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 .
It is noted that the claim format should be corrected to start claim 5 on its own line.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 302. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figure 7 contains multiple figures that are not each individually labeled Each figure should be individually labeled such as 7a, 7b, and so on. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-5 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, the preamble is directed towards “A punching tool” that is ”designed” to make a hole in a tooth attachment creation tray. Therefore, in the claim elements f)-i) that claims “said tooth attachment creation tray”, and “said preparation tray” are unclear. It is noted that the preamble of the claim is only directed towards the subcombiantion of the punching tool and NOT the combination of the punching tool and the tray. Therefore, it is noted that the limitations in the claim directed towards the creation tray and preparation tray are being interpreted as functional. Such that the claimed punching tool is capable of being used with a creation tray to from a preparations tray. However, it is noted that the prior art does NOT have to teach the creation tray and preparation tray to meet the claimed limitations. The applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
The same issues applies to claim 2. It is noted that the applicant is claiming the apparatus with respect to claim 2 and NOT the method of use. Therefore, the limitations of claim 2 are being interpreted as functional as discussed above in detail with respect to claim 1, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
The limitations of claim 3 including “a small amount of overhang less than 0.5mm” is unclear in view of the claimed limitation of the punch being “free of overhang”. It is unclear how the punch can be both free of an overhang and have a small overhang of any amount over 0 to 0.5mm. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as claim 1 claiming the punch is “substantially free” of an overhang and that “substantially free” includes an overhand of 0.5mm or less, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 5, the limitation of what is being provided is unclear. The preamble is directed towards a method to “make at least one hole in a tooth attachment creation tray” comprising “providing: a) a punch…f) said tooth attachment creation tray”. It is unclear due to the claim format, if in addition to all of the part of the punching tool that are provided, the tray is also provided. It is noted that the claim limitations are being interpreted as providing a punching tool and the tooth attachment creating tray and that the punching tool further comprises the parts claimed in a)-e), however, that applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further in step f” the limitation of the tray having “at least one attachment chamber being the object of said punch” is unclear. It is unclear how the attachment chamber is related to the punch by “being the object” of it. It is noted that for examination purposes, the chamber is being interpreted as being related to the method of preparing the tray such that when creating the preparation tray, the punch is placed withing the chamber in order to remove it, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie-Martin (2008/0118884) in view of Crapo et al. (5,101,566).
Leslie-Martin teaches a punching tool 100 designed to make a hole in a tooth attachment creation tray to create a preparation tray for a multi-tray orthodontic movement system utilizing at least one tooth attachment (abstract, pars. 5, 8, 37-41, such that the punching tool 100 is capable of being used as claimed) comprising: a) a punch 110 attached to a punch jaw (see fig. 1, portion from hole 107A towards end with punch 110) b), a die 112 attached to a die jaw (see fig. 1, portion from 107B towards end with die), c) said punch jaw and said die jaw rotate about an axis (see fig. 1, such that the axis is along the pivot pin 109, par. 26), d) a punch handle 104a attached to said punch jaw (such that the handle extends from the hole 107A towards the end labeled as 104A) and a die handle 104b attached to said die jaw (such that the handle extends from the hole 10B towards the end labeled as 104B), e) said punch having a cutting geometry (par. 30), said die having an opening larger than said cutting geometry by a perimeter clearance (par. 30, such that the die is larger since it accepts entrance of the punch, but it has a perimeter clearance as claimed since the edges of the two element cooperate with each other), f) the punch capable of being used with a tooth attachment creation tray having at least one attachment chamber being the object of said punch, such that the tray is capable of having a chamber as claimed. As discussed above in detail the tray is NOT claimed and therefore, the prior art does not need to teach the tray only that the claimed punching device is capable of functioning with a tray as claimed. Since Leslie-Martin teaches the punching tool functioning with a tray to cut a hole in it, it is noted that the tool of Leslie-Martin would be capable of being used with a tray having a cavity as claimed such that the punch is capable of extending into the cavity and punch a hole in it when the tool is pressed into the punching position and therefore, the claimed limitations are met. Leslie-Martin further teaches with respect to g) wherein the punch is operable to position and orient said cutting geometry within said at least one attachment chamber, said die operable to be positioned around protruding geometry of said at least one attachment chamber (see above detailed explanation regarding how the device of Leslie-Martin is capable of functioning as claimed), h) said punch and said die operable by said punch handle and said die handle to create a hole that removes said at least one attachment chamber from said tooth attachment creation tray (see above detailed explanation regarding how the tool is capable of functioning with a tray as claimed) and i) whereby a preparation tray would be created from said tooth attachment creation tray. Leslie-Martin teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the punch is free of an overhang.
Crapo teaches a punching tool designed to make a hole in a tray comprising a) a punch 38 attached to a punch jaw 12, said punch free of overhang (col. 2, ll. 20-22, 63-65, such that since it produced the hole at the bottom of the cavity, it has no overhang), b) a die 50 attached to a die jaw 14, c) said punch jaw and said die jaw rotate about an axis (see figs. 2, 4), d) a punch handle 16 attached to said punch jaw and a die handle 16 attached to a said die jaw (see figs. 1-2), e) said punch having a cutting geometry, said die having an opening larger than said cutting geometry by a perimeter clearance (see figs. 2, 4, col. 3, ll. 63-67), and the punch and the die are operable to by punch handle and said die handle to cerate a hole within a tray (see figs. 2, 4, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the punch taught by Leslie-Martin with the punch of Crapo being free of an overhand in order to be able to easily create a hole in the bottom of the tray as needed. It is noted that the prior art of Crapo is analogous prior art since it is solving the same problem of being able to create a hole at a bottom of a tray.
With respect to claim 2, Leslie-Martin/Crapo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Leslie-Martin further teaching the punch is capable of being positioned on the inside of the tooth attachment creating tray. For example as illustrated in fig. 2 of Leslie-Martin it is noted that the reverse is illustrated, however, it is noted that the punch tool is capable of being used as functionally claimed such that is can be positioned relative to the tray in the opposite manner with the punch on the interior of the tray.
With respect to claim 3, Leslie-Martin/Crapo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Crapo teaching the overhand is less than 0.5mm (see detailed rejection above with respect to claim 1 which teaches the there being no overhang, therefore, the overhand is 0 which is less than 0.5mm as claimed).
With respect to claim 4, Leslie-Martin/Crapo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the total punch height is less than 0.5mm. However, Leslie-Martin teaches the punch is used for the same height of the punch can be less than the die (see par. 48, fig. 8) and that it is not much larger than the thickness of the tray (see fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the height of the punch taught by Leslie-Martin/Crapo to be less than 6mm in order to ensure that it is has sufficient height to create the hole in the tray but does not have a height that is to long that it does not fit within the tray and waste material. Such that by providing a greater height would be unnecessary and wasted material. It is noted that the applicant does not teach any unexpected advantages of results regarding the claimed height. The applicant teaches a height greater than 6mm could damage the tray. It is noted that the height of the punch taught by Leslie -Martin does is used on a tray and that the tray is not damaged (as it is used after creating the hole), therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the height of the punch taught by Leslie-Martin/Crapo to be less than 6mm in order to create the desired hole in the tray.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leslie-Martin (2008/0118884) in view of Crapo et al. (5,101,566) in view of Hilliard (6,293,790).
With respect to claim 5, Leslie-Martin teaches a method to make at least one hole in a tooth attachment creating tray to create a preparation tray for a multi-tray orthodontic movement system utilizing at least one tooth attachment (abstract, pars. 5, 8, 37-41) comprising providing a) a punch 110 attached to a punch jaw (see fig. 1, portion from hole 107A towards end with punch 110) b), a die 112 attached to a die jaw (see fig. 1, portion from 107B towards end with die), c) said punch jaw and said die jaw rotate about an axis (see fig. 1, such that the axis is along the pivot pin 109, par. 26), d) a punch handle 104a attached to said punch jaw (such that the handle extends from the hole 107A towards the end labeled as 104A) and a die handle 104b attached to said die jaw (such that the handle extends from the hole 10B towards the end labeled as 104B), e) said punch having a cutting geometry (par. 30), said die having an opening larger than said cutting geometry by a perimeter clearance (par. 30, such that the die is larger since it accepts entrance of the punch, but it has a perimeter clearance as claimed since the edges of the two element cooperate with each other), f) the tooth attachment creation tray 200, positioning and orientating the cutting geometry on the tray (see fig. 2), positioning and orientating the die around the tray (see fig. 2) and operating the punch handle and the die handle to create a hole by removing at least a portion of the tray (see fig. 2, pars. 30-31) and e) whereby the preparation tray is created from the tooth attachment creation tray (see figs. 4-5, 7 which shows the preparation tray, i.e. the tray with the portion removed). Leslie-Martin teaches the method as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the punch is free of overhang, the tooth attachment creation tray having at least one attachment chamber being the object of said punch, positioning and orientating the cutting geometry within the at least one attachment chamber positioning and orientating the die around the protruding geometry of the at least one attachment chamber and operating the punch handle and the die handle to create a hole by removing at least one attachment chamber from the tooth attachment creating tray.
Crapo teaches a method to make at least one hole is a tray comprising providing a) a punch 38 attached to a punch jaw 12, said punch free of overhang (col. 2, ll. 20-22, 63-65, such that since it produced the hole at the bottom of the cavity, it has no overhang), b) a die 50 attached to a die jaw 14, c) said punch jaw and said die jaw rotate about an axis (see figs. 2, 4), d) a punch handle 16 attached to said punch jaw and a die handle 16 attached to a said die jaw (see figs. 1-2), e) said punch having a cutting geometry, said die having an opening larger than said cutting geometry by a perimeter clearance (see figs. 2, 4, col. 3, ll. 63-67), and positioning and orientating the cutting geometry within the tray, positioning and orientating the die around the outside of the tray and operating the punch handle and the die handle to create a hole by removing a portion of the tray (see figs. 2, 4, abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the punch taught by Leslie-Martin with the punch of Crapo being free of an overhand in order to be able to easily create a hole in the bottom of the tray as needed. It is noted that the prior art of Crapo is analogous prior art since it is solving the same problem of being able to create a hole at a bottom of a tray. Leslie-Martin/Crapo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the tray having at least one attachment chamber being the object of said punch, positioning and orientating the cutting geometry within the at least one attachment chamber, positioning and orientating the die around the protruding geometry of the at least on attachment chamber and operating the punch handle and the die handle to cerate a hole by removing the at least one attachment chamber from the tooth attachment creation tray.
Hilliard teaches a method to make at least one hole in a tooth attachment tray creating tray to create a preparation tray for a multi-tray orthodontic movement system utilizing at least one tooth attachment comprising providing a punching tool (see figs. 9b-9c, col. 7, ll. 40-48) , positioning the punching tool to be withing the at least one attachment cavity and operating the punch to create a hole by removing at least a one attachment chamber form the tooth attachment creating tray and whereby the preparation tray is created from the tooth attachment creating tray (see figs. 9b-9c, col. 7, ll. 40-48). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tray taught by Leslie-Martin/Crapo to include an attachment chamber as taught by Hilliard in order to provide the desired geometry for the tray. Such that the cavity can allow for attachment of elements for treatment as desired. It is noted that the combination of Leslie-Martin/Crapo/Hillard teaches the invention as claimed such that the cutting geometry would be positioned and orientated within the chamber and the die would be positioned and orientated around the protruding geometry of the attachment chamber in order to create the hole within the tray such that cutting portion is taught by Crapo of being placed within the tray and the die on the outside of the tray to align with the cutting portion when the handles are operated. Therefore, when the punch of is placed within the tray of Hillard as taught by Crapo, it would result in the claimed arrangement of the cutting geometry and die.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 10/29/2025