Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/543,098

CERAMIC PROCESSING AND DESIGN FOR THE DIRECT MANUFACTURE OF CUSTOMIZED LABIAL AND LINGUAL ORTHODONTIC CLEAR ALIGNER ATTACHMENTS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
EIDE, HEIDI MARIE
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Lightforce Orthodontics Inc.
OA Round
4 (Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 1022 resolved
-19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+31.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
1082
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
16.3%
-23.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1022 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 § 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 23-24, 27-32, 34, 37-39, 41-42 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 each of the independent claims that applicant claims “a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base, wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth”. The applicant then further claims a first, second third, and fourth retentive edge. It is unclear if the claimed “four retentive edges” are the claimed first, second, third, and fourth retentive edges or different. It is noted for examination purposes, the claimed first, second, third, and fourth retentive edges are being interpreted as the claimed four edges, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed. Further, it is unclear how the single “retentive wall” which has four edges is contoured to a curvature of a tooth. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed retentive wall is being interpreted as the “wall” making up the four sides of the device, i.e. each side surface extending from the base. Such that the claimed “wall” is four walls or surfaces as claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the end surface of the “wall” or the end surfaces of each of the four walls/edges that is connected to the base is the surface that is contoured to match the surface of the tooth. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as discussed above in detail, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed. With respect to claim 34 the claimed first and second surface are unclear in view of the limitations of the first retentive edge and the second retentive edge in the independent claim. In the independent claim, the applicant claims the first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges and a second retentive edge extending form a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge and further a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle. Therefore, it is unclear how the limitations of claim 34 are met with respect to those of the independent claim. For example how can the claimed retentive edge extend from a first edge of the base, have the fifth edge extending between the first and second claimed retentive edge and then further have a first surface that also extends upwards from the first edge of the base to a top of the first retentive edge. Therefore, it is noted that the claimed retentive edges in the independent claim appear to be the same as the surfaces which “extends upwards” from the first and second edge respectively. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed surfaces are being interpreted as the claimed retentive edges of the independent claim, and therefore, the claim does not appear to be further limiting claim 23, however, the applicant should ament the claim to clarify what is being claimed. With respect to claim 37, the claimed “third surface” is unclear in view of the claimed fifth retentive edge of the independent claim. It is noted that the applicant has claimed a fifth edge that extends over an outer edge of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge. It is noted that the outer end of the retentive edges are opposite the base, therefore, the fifth surface extending between the two surfaces would be opposite the base surface. Therefore the claimed third surface opposite the base of claim 37 appears to be the same as the fifth surface of the independent claim. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed surface is being interpreted as the claimed fifth retentive edge of the independent claim, and therefore, the claim does not appear to be further limiting, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. With respect to claim 38, it is noted that the claim depends from claim 37 in which the specific surface is unclear and it is being interpreted as being the same surface as the claimed fifth retentive surface, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. With respect to claim 39, it is unclear what edges and surfaces are being further limited as being curved in view of the retention wall with the curved surfaces. It is noted that for examination purposes, they are being interpreted as the retention wall and the end of the retention wall that is fitted to the teeth, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. Further with respect to claims 38-39, the claimed “first curvature” and “second curvature” are unclear. It is noted that the independent claim claims a curvature and therefore it is unclear how the curvature of the independent claim is not a first curvature. The applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed. With respect to claim 42, it is unclear what is being claimed. The pre-able of the claim seems to be directed towards a non-transitory computer readable storage medium of an additive manufacturing device that is operable to perform a method, but then the preamble claims “the method comprising: using the additive manufacturing device to produce the attachment tube”. Therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim an additive manufacturing device comprising a non-transitory computer readable storge medium which is configured to perform the claimed method of producing the attachment tube or a method of producing the attachment tube using an additive manufacturing device having a non-transitory computer readable medium. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as an additive manufacturing device comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to carry out the method as claimed including manufacturing the attachment tube, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. It is noted that the preamble and the body of the claim do not match and what is being claimed is confusing. 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. Claim(s) 23-24, 32, 34, 37, 39 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (2013/0209952) in view of Phan et al. (6,309,215) in view of Wiechmann et al. (2007/0015104) in view of Moon et al. (2012/0129118) in view of Farzin-Nia (5,295,823). Kuo teaches with respect to claim 23 a method of manufacturing a clear alinger attachment tube, the method comprising obtaining a three-dimensional model of one or more teeth of a patient (pars. 4, 24, 32, 33, 42-43, such that a computer is used to determine the movements of the teeth and design the aligners and the brackets are placed digitally, therefore, a 3D model is obtained), generating a 3D model of an attachment tube using the 3D model of the one or more teeth of the patient (pars. 43, 57, claims 16-17, specifically claims 16-17 teach a 3D model of the tooth and bracket, par. 57 teaches “Bracket geometry may also be reduced to resemble an aligner attachment, such that it becomes a bracket-attachment hybrid (an attachment with a tube designed to engage an archwire for example), it is noted that it is 3D in that the bracket is 3d), the attachment tube is configured for use with a clear aligner to move the patient’s teeth (par. 57, “Brackets can even be selected with one or more surfaces that contact or even engage a surface of an aligner”); the attachment tube is designed comprising a base for attachment to the one or more teeth of the patient (see fig. 4) and to receive a portion of an archwire to move the patient’s teeth without the clear aligner (par. 57 regarding the attachment having slot for an archwire, such that it can be used without the aligner) and manufacturing the attachment tube based on the 3D model of the attachment tube (par. 43 and claims 16-17, such that the attachment tube is designed digitally, therefore it is obviously manufactured in some way for use as designed). Kuo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the attachment tube is designed with a trapezoidal shape, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base, wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, the retentive wall comprising, a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from the third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending form a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle to provide the trapezoidal shape and the attachment tube is manufactured using an additive manufacturing device. Phan teaches generating a 3D model of an attachment (see claim 4), the attachment is designed with a trapezoidal shape comprising wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base (see fig. 9B, such that the base is the surface that element 102 in figures 9A and 9C is attached to, see annotated figure below, see fig. 8 alternative view showing 4 side on an upper surface that are connected to 4 sides on the base surface), a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges (such that the edge is opposite the second edge in the annotated figure), a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle to provide the trapezoidal shape (see annotated figured below, the first edge being opposite the 2nd edge and the 4th edge being opposite the 3rd edge such that they are not visible in the figure, the shading showing the trapezoidal shape). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the attachment tube (disclosed as an alinger attachment with a tube in it) taught by Kuo to include the trapezoidal shape as taught by in order to apply the desired repositioning forces (see abstract, col. 3, ll. 7-20 of Phan). It is noted that the combination teaches the attachment tube as claimed which is configured to receive and archwire. Kuo/Phan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach manufacturing the attachment tube based on the 3D model of the attachment tube using additive manufacturing and the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base. PNG media_image1.png 252 298 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 412 469 media_image2.png Greyscale Wiechmann teaches a method for manufacturing a clear aligner attachment by additive manufacturing (see fig. 13B, par. 94 such that the hook of attachment element is optional), the method comprising generating a 3D model of one or more teeth of the patient (par. 89), generating a 3D model of the attachment (pars. 90-91, 100, 115), wherein the 3D model of the attachment is designed comprising a base for attachment to the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see pars. 115) and manufacturing the attachment based on the 3D model of the attachment using additive manufacturing (par. 100). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Kuo/Phan to include the use of an additive manufacturing machine to manufacture the attachment as taught by Wiechmann in order to quickly and easily manufacture the attachment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Kuo/Phan to include the shape the surface of the base that is to be attached to the surface of the tooth to match the tooth as taught by Wiechmann in order to ensure a better fit and more secure fit. Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base Moon teaches an attachment comprising a base for attachment to the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface 110 is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises, a plurality of retentive surfaces 130 configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess (see figs. 2-3), a retentive wall 120, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base (see fig. 2, par. 35-36), wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see annotated figure below, par. 34 regarding the curvature matching the surface of a tooth, such that retentive wall 120 extends from the base 110 a predetermined height and therefore, is contoured to match the surface of the tooth such that it extends from the contoured wall at the same predetermined height around the perimeter of the base), wherein the retentive wall comprises a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges (see annotated figure below, such that the retentive edges extend upwards from the base surface and cannot be seen clearly in the viewpoint of the figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann to include the retentive features and retentive wall as taught by Choi in order increase the bonding strength of the bracket on the teeth. PNG media_image3.png 325 556 media_image3.png Greyscale Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the retention elements has a positive draft angle. Farzin-Nia teaches an attachment element comprising a base for attachment to one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive structures 12 having a positive draft angle (formed by undercuts 19), wherein the adjacent retentive structure of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess 20 (see figs. 1, 2D, 3D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the retentive structures taught by Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon to have a positive draft angle as taught by Farzin-Nia as a matter of obvious design choice since such a modification would have involves a mere change in the shape of a component (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that the retentions elements taught by Moon, Farzin-Nia and the applicant all function in the same manner as to increase the surface area and improve the bonding strength of the attachment to the tooth. It is further noted that Farzin-Nia teaches several different shapes and arrangements are known equivalents for improving the bonding strength. With respect to claim 24, Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Kuo further teaches wherein the attachment tube comprises a channel (par. 57, such that it is a “tube” which is hollow, further it engages that archwire). With respect to claim 32, Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Phan further teaches the attachment is small having a base up to 4 mm across and up to 6mm long and protruding a maximum of 2.5mm. Therefore, Phan teaches the attachment comprises a cross section of no more than 0.5 mm2. Such if the base is 1 mm and the height is 0.5mm, the cross section would be 0.5 mm2 which would meet the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kuo with the dimensions of the attachment taught by Phan in order to by in order to apply the desired repositioning forces (see abstract, col. 3, ll. 7-20) of Phan. With respect to claim 34, Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Kuo teaching, as best understood, a first surface (the first retentive edge) that extends upwards form the first edge of the base to a top of the first retentive edge (i.e. the top of the edge which is connected to the fifth edge), a second surface (the second retentive edge) that extends upwards form the second edge of the base to a top of the second retentive edge (i.e. the edge that is connected with the fifth surface, see annotated figure above). With respect to claim 37, Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Kuo teaching, as best understood, further comprising a third surface (see annotated figure above, such that the claimed third surface if the claimed fifth surface of the independent claim) is opposite the base). With respect to claim 39, Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Wiechmann teaching wherein the first edge of the first surface and the second edge of the second surface (such that first and second edges are the edges of the base) each comprises a second curvature (see figs. 10-11, 13b, par. 115, such that the base, including the edges, is curved to match the contours of the tooth to which it is bonded to), wherein the second curvature is shaped to correspond with a contour of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see par. 115, such that the edges of base 58 are contoured). With respect to claim 41, Kuo teaches an attachment tube comprising a channel configured to receive a portion of an archwire (par. 57, such that it is a tube which has a channel), wherein the attachment tube is designed comprising a base for attachment to one or more teeth (see fig. 4, claims 16-17 such that it is designed), the attachment tube is configured for use with a clear aligner to move the patient’s teeth (par. 57, “Brackets can even be selected with one or more surfaces that contact or even engage a surface of an aligner”) and to receive a portion of an archwire to move the patient’s teeth without the clear aligner (par. 57 regarding the attachment having slot for an archwire, such that it can be used without the aligner). Kuo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the attachment tube is designed with a trapezoidal shape, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base, wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, the retentive wall comprising, a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from the third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending form a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle to provide the trapezoidal shape and the attachment tube is manufactured using an additive manufacturing device. Phan teaches an attachment is designed with a trapezoidal shape comprising wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base (see fig. 9B, such that the base is the surface that element 102 in figures 9A and 9C is attached to, see annotated figure below, see fig. 8 alternative view showing 4 side on an upper surface that are connected to 4 sides on the base surface), a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges (such that the edge is opposite the second edge in the annotated figure), a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle to provide the trapezoidal shape (see annotated figured below, the first edge being opposite the 2nd edge and the 4th edge being opposite the 3rd edge such that they are not visible in the figure, the shading showing the trapezoidal shape). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the attachment tube (disclosed as an alinger attachment with a tube in it) taught by Kuo to include the trapezoidal shape as taught by in order to apply the desired repositioning forces (see abstract, col. 3, ll. 7-20 of Phan). Kuo/Phan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base. Wiechmann teaches an attachment tube comprising a base for attachment to the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see pars. 115). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Kuo/Phan to include the shape the surface of the base that is to be attached to the surface of the tooth to match the tooth as taught by Wiechmann in order to ensure a better fit and more secure fit. It is noted the limitation in the preamble including “manufactured by additive manufacturing using a 3D model of the attachment tube” is being treated as a product by process limitation, that is, that the attachment tube is made by additive manufacturing. As set forth in MPEP 2133, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Kuo is silent as to the process used to make the attachment tube, it appears that the product in Kuo would be the same or similar as that claims, especially since the attachment tube is designed with the aid of a computer. Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base Moon teaches an attachment comprising a base for attachment to the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface 110 is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises, a plurality of retentive surfaces 130 configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess (see figs. 2-3), a retentive wall 120, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base (see fig. 2, par. 35-36), wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see annotated figure below, par. 34 regarding the curvature matching the surface of a tooth, such that retentive wall 120 extends from the base 110 a predetermined height and therefore, is contoured to match the surface of the tooth such that it extends from the contoured wall at the same predetermined height around the perimeter of the base), wherein the retentive wall comprises a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges (see annotated figure above, such that the retentive edges extend upwards from the base surface and cannot be seen clearly in the viewpoint of the figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann to include the retentive features and retentive wall as taught by Choi in order increase the bonding strength of the bracket on the teeth. Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the retention elements has a positive draft angle. Farzin-Nia teaches an attachment element comprising a base for attachment to one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive structures 12 having a positive draft angle (formed by undercuts 19), wherein the adjacent retentive structure of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess 20 (see figs. 1, 2D, 3D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the retentive structures taught by Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon to have a positive draft angle as taught by Farzin-Nia as a matter of obvious design choice since such a modification would have involves a mere change in the shape of a component (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that the retentions elements taught by Moon, Farzin-Nia and the applicant all function in the same manner as to increase the surface area and improve the bonding strength of the attachment to the tooth. It is further noted that Farzin-Nia teaches several different shapes and arrangements are known equivalents for improving the bonding strength. With respect to claim 42, Kuo teaches at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium encoded with a plurality of computer executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors are operable to cause the one or more processors to perform a method for manufacturing a clear alinger attachment tube, the method comprising using a manufacturing device to produce the attachment tube (pars. 43, 57, claims 16-17, specifically claims 16-17 teach a 3D model of the tooth and bracket, par. 57 teaches “Bracket geometry may also be reduced to resemble an aligner attachment, such that it becomes a bracket-attachment hybrid (an attachment with a tube designed to engage an archwire for example), the attachment tube having a base for attachment to one or more teeth (see fig. 4), such that the attachment tube is designed digitally, therefore it is obviously manufactured in someway for use as designed and it is designed on a computer which has processors), the attachment tube is configured for use with a clear aligner to move the patient’s teeth (par. 57, “Brackets can even be selected with one or more surfaces that contact or even engage a surface of an aligner”) and to receive a portion of an archwire to move the patient’s teeth without the clear aligner ((par. 57 regarding the attachment having slot for an archwire, such that it can be used without the aligner). Kuo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the attachment tube is designed with a trapezoidal shape, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base, wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, the retentive wall comprising, a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from the third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending form a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle to provide the trapezoidal shape and the attachment tube is manufactured using an additive manufacturing device. Phan teaches generating a 3D model of an attachment (see claim 4), the attachment is designed with a trapezoidal shape wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base (see fig. 9B, such that the base is the surface that element 102 in figures 9A and 9C is attached to, see annotated figure below, see fig. 8 alternative view showing 4 side on an upper surface that are connected to 4 sides on the base surface), a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges (such that the edge is opposite the second edge in the annotated figure), a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, and wherein the second retentive edge is shorter than the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive edge at an angle to provide the trapezoidal shape (see annotated figured below, the first edge being opposite the 2nd edge and the 4th edge being opposite the 3rd edge such that they are not visible in the figure, the shading showing the trapezoidal shape). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the attachment tube (disclosed as an alinger attachment with a tube in it) taught by Kuo to include the trapezoidal shape as taught by in order to apply the desired repositioning forces (see abstract, col. 3, ll. 7-20 of Phan). Kuo/Phan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base. Kuo/Phan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach manufacturing the attachment tube based on the 3D model of the attachment tube using additive manufacturing. Wiechmann teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of additive manufacturing device (see par. 100 such that it is exported to the STL, i.e. additive manufacturing device, which is part of the system which includes a storge medium, see par. 25, 89, 94, 119) encoded with a plurality of computer executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of the additive manufacturing device, are operable to cause the one or more processors to perform a method for manufacturing a clear alinger attachment tube by additive manufacturing, the method comprising using the additive manufacturing device to provide the attachment tube (see par. 100, 42, 89 such that it is a computer workstation that at least one processor), the tube having a base for attachment to one or more teeth of a patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see pars. 115, fig. 13B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Kuo/Phan to include the use of an additive manufacturing machine to manufacture the attachment as taught by Wiechmann in order to quickly and easily manufacture the attachment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method of Kuo/Phan to include the shape the surface of the base that is to be attached to the surface of the tooth to match the tooth as taught by Wiechmann in order to ensure a better fit and more secure fit. Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive surfaces configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein the plurality of retentive structures have a positive draft angle, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess, a retentive wall, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base Moon teaches an attachment comprising a base for attachment to the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface 110 is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises, a plurality of retentive surfaces 130 configured to oppose the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth, wherein adjacent retentive structures of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess (see figs. 2-3), a retentive wall 120, wherein the retentive wall comprises four retentive edges extending from the four edges around the surface of the base (see fig. 2, par. 35-36), wherein the retentive wall is contoured to a curvature of a surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient (see annotated figure below, par. 34 regarding the curvature matching the surface of a tooth, such that retentive wall 120 extends from the base 110 a predetermined height and therefore, is contoured to match the surface of the tooth such that it extends from the contoured wall at the same predetermined height around the perimeter of the base), wherein the retentive wall comprises a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges (see annotated figure above, such that the retentive edges extend upwards from the base surface and cannot be seen clearly in the viewpoint of the figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann to include the retentive features and retentive wall as taught by Choi in order increase the bonding strength of the bracket on the teeth. Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the retention elements has a positive draft angle. Farzin-Nia teaches an attachment element comprising a base for attachment to one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a plurality of retentive structures 12 having a positive draft angle (formed by undercuts 19), wherein the adjacent retentive structure of the plurality are separated by a corresponding recess 20 (see figs. 1, 2D, 3D). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the retentive structures taught by Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon to have a positive draft angle as taught by Farzin-Nia as a matter of obvious design choice since such a modification would have involves a mere change in the shape of a component (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. It is noted that the retentions elements taught by Moon, Farzin-Nia and the applicant all function in the same manner as to increase the surface area and improve the bonding strength of the attachment to the tooth. It is further noted that Farzin-Nia teaches several different shapes and arrangements are known equivalents for improving the bonding strength. Claim(s) 27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (2013/0209952) in view of Phan et al. (6,309,215) in view of Wiechmann et al. (2007/0015104) in view of Moon et al. (2012/0129118) in view of Farzin-Nia (5,295,823) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Ariza (2015/0111166). Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the channel comprises a circular cross section, a rectangular cross section, the rectangular cross section comprises rounded corners, the channel comprises a square cross section, the square cross section comprises rounded corners. With respect to claims 27-31, Ariza teaches an attachment tube wherein the channel comprises a circular cross section, a rectangular cross section, the rectangular cross section comprises rounded corners, the channel comprises a square cross section, the square cross section comprises rounded corners (par. 35, specifically “The shape of the tubular passage may be, e.g., a circle, a polygon (e.g., a triangle, a rectangle, a square, a pentagon, a hexagon), an oval, or the like. The polygon may have one or more rounded corners.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia with the shape of the channel as taught by Ariza in order to deliver the desired force to the teeth (see par. 35 of Ariza which teaches the shapes of the slots are selected based on shape of wire and desired friction). Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (2013/0209952) in view of Phan et al. (6,309,215) in view of Wiechmann et al. (2007/0015104) in view of Moon et al. (2012/0129118) in view of Farzin-Nia (5,295,823) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Papandreas (5,931,667). Kuo/Phan/Wiechmann/Moon/Farzin-Nia teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the third surface comprises a first curvature, wherein the first curvature is shaped with the curvature of the surface of the tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient. Papandreas teaches, as best understood, an attachment comprising a base for attachment to one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises four edges around a surface of the base, wherein the surface is contoured to a curvature of a surface of a tooth of the one or more teeth of the patient, wherein the base comprises a first retentive edge extending from a first edge of the four edges, a second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge extending from a second edge of the four edges, wherein the second retentive edge is opposite the first retentive edge, a third retentive edge extending from a third edge of the four edges, wherein the third retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges, and a fourth retentive edge extending from a fourth edge of the four edges, wherein the fourth retentive edge is opposite the third retentive edge, and wherein the fourth retentive edge extends between the first and second retentive edges and a fifth edge that extends from an outer end of the first retentive edge to an outer end of the second retentive
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 05, 2024
Interview Requested
Dec 12, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 12, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 27, 2024
Response Filed
Jan 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
May 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
May 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 02, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 09, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 09, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 11, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599462
DEVICE FOR MAKING, DUPLICATING AND FIXING DENTAL MODELS IN ARTICULATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599459
DEVICE COMPRISING HANDPIECE CONNECTOR HAVING FILTER COUPLED THERETO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575918
WORKING MODEL TO PERFORM A DENTAL PROSTHESIS FOR A TOOTH STUMP, AND METHOD TO MAKE THE WORKING MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12544200
DEMONSTRATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12527654
INTERDENTAL BRUSH
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+31.7%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1022 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month