it is well known in the art, that for example silicone rubber is a material softer than enamel, being inherently flexible and pliable; while enamel is the hardest material in the human body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sandwick’s pontic to add a coat of coating/paint made of e.g. silicone rubber, as disclosed by Corbett, since the pigment included in the coating would match the color of a tooth and thereby blend in with the teeth in the patient's mouth, see col 2, lines 8-11).
Ouellette discloses an appliance constructed for spanning a mesiodistal width of a missing tooth (since it is a pontic appliance/artificial tooth 102 shown in Figure 1), comprising: a pontic portion (803), the pontic portion constructed to be disposed in the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth (Figure 8C); an archwire connection portion (bracket/brace 804) attached to a first side of the pontic portion (Figure 8A); and at least one stabilizer (through-hole structure that is used for installing the pontic on the abutment, as shown in Figs. 8C-8D) having a protruding shape (through-hole structure protrudes from the pontic). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sandwick/Corbett’s pontic to add an archwire connection portion (e.g. bracket/brace) attached to a first side of the pontic portion, as taught by Ouellette, since such modification would provide the pontic with an orthodontic portion (“brace” or “bracket”) that is all one piece, that can be used to move teeth orthodontically and provide a degree of esthetics (see the Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses wherein the archwire connection portion is a bracket (see bracket 104).
Regarding claim 4, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses wherein the archwire connection portion is a tube (since the archwire connection portion could be a lingual tube 1280 [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer (120) is affixed to the second side to control labiopalatal rotation of the pontic portion around an archwire to be coupled to the archwire connection portion (the Examiner notes that the stabilizer is coupled to one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth (Figure 11); therefore, has all the necessary structures to be capable to control labiopalatal rotation of the pontic portion around an archwire to be coupled to the archwire connection portion).
Regarding claim 6, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer (120) is at least partially embedded in the pontic portion (124) (Figure 11-12, [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer (120) is dovetail shaped (Figure 11).
Regarding claim 12, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein at least one of the pontic portion or the archwire connection portion are manufactured as a single body using an additive manufacturing process ([0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein a gingival edge of the pontic portion (124) is configured to conform to a gingival margin of soft tissue (since the pontic 124 could be configured to replace any other tooth such as a lateral incisor, a cuspid, a bicuspid, or a molar [0057]; therefore, it would have a gingival edge configured to conform to a gingival margin of soft tissue).
Regarding claim 14, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer is formed through an additive manufacturing process ([0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the appliance is configured to maintain the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth (as shown in Figure 11 the appliance has all the necessary structures to be configured to maintain the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth).
Regarding claim 21, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer comprises a wire (130) (Figure 11, [0058]).
Regarding claim 22, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer comprises at least one wing (128) (Figure 11, [0058]).
Regarding claim 23, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer is constructed to engage with the one or more teeth using a pressure fit ([0062] and [0067]).
Regarding claim 24, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the second end of the at least one stabilizer is configured to contact the one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth (Figure 11).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandwick in view of Corbett, in view of Ouellette, further in view of Loginova (RU 2524120 C1).
Regarding claim 3, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses that the user is in control of the orthodontic design required for a particular case, but fails to specifically disclose “wherein the bracket is a self-ligating bracket”.
Loginova discloses an orthodontic treatment for a patient missing a lateral incisors of the upper jaw, where an artificial tooth (acrylic tooth) was implemented with a self-ligating brackets system ([0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sandwick/Corbett/Ouellette’s appliance in order to make it comprising self-ligating brackets, since it is well known in the art that self-ligating brackets allow for free movement of the archwire and potentially reduces friction, leading to faster treatment times and fewer appointments.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandwick in view of Corbett, in view of Ouellette, further in view of Smith (US 20130309624 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sandwick, Corbett and Ouellette discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses a slot of the archwire connection portion (106), but fails to disclose “wherein a slot of the archwire connection portion comprises a coarse surface shaped to inhibit rotation of the pontic portion around an archwire to be coupled to the archwire connection portion.
Smith discloses a self-ligating orthodontic bracket system (Abstract) that includes a slot (240a) for connecting an archwire; wherein the slot comprises a coarse surface (237) shaped to inhibit rotation of the archwire ([0193]). The Examiner notes that the coarse surface 237 has all the necessary structures to be shaped to inhibit rotation of the archwire. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Sandwick/Corbett/Ouellette’s appliance in order to make the slot of the archwire connection portion comprising a coarse surface, since such modification would provide better grasping of the archwire provided therein ([0193]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST).
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 on (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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights