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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-7, 9-15, and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the well configured to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient”, the original disclosure fails to disclose how or what configures the well to be conformed to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-15, and 21-22 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 1 recites “an occlusal base having a top surface an outer perimeter” , it is unclear if applicant is defining the outer perimeter being that of the top surface of the occlusal base or the outer perimeter of any specific occlusal base. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the occlusal base having a top surface and an outer perimeter, the outer perimeter being the edge of any surface of the occlusal base.
Claim 1 recites “an occlusal base having a top surface an outer perimeter and defining a first impression conforming to a first occlusal tooth surface and a second impression conforming to at least a portion of a second occlusal tooth surface”, it is unclear if the top surface defines the first impression or another portion of the occlusal base. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the occlusal base defines the first and second impression and includes a top surface.
Claim 1 recites “the well configured to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient”, it is unclear if the well is configured to the buccal surface of the tooth and also releasably receive the orthodontic appliance as recited earlier in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as configured to attach the dental appliance to a buccal surface of a tooth of a patient.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-15, and 21-22 are rejected based on claim dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a portion of the well extends above a top surface of the second region”, it is unclear if the top surface of the second region is different than the top surface of the occlusal base, or since the top surface of the occlusal base has both the first and second regions are they the same top surface. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the same top surface as disclosed as part of the occlusal base set forth in claim 1.
Claim 15 recites “ a buccal surface of the tooth”, it is unclear if that is an additional buccal surface or the same as recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the same as recited in claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (CN 211355976 U) in view of TAO et al (CN 111991108A).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses an indirect bonding tray (figures 1-4) constructed using an additive manufacturing process (this limitation is considered product by process and does not limit the claimed invention by structure; however, the prior art does disclose manufacturing the indirect bonding tray using 3D printing a form of additive manufacturing, see par 23 of translation),
the indirect bonding tray configured to transfer an orthodontic appliance to a tooth of a patient by at least coupling the indirect bonding tray to the tooth of the patient (see par 28 of translation which discloses the bracket positioning performing indirect bonding and releasee of an orthodontic bracket), the indirect bonding tray comprising:
an occlusal base (occlusal positioning block 20) having a top surface (see annotated figure 3b) and an outer perimeter (defined by the hatched marking in figure 2, the outer edge bound of around the perimeter of all of the occlusal positioning blocks 20 seen in figures 1-3; partially seen by dashed lines seen in annotated figure 3a) and defining a first impression conforming to a first occlusal tooth surface (gingival surface 25, see par 59 which discloses the occlusal positioning block 20 is customized with all surfaces including the gingival surface and therefore conforming to a first occlusal tooth surface) and a second impression conforming to at least a portion of a second occlusal tooth surface (see annotated figure 3a); and
a buccal wall (bracket positioning block 10) having a buccal wall base (lower portion of the block 10, see annotated figure 3b), a first side wall and a second side wall (see annotated figure 3b) the first and the second side extending from the buccal wall base and away from the top surface of the occlusal base (see annotated figure 3b), the buccal wall defining a well (coupling part 11) to releasably receive the orthodontic appliance (see par 62 which discloses the coupling part 11 having an interference fit with an orthodontic bracket allowing for easy removal),the buccal wall extending outwards beyond the outer perimeter of the occlusal base (see figure 2), wherein:
the buccal wall and the well (10/11) are in a first region of the indirect bonding tray associated with the first impression (see annotated figure 3a);
the first region is adjacent to a second region of the indirect bonding tray associated with the second impression (see annotated figure 3a); and
an outer wall of the second region extends to the outer perimeter of the occlusal base (see figure 3, where the two occlusal blocks 20 are connected to one another and annotated figure 3a where the partially drawn perimeter meets with the outer wall of the second region ).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3a
PNG
media_image2.png
357
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3b
Yu fails to explicitly disclose well to releasably engage receive the orthodontic appliance in a direction towards the buccal wall base and the well configured to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient,
TAO discloses an indirect bonding tray (par 2 and figures 1a-4) that teaches a buccal wall (bracket clamp 200) having a buccal wall base (clamp base 225), a first side (lip-facing pressure plate 210), and a second side (retaining arm 221), the first side and the second side extending from the buccal wall base (see figures 2a-b) and away from the top surface of the occlusal base (see annotated figure 2b), the buccal wall (200) defining a well (release grove 225) to releasably receive the orthodontic appliance in a direction towards the buccal wall base (par 84 discloses the release groove forming a space that connects the clamping space 230 and the outside and enables movement on a movement path of the lip type pressing plates 210 which would be towards and away from the base) and the well configured to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient (see figures 2a-2b, where the well places the bracket on the labial/buccal surface of a tooth and therefore is interpreted as being configured to conform to the surface as claimed) for the purpose of providing a desired release path that easily disengages the bracket and improves positioning effect (par 89-90).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to have a well which is shaped to releasably engage receive the orthodontic appliance in a direction towards the buccal wall base and the well-shaped to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient as taught by Yu for the purpose of providing a desired position of the bracket and a desired release path that easily disengages the bracket and improves positioning effect.
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses at least a portion of the well extends above a top surface of the second region, beyond the outer perimeter of the occlusal base, or both (see figure 3b, where the well 11 extends above the top surface of the second region).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses a lingual wall configured to cover at least a portion of the tooth, the lingual wall opposite the buccal wall (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses the tooth is a first tooth, the buccal wall is a first buccal wall, and further comprising a second buccal wall configured to cover at least a portion of a second tooth, the second tooth to be adjacent to the first tooth (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Yu discloses the tooth is a first tooth, and further comprising a lingual wall configured to cover at least a portion of a lingual surface of a second tooth, the second tooth to be adjacent to the first tooth (see figure 1 and 3, where the other occlusal blocks 20 including a surface which covers the lingual side of a second tooth that is adjacent to the first tooth).
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses the first impression is distal of the second impression or mesial of the second impression (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Yu discloses the orthodontic appliance is a molar tube, an orthodontic bracket, or an auxiliary appliance, and the auxiliary appliance comprises a bite turbo, a button, or a hook (par 92 discloses the appliance is orthodontic brackets 30).
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of TAO et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andreiko (US 2003/0224310).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses the orthodontic appliance is a first orthodontic appliance (see figure 2 and 4), but Yu/TAO fails to disclose the second region is not configured to releasably engage a second orthodontic appliance.
However, Andreiko teaches a first region (central section 82) which is configured to releasably engage a first orthodontic appliance (see figure 8 and par 57) and a second region (side extension 83) which is not configured to releasably engage the second orthodontic appliance (see figure 8, where the side extension includes a cavity or impression 84 for an adjacent tooth/teeth but does not include a buccal extension which would enable attachment of a bracket to the adjacent teeth) for the purpose of treating a malocclusion condition based on a scan that does not require placement of a bracket on a directly adjacent tooth (par 58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu/TAO to have the second region not include a buccal wall so that the second region is not configured to releasably engage a second orthodontic appliance as taught by Andreiko for the purpose of providing treatment for a malocclusion condition based on a scan that does not require placement of a bracket on a directly adjacent tooth.
Regarding claim 9, Yu/TAO disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1.
Yu further discloses the first impression and the second impression are on a first surface of the occlusal base (see figure 3), but Yu/TAO fail to disclose at least one recess defined in a second surface of the occlusal base, the second surface opposite the first surface.
However, Andreiko teaches at least one recess (holes 56 or notches 57) defined on a second (outer) surface of an occlusal base (see figure 6B-C and par 54) for the purpose of engaging the tray with a pair of tweezers to aid with placement (par 54).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu/TAO to have at least one recess defined in a second surface of the occlusal base, the second surface opposite the first surface as taught by Andreiko for the purpose of enabling placement with the aid of insertable tweezers.
Regarding claim 22 Yu/TAO disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 10, but fail to disclose the perforation is configured to extend from a base of the second impression through a portion of the occlusal base.
However, Andreiko teaches a perforation (slot 85) is configured to extend from a base of the second impression (84) through a portion of an occlusal base (side section 83/central section 82, see figure 8) for the purpose of enabling the side sections to be removed and reused in later treatments (par 58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu/TAO the perforation is configured to extend from a base of the second impression through a portion of the occlusal base as taught by Andreiko for the purpose of enabling the side sections to be removed and reused in later treatments.
Claim 10-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view of TAO et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schueller et al (US 2020/0345459).
Regarding claim 10, Yu/TAO fails to disclose a perforation defined in the second region and including a portion of the second impression and configured to allow the second region to be removed from the first region while leaving the first impression substantially fully intact after the second region is removed.
However, Schueller teaches a first and second region (modules 12) separated by perforations (defined by the coupling members 18, which par 44 discloses as being any type of preformed weakened cross-section such as recesses or notches) configured to allow each region to be removed from one another (par 44) for the purpose of allowing individual crown bonding or a subset of bonding as needed (par 44).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to include the perforations positioned between the second region and including a portion of the second impression and configured to allow the second region to be removed from the first region while leaving the first impression substantially fully intact after the second region is removed as taught by Schueller for the purpose of allowing individual crown bonding or a subset of bonding as needed.
Regarding claim 11, Yu/TAO fail to disclose the tooth is a molar. However, Schueller teaches modification of the geometry of the occlusal base and buccal wall (module 12) for a molar (par 14 discloses modifying the modulus to be relatively wider and longer for placement on a molar).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu to have the tooth be a molar as taught by Schueller for the purpose of enabling placement on desired teeth for desired malocclusion correction.
Regarding claim 12, Yu/TAO fails to disclose the tooth is a second molar, and the second impression is configured to releasably engage with a first molar. However, Schueller teaches modification of the occlusal base and buccal wall (module 12) being configured for a molar (par 14 discloses modifying the modulus to be relatively wider and longer for placement on a molar).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu/TAO to have the second impression be configured to releasably engage a first molar and the tooth be a second molar, by making the buccal wall and occlusal base wider and longer for placement on a molar as taught by Schueller for the purpose of enabling placement on desired teeth for desired malocclusion correction.
Regarding claim 21, Yu/TAO fails to disclose at least one side of the buccal wall is configured to contact at least a portion of the tooth of the patient.
Schueller teaches at least one side of the buccal wall (module 12) is configured to contact at least a portion of the tooth of the patient (in view of par 18 which discloses a swapped formation where the module is positioned against the lingual surface instead of the buccal surface, meaning in the original configuration the module is in contact against the buccal surface as seen in figure 5A) for the purpose of ensuring the brackets are maintained in their relative position over the surface of the tooth (par 16).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu/TAO to have the at least one side of the buccal wall is configured to contact at least a portion of the tooth of the patient as taught by Schueller for the purpose of ensuring the brackets are maintained in their relative position over the surface of the tooth.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view of TAO et al in view of Schueller et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Andreiko.
Regarding claim 22, Yu/TAO/Schueller disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 10, but fail to disclose the perforation is configured to extend from a base of the second impression through a portion of the occlusal base.
However, Andreiko teaches a perforation (slot 85) is configured to extend from a base of the second impression (84) through a portion of an occlusal base (side section 83/central section 82, see figure 8) for the purpose of enabling the side sections to be removed and reused in later treatments (par 58).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu/TAO/Schueller the perforation is configured to extend from a base of the second impression through a portion of the occlusal base as taught by Andreiko for the purpose of enabling the side sections to be removed and reused in later treatments.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view of TAO et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemchen (US 2008/0293004).
Yu/TAO discloses the well conforming to a buccal surface of a tooth (see figure 2b and par 92), but fails to disclose the well conforming to an outer surface of a molar tube.
However, Lemchen teaches a well conformed to an outer surface of a molar tube and buccal surface of the tooth (par 31-32 discloses the tray having a mounting area shaped for a tube 10 on the buccal side of the tray and figure 4 shows the attachment to a molar).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Yu/TAO to have the well conforms to an outer surface of a molar tube buccal surface of the tooth as taught by Lemchen for the purpose of providing an alternative attachment to a tooth that enables a secure attachment to a molar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/S.N.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights