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
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 13, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of the species A in the reply filed on November 13, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because the examiner has established distinction between the embodiments requiring different search queries and fields.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “or” appears to be missing in line 3 before the word “square tube.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Regarding Claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by the shape of a “rounded triangle.” By definition a triangle has corners that form an angular connection. It is unclear what part of the triangle is rounded. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted broadly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 207745211, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a self-ligating orthodontic bracket (abstract), comprises a base plate and a bracket body (Figure 1, 1), where an archwire receiver (Figure 1, 2) is provided in the bracket body, a self-ligating slot (Figures 1-9, 5) is provided at a side of the archwire receiver, a locking piece (6) is slidably provided in the self-ligating slot (see Figure 1), where a flexible ligating mechanism (Figure 4, 7) is provided in the self-ligating slot, the flexible ligating mechanism is installed underneath the locking piece (as seen in Figure 7) and is configured to provide a locking force required to stop the locking piece from sliding during ligation.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses that the flexible ligating mechanism comprises a locking boss (73) and a limiting stopper (74) provided in the self-ligating slot, and a flexible self-ligating piece (61) is embedded underneath the locking piece, a transverse installation groove (63 ) is opened at a lower end surface of the locking piece, the flexible self-ligating piece is provided in the installation groove, when being locked, a space for housing the flexible self-ligating piece and restricting passage of the flexible self-ligating piece is formed in between the locking boss
Regarding Claim 3, Wang discloses that the limiting stopper is provided at an end portion of the self-ligating slot away from the archwire receiver (as seen in Figure 7, stopper 74 is at an end of the slot and away from the archwire receiver).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses that the flexible self-ligating piece comprises a round tube (as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses that a cross section of the locking boss is a rounded triangle (as seen in Figure 4, locking boss 73 extends upwards as a triangle but is rounded at the top).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang discloses sliding slots (Figure 9, 51) are provided at both sides of the self-ligating slot, sliding blocks (Figure 1, 62) corresponding to the sliding slots are provided at both sides of the locking piece, and the sliding blocks engage with the sliding slots.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang discloses the invention of Claim 2 substantially as claimed, but does not specifically teach that an arc-shaped groove for allowing the locking boss and the limiting stopper to pass is opened at the lower end surface of the locking piece, and a groove for allowing the flexible self-ligating piece to deform is opened at a side of the installation groove close to the locking piece. Wang does disclose an arc-shaped groove in the flexible ligating mechanism (at 72) that allows for engagement of the self-ligating piece in a manner to deform and close to the locking piece (see Figures 7 and 8). However, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve a reversal of parts which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the device of Wang to provide the groove/ligating piece arrangement with an arc-shaped groove at the lower end surface of the locking piece and a groove at a side of the installation groove, as such a modification would only involve a reversal of parts, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A).
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