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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No. CN202121421775.8, filed on 06/24/2021, Application No. CN202110705580.4, filed on 06/24/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-16 is the filing date of the associated PCT application (PCT/CN2022/100465), 06/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner has only considered the provided English abstracts for the foreign documents listed in the information disclosure statement filed 12/22/2023. To consider each document in its entirety a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document is required to be provided per 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2).
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) 1-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2020223384 A1), herein referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses [[an]] a retention attachment (50) for invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket configured to provide a retention force for the orthodontic appliance (refer to Paragraph [0008]; the attachment (50) is for a clear aligner case; further, the attachment (50) is used to augment the grip of an aligner upon the teeth of patient, thus, the attachment (50) is capable of providing a retention force for the orthodontic appliance, functioning as a retention attachment), the retention attachment (50) comprising:
a bottom surface (52) for attaching to a tooth (refer to Paragraph [0063]; the attachment (50) is attached to the crown at contact surface (52)),
a retention surface (54+58) extending upward from a partial edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between contact surface (52), active surfaces (54) and active surface filleted edge (58)) (refer to annotated Fig. 4B below), and
a non-retention surface (56) connecting an upper edge of the retention surface (edge of active surface (54)) to the remaining edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between non-active surface (56) and contact surface (52)) (refer to Paragraph [0064]; the non-active surface (56) is filleted to present a curved surface),
PNG
media_image1.png
590
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the retention surface (54+58) and the bottom surface (52) are arranged at an angle ranging from 60° to 120° (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4E below; the two angled active surfaces (54) have an angle of 58.1° relative to one another; by forming two right angle triangles which bisect this angle, the angle of the active surfaces (54+58) relative to the bottom surface (52) can be determined as 60.95°),
PNG
media_image2.png
281
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the upper edge of the retention surface (edge of active surface (54)) defines a maximum height of the attachment (50) in a normal direction of the bottom surface (52) (refer to annotated Fig. 4D below), and
PNG
media_image3.png
259
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the retention surface (54+58) comprises a first retention area (54, left), a second retention area (58), and a third retention area (54, right) sequentially connected along the partial edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between contact surface (52), active surfaces (54) and active surface filleted edge (58)) (refer to annotated Fig. 4B above);
the second retention area (58) is arc-shaped on a cross-section perpendicular to a normal of the bottom surface (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below; a cross-section perpendicular to the normal of the bottom surface (52) is parallel to the bottom surface (52); the filleted active surface edge (58) is arc shaped in this view); and
PNG
media_image4.png
340
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly disclose the angle between the first retention area (54, left) and the third retention area (54, right) as an acute angle greater than or equal to 60°, disclosing this angle as an acute angle of 58.1°(refer to Paragraph [0064]).
Although the angle between the first and third retention surface is not explicitly disclosed in the range of 60°-120°, Wu teaches that the retention surfaces (54+58) are designed and dimensioned based on the desired tooth movements, using an iterative process to vary the angles and orientation of the attachment in determining the optimal final design (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]). Additionally, Wu discloses that although particular measurements are provided for the attachment (50), these are intended to be illustrative of possible dimensions and other dimension ranges may be utilized (refer to Paragraph [0052]). Thus, the orientation/angle of the retention surfaces (54+58) is a results effective variable, which is selected based on the desired tooth movements using an iterative process (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retention surfaces (54) to form an acute angle greater than or equal to 60°, to achieve improved attachment retention for correcting malocclusions, since doing so amounts to routine optimization of a results effective variable in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein an upper edge of the second retention area (upper edge of active surface filleted edge (58)) defines the maximum height of the attachment (50) in the normal direction of the bottom surface (52) (refer to annotated Figs. 4B, 4E below; the three edges of the retention surfaces (54+58) meet at the maximum height of the attachment (50)).
PNG
media_image5.png
351
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
354
572
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein the non-retention surface (56) is set as a convex curved surface (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below);
PNG
media_image7.png
266
330
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wu discloses wherein the angle between the tangent plane in any position on the non-retention surface (56) is 69° (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4D below; the complementary angle of 111° is 69°, with the tangent plane represented by the dashed line), which is larger than an angle between the retention surface (54+58) and the bottom surface (52) (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4E above; the angle between the active surfaces (54+58) relative to the bottom surface (52) is 60.95°).
PNG
media_image8.png
188
311
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wu is does not explicitly disclose the angle between the tangent plane of the non-retention surface(56) and bottom surface (52) for this embodiment of the attachment (50) as less than 58.1°.
Wu further discloses an alternative embodiment of the attachment (100), which forms an angle of 41.9° between the non-retention surface (106) and bottom surface (102) (refer to Paragraph [0084], Fig. 9D). Wu also teaches that that although particular measurements are provided for each attachment (50), these are intended to be illustrative of possible dimensions and other dimension ranges may be utilized (refer to Paragraph [0052]), with the angled non-retention surface (106) optimized to inhibit contact with the aligner for an attachment (100) with a large active surface (104) (refer to Paragraphs [0056], [0083])..
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the smaller angle (41.9°) between the non-retention surface (54+58) and bottom surface (52), as Wu discloses other dimension ranges may be utilized, and further discloses the smaller angle configuration in an alternative embodiment (100) as an optimized configuration for inhibiting contact with the aligner (refer to Paragraphs [0056], [0083], Fig. 9D).
Regarding claim 4, the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein on the cross-section perpendicular to the normal of the bottom surface (52) (refer to annotated Fig. 4C from claim 1 above; a cross-section perpendicular to the normal of the bottom surface (52) is parallel to the bottom surface (52)), the second retention area (58) is in a shape of a circular arc (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below; the apex of the second retention area (58) is a circular arc) or in a shape of an elliptic arc with a convex middle portion (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below; the second retention area (58) as a whole is an elliptic arc with a convex apex).
PNG
media_image9.png
216
284
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein the retention surface (54+58) and the bottom surface (52) are arranged at an angle ranging from 60° to 90° (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4E above; the angle of the active surfaces (54+58) relative to the bottom surface (52) is 60.95°).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1; Wu does not explicitly disclose the angle between the retention surface (54+58) and the bottom surface (52) as ranging from 75°-90°.
Wu is does not explicitly disclose the angle between the retention surface (54+58) and the bottom surface (52) for this embodiment of the attachment (50) as ranging from 75°-90°.
Wu further discloses an alternative embodiment of the attachment (80), which forms an angle of 82.9° between the retention surface (84) and bottom surface (82) (refer to Paragraph [0075], Fig. 7D). Wu also teaches that that although particular measurements are provided for each attachment (50), these are intended to be illustrative of possible dimensions and other dimension ranges may be utilized (refer to Paragraph [0052]). The retention surface (84) in this embodiment (80) is optimized to maximize the rotational force (refer to Paragraphs [0075]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the angle of 82.9° between the retention surface (54+58) and bottom surface (52), as Wu discloses other dimension ranges may be utilized, and further discloses this configuration (80) as an optimized configuration for providing rotational force to a patient’s tooth (refer to Paragraphs [[0075]- [0076], Fig. 7D).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein on the cross-section perpendicular to the normal of the bottom surface (52) (refer to annotated Fig. 4C from claim 1 above; a cross-section perpendicular to the normal of the bottom surface (52) is parallel to the bottom surface (52)), each of the first retention area (54, left) and the third retention area (54, right) is any one of a straight line (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below), a concave curved line, or a convex curved line.
PNG
media_image10.png
201
339
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein the first retention area (54, left) and the third retention area (54, right) are set as planes (refer to annotated Fig. 4B below).
PNG
media_image11.png
240
340
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein each of the first retention area (54, left), the second retention area (58), and the third retention area (54, right) is set as a part in a straight-line curved surface;
Wu does not explicitly disclose this embodiment of the attachment (50) as being formed by a perpendicular generatrix having perpendicular profile lines.
Wu further discloses an alternative embodiment of the attachment (80) forms an active surface (84) having a straight line perpendicular to the bottom surface as a generatrix (refer to Paragraph [0076], annotated Fig. 7B below; the active surface (84) is orthogonal relative to the attachment surface (82)), having an edge of the bottom surface (82) as a guiding line (refer to annotated Fig. 7C below) having each profile line perpendicular to the bottom surface (82) (refer to Paragraph [0076]; annotated Figs. 7B-7C below; Examiner understands the profile lines as the set of lines forming the outline of the retention surface(84); each of the profile lines is orthogonal to the bottom surface (82), as the surface (84) which forms the profile lines is also orthogonal to the bottom surface (82)), and the retention surface (84) being perpendicular to the bottom surface (82) and extending upward along a straight line (refer to Paragraph [0076]; the retention surface (84) is orthogonal). The orthogonal active surface (84) is beneficial for desired rotation movements induced by the attachment (80) on the patient’s teeth (refer to Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a perpendicular retention surface (54+58) arrangement between the retention surface (54+58) and bottom surface (52), as Wu discloses other dimension ranges may be utilized (Paragraph [0052]), and further discloses this configuration in an alternative embodiment (80) for inducing rotation tooth movements (refer to Paragraphs [0052], [0076], Fig. 7D).
Of note, Examiner reads claim 9 as how the surfaces of the attachment are formed ( a process claim), rather than an apparatus claim (claim 11). “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I.
PNG
media_image12.png
326
581
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
357
533
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein each of the first retention area (54, left), the second retention area (58), and the third retention area (54, right) is set as:
a part in a straight-line curved surface (surface formed by active surfaces (54, 58)) having a straight line at an acute angle greater than or equal to 60 °with the bottom surface (52) as a generatrix (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4B below, annotated Fig. 4E from claim 1 above; the angle of the active surfaces (54+58) relative to the bottom surface (52) is 60.95°; a line formed on this surface as a generatrix is also 60.95°), having an edge of the bottom surface (52) as a guiding line (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below); and
being at an acute angle greater than or equal to 60° with the bottom surface (52) and extending upward along a straight line (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4B below, annotated Fig. 4E from claim 1 above; the angle of the active surfaces (54+58) relative to the bottom surface (52) is 60.95°).
Of note, Examiner reads claim 10 as how the surfaces of the attachment are formed ( a process claim), rather than an apparatus claim (claim 12). “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I.
PNG
media_image14.png
343
565
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
267
329
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein each of the first retention area (54, left), the second retention area (58), and the third retention area (54, right) is set as:
extending upward in a convex or concave curved shape (refer to annotated Figs. 4B, 4D below), and
PNG
media_image16.png
287
332
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
232
408
media_image17.png
Greyscale
a plane constructed by a higher endpoint of an upper edge of each retention area (54+58) and two endpoints on edges of the bottom surface (52) defines an angle between each retention area (54+58)and the bottom surface (52)(refer to annotated Figs. 4B, 4D, 4E below; the plane is defined by the two endpoints of the bottom surface (52) which intersect the non-retention surface (56), and the third apex point between the edges of the three retention areas (54+58); the lines which form this plane are illustrated in annotated Figs. 4D and 4E and are shown as forming angles with each of the retention areas (54+58) and bottom surface (52)).
PNG
media_image18.png
370
517
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
261
356
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
273
359
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses the retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket of claim 1, wherein on the partial edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between contact surface (52), active surfaces (54) and active surface filleted edge (58)) (refer to annotated Fig. 4B above from claim 1), an angle between a connection line between two farthest endpoints of the first retention area (54, left) and a connection line between two farthest endpoints of the third retention area (54, right) defines an angle between the first retention area (54, left) and the third retention area (54, right) (refer to annotated Fig.4C below).
PNG
media_image21.png
317
482
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses [[an]] a retention attachment (50) for an invisible orthodontic appliance without a bracket, used to provide to provide a retention force for the orthodontic appliance (refer to Paragraph [0008]; the attachment (50) is for a clear aligner case; further, the attachment (50) is used to augment the grip of an aligner upon the teeth of patient, thus, the attachment (50) is capable of providing a retention force for the orthodontic appliance, functioning as a retention attachment), the retention attachment (50) comprising
a bottom surface (52) for attaching to a tooth (refer to Paragraph [0063]; the attachment (50) is attached to the crown at contact surface (52)),
a retention surface (54+58) extending upward from a partial edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between contact surface (52), active surfaces (54) and active surface filleted edge (58)) (refer to annotated Fig. 4B below), and
a non-retention surface (56) extending obliquely downward from an upper edge of the retention surface (edge of active surface (54)) to the remaining edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between non-active surface (56) and contact surface (52)) (refer to Paragraph [0064]; the non-active surface (56) is filleted to present a curved surface),
PNG
media_image1.png
590
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the non-retention surface (56) is set as a convex curved surface (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below),
PNG
media_image7.png
266
330
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and the retention surface (54+58) comprises a first retention area (54, left), a second retention area (58), and a third retention area (54, right) sequentially connected along the partial edge of the bottom surface (edge formed between contact surface (52), active surfaces (54) and active surface filleted edge (58)) (refer to annotated Fig. 4B above);
the second retention area (58) is arc-shaped on a cross-section perpendicular to a normal of the bottom surface (refer to annotated Fig. 4C below; a cross-section perpendicular to the normal of the bottom surface (52) is parallel to the bottom surface (52); the filleted active surface edge (58) is arc shaped in this view); and
PNG
media_image4.png
340
549
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wu discloses wherein the angle between the tangent plane in any position on the non-retention surface (56) is 69° (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4D below; the complementary angle of 111° is 69°, with the tangent plane represented by the dashed line), which is larger than an angle between the retention surface (54+58) and the bottom surface (52) (refer to Paragraph [0064], annotated Fig. 4E above; the angle between the active surfaces (54+58) relative to the bottom surface (52) is 60.95°).
PNG
media_image8.png
188
311
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wu is does not explicitly disclose the angle between the tangent plane of the non-retention surface(56) and bottom surface (52) for this embodiment of the attachment (50) as less than 58.1°.
Wu further discloses an alternative embodiment of the attachment (100), which forms an angle of 41.9° between the non-retention surface (106) and bottom surface (102) (refer to Paragraph [0084], Fig. 9D). Wu also teaches that that although particular measurements are provided for each attachment (50), these are intended to be illustrative of possible dimensions and other dimension ranges may be utilized (refer to Paragraph [0052]), with the angled non-retention surface (106) optimized to inhibit contact with the aligner for an attachment (100) with a large active surface (104) (refer to Paragraphs [0056], [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the smaller angle (41.9°) between the non-retention surface (54+58) and bottom surface (52), as Wu discloses other dimension ranges may be utilized, and further discloses the smaller angle configuration in an alternative embodiment (100) as an optimized configuration for inhibiting contact with the aligner (refer to Paragraphs [0056], [0083], Fig. 9D).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the angle between the first retention area (54, left) and the third retention area (54, right) as an acute angle greater than or equal to 60°, disclosing this angle as an acute angle of 58.1°(refer to Paragraph [0064]).
Although the angle between the first and third retention surface is not explicitly disclosed in the range of 60°-120°, Wu teaches that the retention surfaces (54+58) are designed and dimensioned based on the desired tooth movements, using an iterative process to vary the angles and orientation of the attachment in determining the optimal final design (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]). Additionally, Wu discloses that although particular measurements are provided for the attachment (50), these are intended to be illustrative of possible dimensions and other dimension ranges may be utilized (refer to Paragraph [0052]). Thus, the orientation/angle of the retention surfaces (54+58) is a results effective variable, which is selected based on the desired tooth movements using an iterative process (refer to Paragraphs [0049], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the retention surfaces (54) to form an acute angle greater than or equal to 60°, to achieve improved attachment retention for correcting malocclusions, since doing so amounts to routine optimization of a results effective variable in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2020223384 A1), herein referred to as Wu (refer to the provided foreign translation), in view of Huang (US 20180325626 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wu discloses the attachment (50) for invisible orthodontic appliance without bracket of claim l; Wu is silent to a skid proof structure on the retention surface (54+58).
Huang discloses an attachment (14) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0037]), wherein the attachment (14) further comprises a skid-proof structure (18) added to the retention surface (16), wherein the skid-proof structure is any one of or a combination of a plurality of bumps (top portion of engagement feature (18)), a plurality of dents (24), and one or more nicks (refer Paragraph [0037], annotated Fig. 7 below; a prefabricated attachment (14) includes engagement features (18), which include an undercut portion (24)). The engagement features (18) provide superior grip with the clear aligner (refer to Paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attachment (50) of Wu with the skid-proof texture (18) as taught by Huang in order to provide superior grip with the clear aligner (refer to Paragraph [0007]).
PNG
media_image22.png
417
471
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The outstanding specification and abstract objections are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted specification amendment.
The outstanding claim objections are withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Wu is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Wu discloses attachments (50) used to augment the grip of an aligner upon the teeth of a patient, thus providing a retention function (refer to Paragraph [0008]).
In response to applicant's argument that the attachments (50) of Wu do not anticipate Applicant’s retention attachments, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As indicated in the rejection above, Wu anticipates this structure.
In response to the argument that Wu does not teach the three-part arrangement, Examiner points to the above rejection, where three retention surfaces along the attachment (50) are explicitly pointed out.
In response to the argument that Wu cannot achieve the technical effects of the application, these technical effects are recitations of intended use and processes by which the device is produced (product by process). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to the argument that Wu teaches away from the retention function, Examiner again points to Paragraph [0008] of Wu and the recitation of intended use. Specifically, Wu does not teach away from the use of the attachments (50) for retention, as Wu states the design of the attachments improves the grip of the aligner on the teeth.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Wu, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Wu teaches the angles formed on the retention surfaces as results effective variables that are iteratively adjusted, with the provided values in the disclosure for example only, and other values may be used for the patient (refer to Paragraph [0052]), thus suggesting modification of the provided ranges.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 EST.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights