Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112
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.
Claims 10-12 and 17-19 are 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.
In claims 10-12 and 17-19, lines 3 and 4 the “preferably” limitations are not understood. Are the elements a required element of the claims? Claims should set forth what is required, not elements that may or may not be required.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch (US 2022/0202537) in view of Lewis et al (US7,963,767).
Hirsch discloses a “self-ligating orthodontic bracket” 1 comprising a bracket body 2 having a base 4, bonding surface 5, wall portions forming arch wire slot 3 and a door channel 6 formed perpendicularly with respect to the arch wire slot 3. The Hirsch orthodontic bracket further includes a covering door 7 slidably received within the door channel 6 for opening 9 and closing 8 the arch wire slot 3. The Hirsch orthodontic bracket further includes a securing device 10 for holding the covering door 7 in the closed position 8 or the open position 9.
The Hirsch orthodontic bracket lacks the claimed bracket body “lock part” and the covering door counter lock part for locking the covering door in the closed position. Lewis et al, however, teaches that it is desirable to form the leading edge of the covering door as a counter lock part 505 and to form a lock part 508, 511 in the bracket body in order to prevent up and down movement of the covering door when in the closed position (note Figures 7A-7F and column 11, lines 2-6). To have provided the Hirsch orthodontic bracket body with a lock part and the covering door with a counter lock part in order to prevent up and down movement of the covering door as taught by Lewis et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 3, note the notch 19 in covering door 7 for receiving the securing device 10 in Hirsch. In regard to claim 5, note the depression 29 along arch wire slot 3 for receiving tool 30 (see Figure 3b) in Hirsch. In regard to claim 7, note recess 26 in Hirsch. In regard to claims 8 and 15, the Hirsch/Lewis et al orthodontic bracket has a frictional connection. In regard to claims 9 and 16, the up/down motion described in Lewis et al is in the labial lingual direction. In regard to claims 10 and 17, counter-lock 505 formed in the covering door taught by Lewis et al is a “projection” and the lock part 508, 511 in the bracket body taught by Lewis et al forms a “deepening.” In regard to claims 11 and 18, the counter-lock 505 described in Lewis et al is wedge-shaped. In regard to claims 12 and 19, the lock part 508, 511 taught by Lewis et al is triangular.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirsch ‘537 (US 2022/0202537) and Lewis et al (US7,963,767) in further view of Hirsch ‘963 (US 2017/0245963).
While Hirsch ‘537 and Lewis et al both teach forming a depression in the bracket along the arch wire slot opposite the covering door (Hirsch ‘536 depression 29; Lewis et al depression 204 – Fig 4) they fail to teach forming a protrusion in the covering door corresponding to the depression. Hirsch ‘963, however, for a similar self-ligating orthodontic bracket teach the formation of a projection 22 on the leading edge of the covering door for engaging a depression 15 similar to that of Hirsch ‘536 and Lewis et al. Hirsch ‘963 teaches that the middle protrusion helps to better distribute the forces applied to the clip (note paragraph [0028]). To have provided the Hirsch ‘537/Lewis et al covering door with a middle protrusion to engage the depression to better distribute forces would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the teaching by Hirsch ’936.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712