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, 6-10, 13-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al (US 2018/0161126) in view of Kim et al (US 2011/0091832).
Regarding claim 1, Marshall discloses an aligner attachment placement device (guide tray 30), comprising:
a plurality of registration anchors having occlusal contact surfaces that are shaped to register with occlusal surfaces of a first set of a patient’s teeth (par 16 discloses the guide tray having surfaces congruent to the occlusal lingual and labial teeth, see figure 1 and annotated figure 2), wherein the first set of the patient’s teeth is different than the second set of the patient’s teeth (see annotated figure 2, where a set of first and second teeth have been designated as different with both having surfaces in contact with the occlusal and lingual surfaces);
a plurality of retention supports having lingual contact surfaces that are shaped to register with lingual surfaces of a second set of the patient’s teeth (par 16 discloses the guide tray having surfaces congruent to the occlusal lingual and labial teeth, see figure 1 and annotated figure 2), wherein the first set of the patient’s teeth is different than the second set of the patient’s teeth
an aligner attachment (bracket 14) configured to be bonded to one of the patient’s teeth (par 20), wherein the aligner attachment (14) is shaped to interact with an aligner to impart forces on the one of the patient’s teeth when the aligner attachment is bonded to the one of the patient’s teeth and the aligner is worn on the patient’s dental arch (in view of par 20 which discloses the attachment of the bracket by adhesive or cement for use in an orthodontic treatment and thus can be used with an aligner in an orthodontic treatment); and
an attachment frame (portion of the guide tray 30 around an opening 32) that at least partially surrounds a perimeter of the aligner attachment (see figure 3), the attachment frame including one or more struts (occlusal registration features 38 and lateral registration features 40) that connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame (see par 29 which discloses the registrations features 38/40 being in minimal contact with the bracket pad)
Marshall fails to disclose the one or more struts frangibly connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame.
Kim teaches a frangible connection between an aligner attachment (appliance 16’) and attachment frame (frangible web 81’, see par 16) for the purpose of providing sufficient retention between the frame and aligner while making it easily detachable (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 Marshall to have the one or more struts frangibly connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing sufficient retention between the frame and aligner to enable transportation while making it easily detachable.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
Regarding claim 2, Marshall discloses the plurality of registration anchors and the plurality of retention supports are coupled together by a support frame (see figures 1-3, wherein the support frame is interpreted as the parts of the tray between the registration anchors/surface adjacent to the occlusal surface of the tooth and the retention support/surface adjacent to the lingual surface of the tooth).
Regarding claim 6, Marshall/Kim disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1. Marshall teaches an interface region between each of the one or more struts (38/40) and the aligner attachment (14/16, see figure 3 where the interface is where the minimal contact between the one or more struts and the aligner attachment), but fails to disclose the frangible connection at the interface regions. However, Kim teaches the connection between an attachment (16) and a connecting member (81) being frangible (see par 16), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, Marshall/Kim disclose the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 6. Kim teaches the breakaway between the aligner attachment (16) and frangible interface region (web 81’) to break away (par 16), for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Marshall further discloses the shapes of the occlusal contact surfaces and the lingual contact surfaces are based on virtual model of the patient’s dental arch (par 48 discloses the tray being digitally designed based on the patient’s virtual model of the arch).
Regarding claim 9, Marshall further discloses the aligner attachment includes a mating surface that has a shape to match a contour of the one of the patient’s teeth (via pad 16, see figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Marshall further discloses the aligner attachment (14/16) includes an auxiliary feature that is configured to engage with one or more orthodontic devices, wherein the auxiliary feature includes a power arm, a hook, a button, a spring, a bracket, a wire, a rod, or an elastic (wings 46 of the bracket 14 are configured to be engaged with the arch wire, via an arch wire slot and the aligner attachment which is interpreted as the pad 16 and bracket 14 includes a bracket 14, see par 43 and figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, Marshall discloses the attachment frame is arranged to position the aligner attachment on a buccal surface of the one of the patient’s teeth (see figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Marshall discloses the aligner attachment placement device includes multiple aligner attachments with corresponding attachment frames and one or more struts (see figures 1-3 and par 20).
Regarding claim 21, Marshall discloses a support frame (any portion of the tray 60, as seen in figure 6 that extends/connects between the lingual portion 61 and the occlusal portion 63) configured to extend along the patent's dental arch (see figure 2), wherein the plurality of registration anchors and the plurality of retention supports extend from the support frame and are only connected by the support frame (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, Marshall discloses a method of attaching an aligner attachment (par 6), the method comprising:
placing an aligner attachment placement device onto a dental arch, wherein the aligner attachment placement device positions the aligner attachment with respect to a predetermined position on a surface of a tooth of the dental arch (par 51 discloses the fabricated guide tray being secured to the teeth of the patient and being used to assist in the direct bond placement of the orthodontic attachment), wherein the aligner attachment placement device includes:
registration anchors having occlusal contact surfaces that register with occlusal surfaces of a first set of teeth of the dental arch (par 16 discloses the guide tray having surfaces congruent to the occlusal lingual and labial teeth, see figure 1 and annotated figure 2);
retention supports having lingual contact surfaces that register with lingual surfaces of a second set of teeth of the dental arch (par 16 discloses the guide tray having surfaces congruent to the occlusal lingual and labial teeth, see figure 1 and annotated figure 2), wherein the first set of the patient’s teeth is different than the second set of the patient’s teeth (see annotated figure 2, where a set of first and second teeth have been designated as different with both having surfaces in contact with the occlusal and lingual surfaces);
the aligner attachment (bracket 14) that is shaped to interact with an aligner to impart forces on the tooth when the aligner attachment is bonded to the tooth and the aligner is worn on the dental arch (in view of par 20 which discloses the attachment of the bracket by adhesive or cement for use in an orthodontic treatment and thus can be used with an aligner in an orthodontic treatment); and
an attachment frame (portion of the guide tray 30 around an opening 32) that at least partially surrounds a perimeter of the aligner attachment (see figure 3), the attachment frame including one or more struts (occlusal registration features 38 and lateral registration features 40) that connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame (see par 29 which discloses the registrations features 38/40 being in minimal contact with the bracket pad);
affixing the aligner attachment to the predetermined position on the surface of the tooth (par 51-52).
Marshall fails to disclose the one or more struts frangibly connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame.
Kim teaches a frangible connection between an aligner attachment (appliance 16’) and attachment frame (frangible web 81’, see par 16) for the purpose of providing sufficient retention between the frame and aligner while making it easily detachable (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 Marshall to have the one or more struts frangibly connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing sufficient retention between the frame and aligner to enable transportation while making it easily detachable.
Regarding claim 16, Marshall/Kim disclose the claimed invention as set forth above by claim 15. Marshall discloses releasing the aligner attachment from the aligner attachment placement device at an interface region between the one or more struts and the aligner attachment (par 27-28 discloses the features of the guide tray which facilitate the removal of the tray in a releasably friction fit to the dentition and the removal being performed after the attachment of the bracket is set and cleaned up, therefore releasing the minimal contact between the bracket and the registration features). Kim teaches a connection between an aligner attachment and an aligner attachment placement device interface region being frangible or breaking away (see par 16), for the reason set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Marshall further discloses each of the one or more struts has a tapered shape (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Marshall discloses an aligner attachment placement device (guide tray 30), comprising:
an attachment frame (portion of the guide tray 30 around an opening 32) that at least partially surrounds a perimeter of the aligner attachment (see figure 3), the attachment frame including one or more struts (occlusal registration features 38 and lateral registration features 40) that connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame (see par 29 which discloses the registrations features 38/40 being in minimal contact with the bracket pad)
registration anchors having occlusal contact surfaces that are shaped to correspond with occlusal surfaces of a first set of a patient’s teeth (par 16 discloses the guide tray having surfaces congruent to the occlusal lingual and labial teeth, see figure 1 and annotated figure 2); and
retention supports having lingual contact surfaces that are shaped to correspond with lingual surfaces of a second set of the patient’s teeth (par 16 discloses the guide tray having surfaces congruent to the occlusal lingual and labial teeth, see figure 1 and annotated figure 2), wherein the first set of the patient’s teeth is different than the second set of the patient’s teeth (see annotated figure 2, where a set of first and second teeth have been designated as different with both having surfaces in contact with the occlusal and lingual surfaces);
wherein the registration anchors and retention supports are arranged such that when the registration anchors are placed on the occlusal surfaces of the first set of a patient’s teeth, and retention supports are placed on the lingual surfaces of the second set of the patient’s teeth, the aligner attachment is located with respect to a predetermined position on a surface of a tooth of the patient’s teeth (par 16-18 discloses a plurality of tooth segments that have corresponding occlusal surface, labial surface and/or lingual surface).
Marshall fails to disclose the one or more struts frangibly connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame.
Kim teaches a frangible connection between an aligner attachment (appliance 16’) and attachment frame (frangible web 81’, see par 16) for the purpose of providing sufficient retention between the frame and aligner while making it easily detachable (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 Marshall to have the one or more struts frangibly connect the aligner attachment to the attachment frame as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing sufficient retention between the frame and aligner to enable transportation while making it easily detachable.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al in view of Kim et al as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Andreiko (US 2007/0031775)
Regarding claim 3, Marshall/Kim discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose the registration anchors and retention support are arranged such that at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth has either: an associated registration anchor and no associated retention support; or an associated retention support and no associated registration anchor.
However, Andreiko teaches a registration anchor arranged such that at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth has no retention support (see figure 4a which shows a registration anchor the surface of body 11c in contact with the occlusal surface, which shows no retention support in combination with other teeth like in 4c-d that have a surface that is both adjacent to the occlusal and lingual surface)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Marshall/Kim to have the registration anchors and retention support are arranged such that at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth has either: an associated registration anchor and no associated retention support; or an associated retention support and no associated registration anchor as taught above by Andreiko for the purpose of providing space and reducing the cost of printing by limiting material.
Regarding claim 17, Marshall/Kim discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 15, but fails to disclose the registration anchors and retention support are arranged such that at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth has either: an associated registration anchor and no associated retention support; or an associated retention support and no associated registration anchor.
However, Andreiko teaches a registration anchor arranged such that at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth has no retention support (see figure 4a which shows a registration anchor the surface of body 11c in contact with the occlusal surface, which shows no retention support in combination with other teeth like in 4c-d that have a surface that is both adjacent to the occlusal and lingual surface))
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Marshall/Kim to have the registration anchors and retention support are arranged such that at least one tooth of the patient’s teeth has either: an associated registration anchor and no associated retention support; or an associated retention support and no associated registration anchor as taught above by Andreiko for the purpose of providing space and reducing the cost of printing by limiting material.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al in view of Kim et al as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Dellinger et al (US 4,360,341).
Regarding claim 4, Marshall/Kim discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose at least one of the retention supports is configured to register with a tooth that is not the one of the patient’s teeth for bonding the aligner attachment.
Dellinger teaches a retention support (extension 34) is configured to register with a tooth that is not the one of the patient’s teeth for bonding an attachment (see figures 1-2) for the purpose of placing brackets in a position to facilitate treatment of malocclusion (col 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marshall/Kim to have at least one of the retention supports is configured to register with a tooth that is not the one of the patient’s teeth for bonding the aligner attachment as taught by Dellinger for the purpose of positioning the aligner attachment to the tooth in a desired position to provide treatment.
Regarding claim 19, Marshall/Kim discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 15, but fails to disclose when the aligner attachment placement device is placed on the dental arch, at least one of the retention supports contacts a tooth that is not the tooth on which the aligner attachment is affixed.
Dellinger teaches when an aligner attachment placement device (32) is placed on the dental arch (see figure 1-3), at least one of a retention supports (extension 34) contacts a tooth that is not the tooth on which the aligner attachment is affixed (see figures 1-2) for the purpose of placing brackets in a position to facilitate treatment of malocclusion (col 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marshall/Kim when the aligner attachment placement device is placed on the dental arch, at least one of the retention supports contacts a tooth that is not the tooth on which the aligner attachment is affixed as taught by Dellinger for the purpose of positioning the aligner attachment to the tooth in a desired position to provide treatment.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al in view of Kim et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ko (JP 200014681).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Marshall/Kim discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, but fails to disclose each of the retention supports includes an extension arm with a distal tooth contact portion, wherein the tooth contact portion includes a corresponding lingual contact surface and at least part of the extension arm has a smaller width than the tooth contact portion.
Ko teaches a retention support which includes an extension arm (arm 3) with a distal tooth contact portion (indicator 3), wherein the tooth contact portion includes a corresponding contact surface (surface 71) and at least part of the extension arm (end 31) has a smaller width than the tooth contact portion (see figures 2 and 3A-B).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marshall/Kim to have each of the retention supports includes an extension arm with a distal tooth contact portion, wherein the tooth contact portion includes a corresponding lingual contact surface and at least part of the extension arm has a smaller width than the tooth contact portion as taught by Ko for the purpose of providing a fixed support of the retention support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Marshall in view of Kim fails to disclose the first and second set of teeth being different, however as set forth above, Marshall discloses different sets of teeth (see annotated figure 2 above) each having the registration anchor with occlusal contact surfaces and retention supports with lingual contact surfaces as the claim does not require that the registration anchors and retention support be exclusive to the claimed set of teeth.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights