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 23 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0135385 A1) in view of Hofmann (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0129270 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
665
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
519
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Amer discloses an orthodontic apparatus (Figs. 6A-6C), the apparatus comprising: a first tooth engagement region (1st engagement region in annotated Fig. 6C) capable of being removably worn over a first subset of a subject's maxillary teeth (Figs. 6B and 6C, paras. 0002 and 0046); a second tooth engagement region (2nd engagement region in annotated Fig. 6C) capable of being removably worn over a second subset of the subject's maxillary teeth (Figs. 6B and 6C, para. 0046); a palatal region (palatal region in annotated Fig. 6C) extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region (Fig. 6C); and a first elastic band attachment (1st attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) projecting laterally and anteriorly from a first region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 6C) of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (Fig. 6C), the first elastic band attachment comprising a post (post in annotated Fig. 6C) having an engagement surface (engagement surface in annotated Fig. 6C) capable of holding an elastic band (312 in Fig. 6B) that extends anteriorly and out of the subject's mouth (Figs. 6B and 6C, para. 0046).
Amer does not disclose wherein the first elastic band attachment includes a cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post.
Hofmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein a band attachment (08 in Fig. 5) includes a cap region (17 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) having a larger diameter than a post (16 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) and capable of retaining a band (05 in Fig. 5) on the post (paras. 0067-0068).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first elastic band attachment of Amer by adding the cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post as taught by Hofmann in order to allow for preventing the unintentional detachment of the band from the band attachment (Hofmann para. 0068).
In regard to claim 2, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses wherein the first elastic band attachment (1st attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) projects laterally from an anterior region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (Fig. 6C).
In regard to claim 3, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses wherein the first region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 6C) of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region is located to be a position (Fig. 6C) where a resulting moment arm from forces applied by the elastic band is within a threshold distance from a center of resistance of the subject (Figs. 6B and 6C; a moment arm resulting from functionally elastic bands 312 would be within a threshold distance from a center of resistance of the subject as no specific threshold distance is specified).
In regard to claim 8, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses wherein the first elastic band attachment (1st attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) comprises a hook (para. 0046).
In regard to claim 11, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses further comprising a second elastic band attachment (2nd attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) projecting laterally and anteriorly from a region of a buccal side of the second tooth engagement region (Fig. 6C, para. 0046).
In regard to claim 12, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses further comprising a supplemental elastic band attachment (supplemental attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) projecting laterally from a region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region adjacent to the first elastic band attachment (Fig. 6C, para. 0046).
In regard to claim 14, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses further comprising a headgear (310 in Fig. 6B, para. 0046) capable of being worn on the subject's head (Fig. 6C), wherein the headgear comprises an elastic band attachment bridge (bridge in annotated Fig. 6B) capable of coupling to the first elastic band attachment by a first elastic band (312 in Fig. 6B, para. 0046).
In regard to claim 15, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses wherein the palatal region is capable of applying an expansion force between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region to expand the subject's palate (para. 0046).
In regard to claim 18, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer further discloses wherein the orthodontic apparatus is capable of being removably worn by the subject (Fig. 6C, para. 0002 and 0046).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer in view of Hofmann in view of Ke et al (TW 202306547 A and translated PDF, hereinafter “Ke”).
PNG
media_image3.png
586
575
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 16, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer does not disclose wherein the engagement surface comprises a plurality of contact points along a length of the engagement surface configured to re-direct force from an elastic band off axis relative to the long axis of the elastic band extending from the orthodontic apparatus when worn.
Ke teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4) comprising a first elastic band attachment (20 in Fig. 4) comprising an engagement surface (22 and 23 in Fig. 4, para. 0080) wherein the engagement surface comprises a plurality of contact points along a length of the engagement surface (contact points in annotated Fig. 4) capable of re-directing force from an elastic band (40 in Fig. 4) off axis relative to the long axis (axis in annotated Fig. 4) of the elastic band extending from the orthodontic apparatus when worn (Fig. 4, paras. 0080-0081).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engagement surface of the first elastic band attachment of Amer in view of Hofmann to comprise a plurality of contact points along a length of the engagement surface capable of re-directing force from an elastic band off axis relative to the long axis of the elastic band worn as taught by Ke in order to facilitate installation of the band and have better structural strength (Ke para. 0080-0081 and 0088).
In regard to claim 17, Amer in view of Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Amer does not disclose wherein the first elastic band attachment comprises a polygonal engagement surface.
Ke teaches an apparatus (Fig. 4) wherein a first elastic band attachment (20 in Fig. 4) comprises a polygonal engagement surface (22 and 23 in Fig. 4, para. 0080).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells with hooks. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first elastic band attachment of Amer in view of Hofmann to comprise a polygonal engagement surface as taught by Ke in order to facilitate installation of the band and have better structural strength (Ke para. 0080-0081 and 0088).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer in view of Hofmann and Kim et al (KR 20180055168 A and translated PDF, hereinafter “Kim”).
PNG
media_image4.png
481
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 19, Amer discloses an orthodontic apparatus (Figs. 6A-6C), the apparatus comprising: a first tooth engagement region (1st engagement region in annotated Fig. 6C) capable of being removably worn over a first subset of a subject's maxillary teeth (Figs. 6B and 6C, paras. 0002 and 0046); a second tooth engagement region (2nd engagement region in annotated Fig. 6C) capable of being removably worn over a second subset of a subject's maxillary teeth (Figs. 6B and 6C, para. 0046); a palatal region (palatal region in annotated Fig. 6C) extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region (Fig. 6C); a first elastic band attachment (1st attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) projecting laterally and anteriorly from a first region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 6C) of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (Fig. 6C); a second elastic band attachment (2nd attachment in annotated Fig. 6C) projecting laterally from a second region of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (2nd buccal region in annotated Fig. 6C, para. 0046), the second elastic band attachment comprising a post (post in annotated Fig. 6C) having an engagement surface capable of holding an elastic band (paras. 0007 and 0046); and headgear (310 in Fig. 6B, para. 0046) capable of being worn on the subject's head, wherein the headgear comprises an elastic band attachment bridge (bridge in annotated Fig. 6B) capable of coupling to the first elastic band attachment by a first elastic band (312 in Fig. 6B, para. 0046).
Amer does not disclose wherein the second elastic band attachment includes a cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post; and that the headgear is Class III malocclusion headgear.
Hofmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein a band attachment (08 in Fig. 5) includes a cap region (17 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) having a larger diameter than a post (16 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) and capable of retaining a band on the post (paras. 0067-0068).
Kim teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-11) comprising tooth engagement regions (22 in Fig. 4, para. 0036), elastic band attachments (231 in Fig. 4, para. 0037) and Class III malocclusion headgear (10 in Fig. 1, para. 0008) capable of being worn on the subject's head (Fig. 1), wherein the headgear comprises an elastic band attachment bridge (12 in Fig. 2, para. 0028).
Amer, Hofmann, and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells. Amer, Kim, and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner devices with headgear.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second elastic band attachment of Amer by adding the cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post as taught by Hofmann in order to allow for preventing the unintentional detachment of the band from the band attachment (Hofmann para. 0068).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the headgear of Amer with the Class II malocclusion headgear as taught by Kim in order to correct Class III malocclusions effectively, quickly, and safely, and provide appropriate orthodontic treatment to a patient (Kim para. 0006).
Claims 1, 4, 9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (CN 112402040 A and translated PDF, hereinafter “Xu”) in view of Phan et al (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0190576 A1, hereinafter “Phan”) and Hofmann.
PNG
media_image5.png
764
475
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
439
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Xu discloses an orthodontic apparatus (Figs. 1-4), the apparatus comprising: a first tooth engagement region (1st engagement region in annotated Fig. 1) capable of being removably worn over a first subset of a subject's maxillary teeth (paras. 0010 and 0049); a second tooth engagement region (other half of maxillary apparatus 31 which is behind the 1st region in annotated Fig. 1, not shown) capable of being removably worn over a second subset of the subject's maxillary teeth (paras. 0010 and 0049); and a first elastic band attachment (22 in Fig. 1, paras. 0043 and 0050) projecting laterally and/or anteriorly from a first region of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 1, paras. 0050 and 0055), the first elastic band attachment comprising an engagement surface capable of holding an elastic band (21 in Fig. 1, para. 0058) that extends anteriorly and out of the subject's mouth (Fig. 1, paras. 0050 and 0053-0054),
Xu does not disclose a palatal region extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region, the first elastic band attachment comprising a post, wherein the first elastic band attachment includes a cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post.
Phan teaches an orthodontic apparatus (Fig. 12) comprising a first and a second tooth engagement region (1st and 2nd engagement regions in annotated Fig. 12) and a palatal region (70 in Fig. 12, para. 0056) extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region (Fig. 12).
Hofmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein a band attachment (08 in Fig. 5) comprises a post (16 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) and wherein the band attachment includes a cap region (17 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) having a larger diameter than the post (para. 0067) and capable of retaining a band (05 in Fig. 5) on the post (paras. 0067-0068).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Xu by adding a palatal region extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region as taught by Phan in order to provide additional support for the appliance and provide orthodontic functions (Phan para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first elastic band attachment of Xu in view of Phan by replacing the first elastic band attachment with an attachment which comprises a post and including a cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post as taught by Hofmann in order to allow for preventing the unintentional detachment of the band from the band attachment (Hofmann para. 0068).
In regard to claim 4, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Xu further discloses further comprising a buccal extension (buccal extension in annotated Fig. 1) that extends laterally from the first engagement region and is capable of extending at least partially over the subject's gingiva (Fig. 1) when the apparatus is worn on the subject's teeth (Fig. 1), wherein the first region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 1, paras. 0050 and 0055) of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region is located on the buccal extension (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 9, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the first region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 1) of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region is part of an incisal region of the first tooth engagement region capable of holding a subject's incisal teeth (Fig. 1, para. 0055 indicates that elastic band attachment 22 is installed at the roots of the canines, therefore the teeth to the right of the canines in Fig. 1 are incisors).
In regard to claim 14, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Xu further discloses further comprising a headgear (1 in Fig. 1, para. 0048) capable of being worn on the subject's head (para. 0048), wherein the headgear comprises an elastic band attachment bridge (23 and 24 in annotated Fig. 1, para. 0050) capable of coupling to the first elastic band attachment by a first elastic band (21 in Fig. 1, para. 0058).
In regard to claim 18, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Xu further discloses wherein the orthodontic apparatus is capable of being removably worn by the subject (paras. 0010 and 0057).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo et al (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0269092 A1, hereinafter “Kuo”).
PNG
media_image7.png
437
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Xu does not disclose wherein the first elastic band attachment comprises a slot cut into the region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region.
Kuo teaches a first elastic band attachment (24 in Fig. 2B) which comprises a slot cut into a region of the buccal side of a first tooth engagement region (1st engagement region in annotated Fig. 2B, paras. 0036-0037 and 0051).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a slot cut into the region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region as taught by Kuo to the first elastic band attachment of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in order to advantageously employ the force imparted by an elastic member to apply desired repositioning forces (Kuo para. 0005).
PNG
media_image8.png
511
550
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo discloses the invention of claim 5. Xu does not disclose wherein the slot comprises a channel region that opens into a holding region, wherein the diameter of the channel region is smaller than the diameter of the holding region.
The embodiment of Figs. 6-7 of Hofmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 6-7) wherein a slot (slot
) comprises a channel region (channel region in annotated Fig. 6) that opens into a holding region (holding region in annotated Fig. 6, Fig. 7, paras. 0069-0070), wherein the diameter of the channel region (channel diameter in annotated Fig. 6) is smaller than the diameter of the holding region (holding diameter in annotated Fig. 6, paras. 0068-0070).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fabricated the slot of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo to comprise a channel region that opens into a holding region, wherein the diameter of the channel region is smaller than the diameter of the holding region as taught by Hofmann in order to allow for preventing the unintentional detachment of the band from the band attachment (Hofmann para. 0068).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo in view of Kopelman et al (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0314119 A1, hereinafter “Kopelman”).
PNG
media_image9.png
380
496
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo discloses the invention of claim 5. Xu does not disclose wherein the slot is formed in an anterior region of a removal tab that extends away from the buccal side of the apparatus in a direction that is opposite from an occlusal side of the apparatus and lateral to the buccal side.
The embodiment of Figs. 7C-7F of Kopelman teaches a removal tab (788 in Figs. 7C-7F) that extends away from the buccal side of the apparatus in a direction that is opposite from an occlusal side of the apparatus and lateral to the buccal side (Figs. 7C-7F).
The embodiment of Fig. 20D of Kopelman teaches a slot (slot in annotated Fig. 20D) formed in an anterior region of a tab (Fig. 20D).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a removal tab that extends away from the buccal side of the apparatus in a direction that is opposite from an occlusal side of the apparatus and lateral to the buccal side as taught by Kopelman in order to ease the removal process of the aligner for patients (Kopelman para. 0175).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fabricated the slot in an anterior region of the tab as taught by Kopelman in order to in order to aid in removal of the shell from the patient’s palate or teeth (Kopelman para. 0203).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kopelman.
PNG
media_image10.png
380
496
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 10, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the invention of claim 1. Xu does not disclose further comprising a cut-out region extending adjacent to a posterior side of the first elastic band attachment so that at least a portion of the engagement surface includes a thickness of the region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region.
Kopelman teaches an apparatus (Figs. 20C-20D) comprising a cut-out region (cutout in annotated Fig. 20D) extending adjacent to a posterior side of a first attachment (first attachment in annotated Fig. 20D) so that at least a portion of the engagement surface (engagement surface in annotated Fig. 20D, para. 0202) includes a thickness of a region of the buccal side of a first tooth engagement region (1st tooth engagement region in annotated Fig. 20D).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a cut-out region extending adjacent to a posterior side where at least a portion of the engagement surface includes a thickness of the region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region as taught by Kopelman to the first elastic band attachment of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in order to aid in removal of the shell from the patient’s palate or teeth (Kopelman para. 0203).
In regard to claim 20, Xu discloses an orthodontic apparatus (Figs. 1-4), the apparatus comprising: a first tooth engagement region (1st engagement region in annotated Fig. 1) capable of being removably worn over a first subset of a subject's maxillary teeth (paras. 0010 and 0049); a second tooth engagement region (other half of maxillary apparatus 31 which is behind the 1st region in annotated Fig. 1, not shown) capable of being removably worn over a second subset of a subject's maxillary teeth (paras. 0010 and 0049); a first elastic band attachment (22 in Fig. 1, paras. 0043 and 0050) projecting laterally from a region of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (1st buccal region in annotated Fig. 1, paras. 0050 and 0055), the first elastic band attachment comprising an engagement surface capable of holding an elastic band (21 in Fig. 1, para. 0058).
Xu does not disclose a palatal region extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region; the first elastic band attachment comprising a post, wherein the first elastic band attachment includes a cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post; and a cut-out region extending adjacent to a posterior side of the first elastic band attachment so that at least a portion of the engagement surface includes a thickness of the region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region.
Phan teaches an orthodontic apparatus (Fig. 12) comprising a first and a second tooth engagement region (1st and 2nd engagement regions in annotated Fig. 12) and a palatal region (70 in Fig. 12, para. 0056) extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region (Fig. 12).
Hofmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein a band attachment (08 in Fig. 5) comprises a post (16 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) and wherein the band attachment includes a cap region (17 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) having a larger diameter than the post (para. 0067) and capable of retaining a band (05 in Fig. 5) on the post (paras. 0067-0068).
Kopelman teaches an apparatus (Figs. 20C-20D) comprising a cut-out region (cutout in annotated Fig. 20D) extending adjacent to a posterior side of a first attachment (first attachment in annotated Fig. 20D) so that at least a portion of the engagement surface (engagement surface in annotated Fig. 20D, para. 0202) includes a thickness of a region of the buccal side of a first tooth engagement region (1st tooth engagement region in annotated Fig. 20D).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Xu by adding a palatal region extending between the first tooth engagement region and the second tooth engagement region as taught by Phan in order to provide additional support for the appliance and provide orthodontic functions (Phan para. 0056).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first elastic band attachment of Xu in view of Phan by replacing the first elastic band attachment with an attachment which comprises a post and including a cap region having a larger diameter than the post and configured to retain the elastic band on the post as taught by Hofmann in order to allow for preventing the unintentional detachment of the band from the band attachment (Hofmann para. 0068).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a cut-out region extending adjacent to a posterior side where at least a portion of the engagement surface includes a thickness of the region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region as taught by Kopelman to the first elastic band attachment of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in order to aid in removal of the shell from the patient’s palate or teeth (Kopelman para. 0203).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann and Amer.
In regard to claim 12, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Xu does not disclose further comprising a supplemental elastic band attachment projecting laterally and/or anteriorly from a region of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region adjacent to the first elastic band attachment.
Amer teaches a supplemental elastic band attachment (204 in Fig. 2A) projecting laterally and anteriorly from a region of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (Fig. 2A), which is positioned between the gingival edge and the incisal edge of the aligner body (Fig. 2, para. 0007).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells with headgear. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a supplemental elastic band attachment between the gingival edge and the incisal edge of the aligner body which projects laterally and anteriorly from a region of a buccal side of the first tooth engagement region as taught by Amer to the apparatus of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann, which would be adjacent to the first elastic band attachment of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann which is located on the gingival region, in order to allow the bands coupled to a supplemental hook to exert more horizontal force (Amer para. 0035).
In regard to claim 13, Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann and Amer discloses the invention of claim 12. Xu does not disclose wherein the first elastic band attachment is more gingival and more posterior than the supplemental elastic band attachment, wherein the supplemental elastic band attachment is configured so that an elastic band may engage the first elastic band attachment and the supplemental elastic band attachment and may extend anteriorly out of the subject's mouth to apply both a counter-moment to the orthodontic apparatus, but does disclose wherein the first elastic band attachment is located on an gingival region of the buccal side of the first tooth engagement region (Fig. 1).
Amer teaches wherein the supplemental elastic band attachment is positioned between the gingival edge and the incisal edge of the aligner body (para. 0007).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligner shells with headgear. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a supplemental elastic band attachment between the gingival edge and the incisal edge of the aligner body as taught by Amer to the apparatus of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann and Amer, which has a first elastic band attachment which is more gingival and more posterior than the supplemental elastic band attachment of Amer in order to allow bands to be coupled to a supplemental hook to exert more horizontal force (Amer para. 0035).
The combination of Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann and Amer discloses wherein the supplemental elastic band attachment is configured so that an elastic band may engage the first elastic band attachment and the supplemental elastic band attachment (Xu para. 0015, Amer para. 0035) and may extend anteriorly out of the subject's mouth to apply both a counter-moment to the orthodontic apparatus (Xu Fig. 1, Amer Fig. 2A, the first and supplemental elastic band attachments are capable of being engaged with an elastic band).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
In the above rejection, claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer in view of Hofmann, claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer in view of Hofmann in view of Ke, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amer in view of Hofmann and Kim, claims 1, 4, 9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann, claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kuo in view of Kopelman, claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann in view of Kopelman, and claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Phan and Hofmann and Amer. Examiner notes that Hofmann teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein a band attachment (08 in Fig. 5) includes a cap region (17 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) having a larger diameter than a post (16 in Fig. 5, para. 0067) and capable of retaining a band (05 in Fig. 5) on the post (paras. 0067-0068). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Amer or have modified Xu by the teachings of Hofmann in order to allow for preventing the unintentional detachment of the band from the band attachment (Hofmann para. 0068). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 4/17/2026
Prosecution Insights