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
Claims 25-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 13, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments in the response to the distinction between species A-C are persuasive, and as such the interpretation of species A is amended to encompass Figs. 4a-6c, while the non-elected species of Figs 7a-c remains directed to a separate species D.
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 8 and 22 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.
Regarding Claims 8 and 22, the phrasing “one or both of the first eyelet fully encloses the first protrusion during use in the patient's mouth and the second eyelet fully encloses the second protrusion during use in the patient's mouth” is unclear as to what is required to fully enclose for the second eyelet. Additionally, the limitation “fully encloses” is unclear as it appears from the Figures that the limitation intended is “fully encircles” and the specification is silent as to the meaning of “fully encloses.” Does the applicant intend for the protrusion to be enclosed on all sides, i.e. fully enclosed? If so, clarification is required. For the purpose of examination the limitation will be interpreted as “fully encircling.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (US 4,462,800).
Regarding Claim 1, Jones discloses an orthodontic appliance (abstract), the orthodontic appliance comprising a main body portion (Figure 1, 10), the main body portion including a first end (16) and a second end (18), where the first end is opposite the second end (as seen in Figure 1), and where the first end includes a first eyelet and the second end includes a second eyelet (eyelets 38 as seen in Figure 4). Jones further discloses a first orthodontic device (wire 22 and trunnion 20 taken together), where the first orthodontic device is configured to be bonded to a first tooth in a patient's mouth (via bracket on upper teeth as seen but not labeled in Figure 1), where the first orthodontic device includes a first protrusion (trunnion 20), and where the first protrusion is located within the first eyelet during use in the patient's mouth (as described in Column 3, lines 40-45), and a second orthodontic device (wire 24 and other trunnion 20 taken together), where the second orthodontic device is configured to be bonded to a second tooth in the patient's mouth (via bracket on lower teeth as seen but not labeled in Figure 1), where the second orthodontic device includes a second protrusion (trunnion 20), and where the second protrusion is located within the second eyelet during use in the patient's mouth (as described in Column 3, lines 40-45).
Regarding Claim 2, Jones discloses the invention of Claim 1 and further discloses that one or both of the first protrusion and the second protrusion include a limit (flange 36 serves as a limit), wherein the limit limits motion of the main body portion with respect to one or both of the first orthodontic appliance and the second orthodontic appliance (as described in Column 5, lines 40-45, the flange 35 prevents outward movement of the ring member mounted on the trunnion).
Regarding Claim 3, Jones discloses the orthodontic appliance of claim 2, and further discloses that the limit (36) is a portion of the protrusion (20) with a dimension greater than that of one or both of the first eyelet and the second eyelet (as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Jones discloses the orthodontic appliance of claim 1, and further discloses that the protrusions have a protrusion base (trunnion at slot end 32) and a protrusion end (30), where a width of the protrusions at a point between the protrusion base and the protrusion end is less than a width of the protrusions at the protrusion end (as seen in Figure 5, protrusion end 30 is wider than base at opposite slot end).
Regarding Claim 8, Jones discloses the orthodontic appliance of claim 1, and further discloses that one or both of the first eyelet fully encloses the first protrusion during use in the patient's mouth and the second eyelet fully encloses the second protrusion during use in the patient's mouth (as seen in Figure 2, the eyelets fully encircle the protrusions).
Regarding Claim 13, Jones discloses the orthodontic appliance of Claim 1, and further discloses that one or both of the first protrusion and the second protrusion have a rotation-limiting feature, where the rotation-limiting feature limits rotation in at least one direction(as described in Column 3, lines 30-40, bore 26 of the protrusion is threaded at 27 to receive screw member 28 in order to retain the wire in slot 32, thus limiting rotation).
Regarding Claim 14, Jones discloses the orthodontic appliance of Claim 13, and further discloses that the rotation-limiting feature limits rotation in a first direction to a first degree and rotation in a second direction to a second degree (rotation would be limited to zero in a first direction and zero in a second direction).
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 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Shannon et al. (US 2021/0015593 A1, hereinafter “Shannon”).
Regarding Claim 17, Jones discloses an orthodontic appliance (abstract), the orthodontic appliance comprising a main body portion (Figure 1, 10), the main body portion including a first end (16) and a second end (18), where the first end is opposite the second end (as seen in Figure 1), and where the first end includes a first eyelet and the second end includes a second eyelet (eyelets 38 as seen in Figure 4). Jones further discloses a first orthodontic device (wire 22 and trunnion 20 taken together), where the first orthodontic device is configured to be bonded to a first tooth in a patient's mouth (via bracket on upper teeth as seen but not labeled in Figure 1), where the first orthodontic device includes a first protrusion (trunnion 20), and where the first protrusion is located within the first eyelet during use in the patient's mouth (as described in Column 3, lines 40-45), and a second orthodontic device (wire 24 and other trunnion 20 taken together), where the second orthodontic device is configured to be bonded to a second tooth in the patient's mouth (via bracket on lower teeth as seen but not labeled in Figure 1), where the second orthodontic device includes a second protrusion (trunnion 20), and where the second protrusion is located within the second eyelet during use in the patient's mouth (as described in Column 3, lines 40-45).
Jones discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the orthodontic appliance is packaged with packaging that comprises a plurality of support structures that support the orthodontic appliance and a base, where the plurality of support structures secures the orthodontic appliance to the base.
In the same art of orthodontic devices, Shannon teaches packaging for an orthodontic device ([0003]) with a plurality of support structures (Figure 4, 406) that support the orthodontic appliance (404, as seen in Figure 4) and a base (400), where the plurality of support structures secures the orthodontic appliance to the base. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize a packaging method with support structures and a base as taught by Shannon with the device of Jones in order to provide a secure method for transporting the device without damage.
Regarding Claim 18, Jones in view of Shannon discloses the invention of Claim 17 substantially as described above, and Jones further discloses that one or both of the first protrusion and the second protrusion include a limit (flange 36 serves as a limit), wherein the limit limits motion of the main body portion with respect to one or both of the first orthodontic appliance and the second orthodontic appliance (as described in Column 5, lines 40-45, the flange 35 prevents outward movement of the ring member mounted on the trunnion).
Regarding Claim 19, Jones in view of Shannon discloses the invention of Claim 18 substantially as described above, and Jones further discloses that the limit (36) is a portion of the protrusion (20) with a dimension greater than that of one or both of the first eyelet and the second eyelet (as seen in Figure 5).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Jones in view of Shannon discloses the invention of Claim 17 substantially as described above, and Jones further discloses that the protrusions have a protrusion base (trunnion at slot end 32) and a protrusion end (30), where a width of the protrusions at a point between the protrusion base and the protrusion end is less than a width of the protrusions at the protrusion end (as seen in Figure 5, protrusion end 30 is wider than base at opposite slot end).
Regarding Claim 22, Jones in view of Shannon discloses the invention of Claim 17 substantially as described above, and Jones further discloses that one or both of the first eyelet fully encloses the first protrusion during use in the patient's mouth and the second eyelet fully encloses the second protrusion during use in the patient's mouth (as seen in Figure 2, the eyelets fully encircle the protrusions).
Regarding Claim 23, Jones in view of Shannon discloses the invention of Claim 17 substantially as described above, and Jones further discloses that one or both of the first protrusion and the second protrusion have a rotation-limiting feature, where the rotation-limiting feature limits rotation in at least one direction(as described in Column 3, lines 30-40, bore 26 of the protrusion is threaded at 27 to receive screw member 28 in order to retain the wire in slot 32, thus limiting rotation).
Regarding Claim 24, Jones in view of Shannon discloses the invention of Claim 23 substantially as described above, and Jones further discloses that the rotation-limiting feature limits rotation in a first direction to a first degree and rotation in a second direction to a second degree (rotation would be limited to zero in a first direction and zero in a second direction).
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