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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 01/07/2026, have been fully considered. Upon careful consideration the Examiner finds that the claims are not patentable over the prior art of record. 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 § 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 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette’s embodiment according to Figures 8A-8D (US 20160206403 A1) in view of Fisker (US 20250213333 A1), further in view of Sandwick (US 20210267723 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, 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), the protruding shape has an outer perimeter surrounding an open space (since it is a through-hole structure), the at least one stabilizer fixed to a second side of the pontic portion (Figure 8B) the second side opposite the first side (Figure 8B). However, Ouellette fails to specifically disclose “a pontic portion at least partially coated with a material that is softer than tooth enamel”, one stabilizer having a protruding shape extending laterally from at least one side of the pontic portion”, “the at least one stabilizer constructed separately from the pontic portion and affixed to a second side of the pontic portion” and “and the at least one stabilizer constructed to couple to one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth”.
Fisker discloses a dental restoration for a patient (e.g. a crown [0100]) where the restoration is at least partially coated with a material that is softer than tooth enamel (since liquid color paint is added to obtain the patients tonality; see [0100]-[01012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Ouellette’s pontic to add a coat of paint, as disclosed by Fisker, since such modification would provide a better and more natural-looking results ([0105]).
Sandwick discloses an appliance constructed for spanning a mesiodistal width of a missing tooth (since it is a pontic appliance/artificial tooth 104 shown in Figure 8), comprising: a pontic portion (104), the pontic portion constructed to be disposed in the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth (Figure 8); and at least one stabilizer (102) having a protruding shape (108), the at least one stabilizer fixed to a second side of the pontic portion (Figure 8) the second side opposite the first side (Figure 8). The at least one stabilizer having a protruding shape extending laterally from at least one side of the pontic portion (Figure 8), the at least one stabilizer constructed separately from the pontic portion ([0064] and [0066]) and affixed to a second side of the pontic portion (Figure 8, [0051]) and the at least one stabilizer constructed to couple to one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth (Figure 8, [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Ouellette’s stabilizer to make it extending laterally from at least one side of the pontic portion, constructed separately from the pontic portion, affixed to a second side of the pontic portion and the at least one stabilizer constructed to couple to one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth, as taught by Sandwick, since such modification would be a case of “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” (MPEP 2143); note that sandwick discloses both methods (the stabilizer constructed separately from the pontic portion [0066] and combined through additive manufacturing [0068]). Additionally, the complete modification would create a pontic that securely replaces any of a central incisor of the set of teeth, a lateral incisor, a cuspid, a bicuspid, or a molar [0052] by coupling to one or more teeth that are adjacent to the missing tooth [Figure 8, [0053].
Regarding claim 2, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses wherein the archwire connection portion is a bracket (see bracket 104).
Regarding claim 4, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick 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, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer (102) 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 8); 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, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer (102) is at least partially embedded in the pontic portion (104) (Figure 8, [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer is dovetail shaped (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses wherein at least one of the pontic portion or the archwire connection portion are manufactured as a single body ([0041]) using an additive manufacturing process (3D printing or milling process [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses wherein a gingival edge of the pontic portion (803) is configured to conform to a gingival margin of soft tissue (since the pontic may be an ovate pontic used to sculpt the gum tissue where it touches the gum [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick 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, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Ouellette discloses wherein the appliance is configured to maintain the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth (as shown in Figure 8C the appliance has all the necessary structures to be configured to maintain the mesiodistal width of the missing tooth).
Regarding claim 21, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer comprises a wire (110) (Figure 8, [0053]).
Regarding claim 22, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Sandwick discloses wherein the at least one stabilizer comprises at least one wing (108) (Figure 8, [0053]).
Regarding claim 23, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick 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]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of Fisker, in view of Sandwick, further in view of Loginova (RU 2524120 C1).
Regarding claim 3, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick 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 Ouellette/Fisker/Sandwick’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 Ouellette in view of Fisker, in view of Sandwick, further in view of Smith (US 20130309624 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ouellette Fisker and Sandwick 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 Ouellette/Fisker/Sandwick’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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST). 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Luis Ruiz Martin/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772