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 without traverse of Species B, and Species b in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 13, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “an” is missing in line 17 between the words “has” and “at”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of spacer bars” of Claim 14 and the “spacer bars provided with an elongated central portion with length different from that of the other said spacer bars” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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 1-10 and 12-15 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.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would qualify as “substantially perpendicular” and what would not.
The term “substantially to size” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially to size” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As it is unclear what size is being referenced, it is additionally unclear what would and would not be considered “substantially to size.”
The term “substantially in contact with or in abutment against” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially in contact with or in abutment against” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what could be considered substantially in contact with or in abutment against and what would not.
The term “substantially equal” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would qualify as substantially equal and what would not.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “partially counter-shaped.” As counters come in all shapes and sizes (and the claim only requires a partial counter-shape) for the purpose of examination, any shape or size will be considered “counter-shaped.”
Regarding Claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by “planar and opposite” in reference to the abutment surfaces, as it is unclear what they are planar to and opposite of.
Regarding Claim 4, it is unclear what element is being modified by the phrase “at least partially cylindrical. The punctuation of this phrase within the sentence makes it unclear if the housing seat is required to be partially cylindrical or the slide surface is required to be partially cylindrical.
All claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suriano et al (US 2020/0163742 A1, hereinafter “Suriano”).
Regarding Claim 1, Suriano discloses an orthodontic device (abstract) for treating malocclusions (the device of Suriano is capable of use for treating malocclusions), which comprises a support body (Figure 7, 6), which comprises an attachment base (see annotated figure below) intended to be fixed to a first tooth (described in [0047]) and on which a housing seat (see annotated figure below) is made. Suriano further discloses a spacer bar (8 and 11 taken together ), intended to be placed to connect between the support body and a second tooth (see Figure 7 where first tooth is 1 and second tooth is 2), the spacer bar comprising a hinging portion (7), rotatably connected to the support body around a rotation axis (see Figures 11-14) and at least partially inserted within the housing seat of the support body (as seen in Figure 12), an elongated central portion (tubes 8 and 11 as seen in Figures 11-14 have an elongated central portion), mainly extended along an extension direction starting from the hinging portion (Figures 11-14), and an end portion (portion at opposite end of hinging portion including elements 9 and 10), extended starting from the central portion in a position opposite the hinging portion and intended to be fixed to the second tooth (as seen in Figure 7). Suriano further discloses that the hinging portion of the spacer bar comprises two opposite planar surfaces (as seen in Figure 11 and annotated below), substantially perpendicular with respect to the rotation axis (see annotated figure below), a lateral surface (see annotated figure below), placed to connect the planar surfaces where the lateral surface of the hinging portion has at least partially cylindrical shape (as seen in Figure 11), and where the housing seat of the support body is at least partially counter-shaped with respect to said hinging portion and substantially to size (as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 2, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 1, and further discloses that the hinging portion forms, with the housing seat, a revolute joint around said rotation axis (R) (as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 1, and further discloses that the housing seat is internally delimited at least by two abutment surfaces (see annotated figure below), planar and opposite, which face the planar surfaces of the hinging portion and are configured for preventing the rotation of said hinging portion around an axis different from said rotation axis (R) (as seen in Figures 11-14 when the hinging potion is in the housing seat, rotation around a different axis would be prevented).
Regarding Claim 4, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 3, and further discloses that the housing seat is internally delimited at least by a slide surface (deepest internal surface within the housing seat not seen in Figures), at least partially cylindrical, which is placed to connect between the abutment surfaces and faces the lateral surface of the hinging portion (as would be the case when the hinging portion is seated in the housing seat).
Regarding Claim 5, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 3, and further discloses that the planar surfaces of the hinging portion are placed substantially in contact with or in abutment against the abutment surfaces (as would be the case when the hinging portion is seated in the housing seat).
Regarding Claim 6, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 3, and further discloses that the distance between the abutment surfaces of the housing seat is substantially equal to the distance between the planar surfaces of the hinging portion (as seen in Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 7, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 1, and further discloses that the support body comprises an access mouth (see annotated figure below) starting from which the housing seat is extended, the access mouth having size equal to or greater than the hinging portion of said spacer bar in order to allow the passage of said hinging portion (as seen in Figures 11-14).
Regarding Claim 8, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 7, and further discloses that the hinging portion comprises a closure surface (see annotated figure below), which is connected with the lateral surface by a peripheral edge (see annotated figure below), where the hinging portion is placed in the housing seat in at least one operating position in which the peripheral edge of the closure surface is placed at the access mouth, or the peripheral edge of the closure surface is placed within said housing seat (see Figures 11-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 1, and further discloses that the end portion comprises at least one hook (Figure 11, 10) intended to be associated with an elastic tensioning element (Figure 7, 14).
Regarding Claim 10, Suriano discloses the orthodontic device of claim 9, and further discloses that the end portion comprises an end edge (end edge is bottom edge of element 8 at the end portion) opposite the hinging portion, where the hook is extended along the extension direction (D) starting from the end edge (hook 10 extends from end edge and hooks in a manner that is in an extension direction as seen in Figure 11).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suriano in view of Payne (US 2022/0202534 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Suriano discloses the invention as claimed as described above, but does not teach the support body with at least one occlusogingival marking line parallel to the rotation axis and at least one mesiodistal marking line parallel to the extension direction. In the same art of orthodontic devices, Payne teaches a support body (Figure 1, 106) with occlusogigival marking lines parallel to the rotation axis and at least one mesiodistal marking line parallel to the extension direction (as seen in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include marking lines as taught by Payne on the support body of Suriano in order to assist the orthodontist with alignment upon insertion.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suriano in view of Patel (US 2022/0192791 A1).
Regarding Claims 14, Suriano discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above, but does not teach a kit with a plurality of spacer bars. In the same art of orthodontic devices, Patel discloses an orthodontic kit for treating malocclusions (abstract and Figure 4) comprising at least one support body (Figure 4, 16) and a plurality of spacer bars (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide multiple spacer bars as taught by Patel in order to form a kit when the malocclusion requires treatment on both sides of the mouth as disclosed by Patel in Figure 4.
Regarding Claim 15, Suriano in view of Patel discloses the invention of Claim 14 as described above, but does not teach the spacer bars with an elongated central portion with different lengths. As the device of Suriano is adjustable for length (as seen in Figures 12-14), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the kit provided by Suriano in view of Patel would have spacer bars of different length when installed in order to meet the specific needs of the patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772