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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A (Figures 1A-1F), subspecies a (Figure 4A), subspecies aa (Figure 5A) in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim, and were cancelled in the response of November 21, 2025. Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Additionally, the examiner withdraws Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 20 as being directed to a nonelected invention. Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the top region comprises a cover” is directed to the nonelected embodiment of Figures 20A-20D. Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “one or more elastically deformable biases comprises one or more posts formed of an elastic material” is directed to the nonelected embodiment of Figures 3A-3B. Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “the one or more elastically deformable biases comprises one or more of a spring, a magnet, or a wire” is directed to the nonelected embodiments of Figures 16A-16B (spring), 17A-17B (magnet), and 19A-19B (wire). Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “the one or more elastically deformable biases are formed of the same material” is directed to the nonelected embodiment of Figure 14. Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “the top region has a round external profile” is directed to the nonelected embodiment of Figure 5B. Regarding Claim 20, the limitation “further comprising a filler material” is directed to the nonelected embodiment of Figures 3A-3B.
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, 2, 6, 11-14, 18, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bach (US 2017/0319295 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bach discloses an attachment for an orthodontic appliance (abstract), the attachment comprising a base region (Figure 1, 140) configured to be rigidly mounted to a tooth surface (as described in [0050]), a top region (120) including an interface surface (uppermost surface of 120) configured to removably engage with an orthodontic appliance configured to be worn on a patient's teeth (Figure 1, 160 and as described in [0043]), and one or more elastically deformable biases (130) coupling the base region to the top region so that the top region may move relative to the base region, from a neutral configuration when force is applied to the top region, wherein the elastically deformable bias is configured to apply a restoring force to return the top region to the neutral configuration (as described in [0042-0045]).
Regarding Claim 2. Bach discloses the attachment of claim 1, and further discloses that the base region is solid and the top region is solid (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Back discloses the attachment of claim 1, and further discloses that the one or more elastically deformable biases comprises an intermediate layer sandwiched between the base region and the top region (as seen in Figure 1, the bias 130 is an intermediate layer sandwiched between the base region and the top region).
Regarding Claim 11, Bach discloses the attachment of Claim 1 and the embodiment as seen in Figures 9A-9D is disclosed to provide rotational translation (as described in [0092]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bach discloses the attachment of Claim 1, and further discloses that the base region is approximately parallel to the top region (as seen in Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Bach discloses the attachment of Claim 1, and further discloses that the one or more elastically deformable biases are configured so that the top region moves relative to the base region so that the top region remains relatively parallel to the base region (as the deformable biases move through a variety of movements, they would be configured at some point to deform such that the top and bottom regions remain relatively parallel).
Regarding Claim 14, Bach discloses the attachment of claim 1, and the embodiment of claim 9 discloses that the one or more elastically deformable biases are configured so that the top region moves relative to the base region so that the top region rotates relative to the base region (as seen in Figures 9A-9D).
Regarding Claim 18, Bach discloses the attachment of claim 1, and further discloses that the top region has a rectangular external profile (as seen in the embodiment of Figures 9A-9D).
Regarding Claim 19, Bach discloses the attachment of claim 1, and further discloses that the orthodontic appliance comprises a shell aligner (Figure 1, 160).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach.
Regarding Claims 9, Bach discloses the invention of Claim 1 as described above, but does not specifically disclose that the one or more elastically deformable biases comprises a superelastic nickel titanium alloy. Bach does however disclose the use of materials with an elastic modulus both less than and greater than nickel titanium ([0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the bias of Bach out of nickel titanium when the desired elastic modulus is that of nickel titanium, as the selection of a known material for its suitability for a particular intended use has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
Regarding Claim 21, Bach discloses an attachment for an orthodontic appliance (abstract), the attachment comprising a base region (Figure 1, 140) configured to be rigidly mounted to a tooth surface (as described in [0050]), a top region (120) including an interface surface (uppermost surface of 120) configured to removably engage with an orthodontic appliance configured to be worn on a patient's teeth (Figure 1, 160 and as described in [0043]), and one or more elastically deformable biases (130) coupling the base region to the top region so that the top region may move relative to the base region, from a neutral configuration in a plane that is approximately parallel with a base region when force is applied to the top region, wherein the elastically deformable bias is configured to apply a restoring force to return the top region to the neutral configuration (as described in [0042-0045]). Bach discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but does not disclose that the one or more elastically deformable biases comprises a superelastic nickel titanium alloy.
Bach does however disclose the use of materials with an elastic modulus both less than and greater than nickel titanium ([0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the bias of Bach out of nickel titanium when the desired elastic modulus is that of nickel titanium, as the selection of a known material for its suitability for a particular intended use has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
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