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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 12/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not unrelated or cannot be used together, or have different functions . This is not found persuasive because the invention do have different function as recited in the restriction requirement and the products can be made by a materially different process than 3d printing as recited it the restriction requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 9-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/26/2025. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because: - reference character “30” has been used to designate both the proximal end in figure 6 and a part of the stud in figure 5. -reference characters "30" and "32" have both been used to designate the proximal end in figures 5 and 6. 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. 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. 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 , 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al. (US 2006/0019213 A1). Regarding claim 1, Graham discloses a dental appliance (Fig. 1 all) , comprising: a first appliance tray configured to cover at least a portion of a first dental arch of an individual (Fig. 1 upper / maxiallary tray of element 1) , the first appliance tray having a protrusion at a hardware attachment location (Fig. 1/7 element 3/61 showing the protrusion) ; a first stud disposed on an internal side of the protrusion of the first appliance tray (Fig. 7 element 51/71) , the first stud having a flange on a proximal end (Fig. 7 element 51) and external threads disposed through a hole of the protrusion ( Fig. 7 element 71) ; and a first anchor disposed on an external side of the protrusion having first internal threads on a proximal end engaged with the external threads of the first stud such that a portion of the protrusion is captured between the flange of the first stud and the first anchor (Fig. 7 element 72 having first internal threads near opening on proximal side) , and wherein the first anchor includes second internal threads on a distal end (fig. 7 element 72 having second internal threads at the end near 54) . Further r egarding claim 1 r ecit ation of the limitation of the dental appliance being 3d-printed . This limitation is being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Regarding claim 3, Graham further discloses wherein the first stud and the first anchor are made from a plastic (paragraph [0018] all disclosing the hook 3 includes the stud and the anchor, and paragraph [0025] lines 1-2 disclosing the hook and thus the stud and anchor can be made of plastic) . Regarding claim 4 , Graham further discloses wherein the plastic is nylon (paragraph [0025] lines 1-2 disclosing the hook is made of nylon) . Regarding claim 6, Graham f urther discloses : a second appliance tray configured to cover at least a portion of a second dental arch of an individual (Fig. 1 lower/mandible tray of element 1) , the second appliance tray having a protrusion at a hardware attachment location (Fig. 1/7 element 3/61) ; a second stud disposed on an internal side of the protrusion of the second appliance tray (Fig. 7 element 51/71), the second stud having a flange on a proximal end (Fig. 7 element 51) and external threads disposed through a hole of the protrusion( Fig. 7 element 71); and a second anchor disposed on an external side of the protrusion having first internal threads on a proximal end engaged with the external threads of the second stud such that a portion of the protrusion is captured between the flange of the second stud and the second anchor (Fig. 7 element 72 having first internal threads near opening on proximal side), and wherein the second anchor includes second internal threads on a distal end (fig. 7 element 72 having second internal threads at the end near 54). Claims 1 , 2, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (EP 3335665 A2). Regarding claim 1, Khan discloses a 3d printed dental appliance (Fig. 2a showing upper and lower appliance), comprising: a first appliance tray configured to cover at least a portion of a first dental arch of an individual (Fig. 2a upper/ maxiallary tray of element 2 of figure 2b), the first appliance tray having a protrusion at a hardware attachment location (Fig. 7 element 3 showing the protrusion); a first stud disposed on an internal side of the protrusion of the first appliance tray (Fig. 9a element 5), the first stud having a flange on a proximal end (Fig. 9a element 5 having a flange/screw head seen in Fig. 4) and external threads disposed through a hole of the protrusion(Fig. 9a element 5 extending through a hole in the protrusion); and a first anchor disposed on an external side of the protrusion having first internal threads on a proximal end engaged with the external threads of the first stud such that a portion of the protrusion is captured between the flange of the first stud and the first anchor (Fig. 4 element 4 having first internal threads near opening on proximal side , Fig. 9a showing the capture ), and wherein the first anchor includes second internal threads on a distal end (fig. 4 element 23 having second internal threads at the end near 4, paragraph [0018] disclosing the bore hole of 23 is internally threaded and thus would have a first and second internal threads , alternatively Fig. 3 showing that ball joint 10 is screwed into 4, thus the threads of 4 to receive 10 would also read on the second internal threads ). Further r egarding claim 1, while Khan does recite a 3d printed appliance (paragraph [0037] disclosing 3d printing ) ,t his limitation is being viewed as a product by process claim of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Regarding claim 2, Khan further discloses a fastener joined with the second internal threads of the first anchor (Fig. 3 element 10 for fastening accessories to the appliance is joined to the second internal threads). Regarding claim 6, Khan further discloses: a second appliance tray configured to cover at least a portion of a second dental arch of an individual (Fig. 2a lower/mandible tray of element 2 ), the second appliance tray having a protrusion at a hardware attachment location (Fig. 7 element 3); a second stud disposed on an internal side of the protrusion of the second appliance tray (Fig. 9a element 5), the second stud having a flange on a proximal end (Fig. 9a element 5 having a flange/screw head seen in Fig. 4) and external threads disposed through a hole of the protrusion(Fig. 9a element 5 extending through a hole in the protrusion); and a second anchor disposed on an external side of the protrusion having first internal threads on a proximal end engaged with the external threads of the second stud such that a portion of the protrusion is captured between the flange of the second stud and the second anchor (Fig. 4 element 4 having first internal threads near opening on proximal side, Fig. 9a showing the capture), and wherein the second anchor includes second internal threads on a distal end (fig. 4 element 23 having second internal threads at the end near 4, paragraph [0018] disclosing the bore hole of 23 is internally threaded and thus would have a first and second internal threads, alternatively Fig. 3 showing that ball joint 10 is screwed into 4, thus the threads of 4 to receive 10 would also read on the second internal threads). Regarding claim 7, Khan further discloses a hardware component (Fig s . 2a-3 element 6 ) having a first fastener and a second fastener (Fig. 2a-3 element 10 ) , wherein the hardware component is mechanically affixed to the first anchor by the first fastener and mechanically affixed to the second anchor by the second fastener (fi gs. 2-3 element 6 is attached the respective first and second anchors y fasteners 10 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Khan further discloses a Herbst appliance comprising a 3D-printed dental appliance according to claim 1 ( paragraph [0019] all disclosing a Herbst appliance of the device). 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 . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 2006/0019213 A1) in view of Duerr et al. (DE 3839724 A1). Graham discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the external threads of the first stud and or the first internal threads of the first anchor include an adhesive. However, Duerr discloses a dental implant having a screw with threads and a channel with internal threads that for a screw in region that is coated with an adhesive ( translation page 3 lines 14-16). Therefore i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adhesive on either the external threads or internal threads as taught by Duerr into the threads as taught by Graham for the purpose o f securing the screwed connection from loosening as taught by Duerr (translation page 3 lines 14-16) . Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (EP 3335665 A2) in view of Duerr et al. (DE 3839724 A1). Khan discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the external threads of the first stud and or the first internal threads of the first anchor include an adhesive. However, Duerr discloses a dental implant having a screw with threads and a channel with internal threads that for a screw in region that is coated with an adhesive (translation page 3 lines 14-16). Therefore i t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an adhesive on either the external threads or internal threads as taught by Duerr into the threads as taught by Khan for the purpose of securing the screwed connection from loosening as taught by Duerr (translation page 3 lines 14-16). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3250 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eric Rosen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /M. P.S / Examiner, Art Unit 3772 02/19/2026 /EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772