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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/03/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the limitation "the shaped body portion" in lines 1-2 which should read “the body portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cleary et al. (US 2014/0205963 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cleary discloses an orthodontic bracket (Fig. 2) comprising a bracket body (Fig. 2 element 24), one or a plurality of slot portions fixed to the bracket body for passing a wire (Fig. 2 elements 60 and 68), and
an auxiliary tool attachment portion fixed to the bracket body (Fig. 2 element 22 fixed to the bracket body via elements 76 and 78) for attaching an auxiliary tool, wherein the auxiliary tool is different from the wire (Fig. 1/2 element 48/44 that is the auxiliary tool is not the wire 32),
wherein the auxiliary tool attachment portion comprises;
a body portion(Fig. 6/7 element 76/70),
and an opening and closing portion for opening and closing the body portion (Fig. 6/7 element 80 and tip of 76 being an opening/closing feature) wherein the opening and closing portion is a part of the body portion (Fig. 6/7 elements 76 and 80 having opening/closing feature as part of the body portion) and the opening and closing portion are configured to be repeatedly opened and closed (paragraph [0047] disclosing the body is made to repeatedly open and close) , wherein when the opening and closing portion is closed the body portion forms a ring (Fig. 2 the body is a ring form) and the opening and closing portion is a part of the ring formed by the body portion (Fig. 2 elements 80/76 are part of the body),
and the ring-shaped body portion has an area surrounding by a ring facing the bracket body (Fig. 2 element 22 forming the ring shape thus has a ring due to being ring shaped and which faces the bracket body by being situated over and around parts of the bracket body).
Regarding claim 2, Cleary’s auxiliary tool attachment is shaped and structured to have attached any of a coil spring, an elastic or a power chain (Fig. 1 coil spring 46 attached to the tool attachment). Regarding the intended use of claims 1 and 2 reading “for attaching an (auxiliary too) coil spring, elastic, or power chain” it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 3, Cleary further discloses wherein the auxiliary tool attachment portion has a carabiner structure (Fig. 6/7 having carabiner type structures of self-closing relation of 80 and 76 by being an oblong ring with a spring-hinge side).
Regarding claim 4, Cleary further discloses wherein the auxiliary tool attachment portion is configured so that the opening and closing portion can be opened and closed while maintaining the shape of the portion of the body portion other than the opening and closing portion (Figs. 6/7 element 72/80/84 would maintain their shape of body even when hinge 74 would be opening and closing).
Regarding claim 5, Cleary further discloses where the body portion has an area deviating from the area of the ring facing the bracket body (Fig. 2 the space within element 74 and the open space between 82 and 72 is area that deviates from facing the bracket body which is not underneath it).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (US 2014/0205963 A1).
Cleary discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the deviating area occupies between 20-80% of the total area surrounded by the ring.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the area of the ring that deviates from facing the body would result in a difference in function of the Cleary device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced selecting volume of the deviating area of Cleary, such as the area for the hinge portion to allow flexibility for opening and closing would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed amount. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the deviating amount “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g. 30, 40, 60, 70, specification at para. [0019]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the volume of the ring that deviates from facing the bracket body to be 20-80 % of the total area surrounded by the ring as an obvious matter of design choice well within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 02/03/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772