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 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, 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al (CN 211355976 U) in view of Schueller et al (US 2020/0345459).
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 an outer perimeter (defined by the hatched marking in figure 2 ending at the mortise 23/the outer perimeter of all of the occlusal positioning blocks 20 seen in figures 1-3) 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 3); and
a buccal wall (bracket positioning block 10) defining a well (coupling part 11) to releasably engage 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 3);
the first region is adjacent to a second region of the indirect bonding tray associated with the second impression (see annotated figure 3); 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3
Yu fails to disclose the well configured to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient,
Schueller teaches an indirect bonding tray (IDB tray 10) configured to transfer for transferring an orthodontic appliance to a tooth of a patient by at least coupling the indirect bonding tray to the tooth of the patient (par 42 discloses the IDB being used to place brackets on the arch or partial arch of teeth) comprising an occlusal base (portion of module 12, that is pointed out as occlusal plane “OP” in figures 5A-B and par 54) and a buccal wall (portion of module 12, that is pointed out as buccal plant “BP”) defining a well (channel 16) to releasably engage the orthodontic appliance (bracket 20, see par 55 discloses bracket 20 is positioned with the channel 16 and can be removed from the channel by the removal tab, see par 55), the well (16) configured to conform to a buccal surface of the tooth of the patient (see figure 5A, where the well includes buccal surface BS which provides the perimeter of the well is conformed to the buccal surface of the tooth T, see 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 to have the well configured to conform to a buccal surface 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.
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 2, where the well 11 extends above the outer perimeter of the occlusal base).
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 10, Yu 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 fails 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 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 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 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).
Regarding claim 21, Schueller further 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 reasons set forth above.
Claims 4, 9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al in view of Schueller et al as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Andreiko (US 2003/0224310).
Regarding claim 4, Yu/Schueller disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1.
Yu discloses the orthodontic appliance is a first orthodontic appliance (see figure 2 and 4), but Yu/Schueller fail 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/Schueller 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/Schueller 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/Schueller 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/Schueller 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/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/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 Schueller et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemchen (US 2008/0293004).
In regard to claim 15, Yu/Schueller discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose the well conforms to an outer surface of a molar tube and buccal surface of the tooth.
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/Schueller 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 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.
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
3/23/2026