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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification in paragraphs 0065, 0075, 0089, and 0090 is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“a” and “b” in Figure 6B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 12 line 2 to “[[a]]the single tooth aligner”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 13 lines 1-2 to “lloop-shaped”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, and 18 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the recessed surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claims 1, 3, and 4 do not recite the limitation “a recessed surface”, though claim 3 lines 1-2 recites the limitation “a partial recessed surface”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 5 line 2 as, and suggests amending to, “the partial recessed surface”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the recessed surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claims 1, 3, and 4 do not recite the limitation “a recessed surface”, though claim 3 lines 1-2 recites the limitation “a partial recessed surface”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 6 lines 1-2 as, and suggests amending to, “the partial recessed surface”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a loop-shaped connector” in line 1. It is unclear if the “a loop-shaped connector” of claim 12 line 1 is intended to refer to one of the two or more connectors of claim 11 line 2, or another connector which is unrelated to the two or more connectors. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 12 line 1 as referring to one of the two or more connectors of claim 11 line 2 and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the distal end and the proximal end of the palatal arms" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as claims 1, 3, and 7 do not recite the limitations “a distal end”, “a proximal end” or “palatal arms”. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 14 line 2 as, and suggests amending to, “[[the]]a distal end and [[the]]a proximal end of [[the]] palatal arms”.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “comprising one or more metal spacers the palatal portion has a thickness greater than thickness of the alignment portion”. The limitation is grammatically incorrect and it is unclear what the limitation is intending to claim, as the only mention of metal spacers is in para. 0179 of the Specification, which is grammatically incorrect in a similar way to claim 16. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 16 as, “comprising one or more metal spacers, and wherein the palatal portion has a thickness greater than thickness of the alignment portion” and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “in between sections of the buccal side” in line 2. This limitation is unclear as Applicant claims a unibody aligner in claim 1 line 2, and it is unclear what sections of the buccal side are being claimed as the aligner is a unibody. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 18 line 2 as referring to sections with are an additional element to the unibody which is connected to the unibody, such as the single tooth aligner of claims 11-13, and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 is dependent on itself, as claim 20 recites “The dental appliance of claim 20” in line 1. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 20 line 1 as “The dental appliance of claim [[20]]19” and suggests amending to clarify.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riley et al (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0353264 A1, hereinafter “Riley).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Riley discloses a dental appliance (Figs. 1A-1E) comprising: a unibody aligner (100 in Fig. 1A) having a top surface (top surface in annotated Fig. 1B) and a bottom surface (bottom surface in annotated Fig. 1B), the unibody aligner comprising: an alignment portion (104 in Fig. 1B) shaped to fit over multiple teeth of a patient (Figs. 1A and 1B, para. 0064), the alignment portion having a buccal side (buccal side in annotated Fig. 1B) and a lingual side (lingual side in annotated Fig. 1B); and a palatal portion (102 in Fig. 1B, para. 0064) integrally formed with the lingual side of the alignment portion (Fig. 1B), the palatal portion including one or more retention sockets (110 in Figs. 1A-1C), each of the one or more retention sockets shaped for fitment over an implanted temporary anchorage device (TAD) (TAD in Fig. 1B, para. 0067).
In regard to claim 2, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley further discloses wherein a top surface (top surface in annotated Fig. 1B) of the palatal portion has contours to line up with contours of the patient's palate (Fig. 1B, paras. 0064-0065, designed to contact the palate).
In regard to claim 3, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley further discloses wherein the one or more retention sockets (110 in Figs. 1A-1C) have a partial recessed surface (surface in annotated Fig. 1B, Fig. 1C, para. 0067, recesses).
In regard to claim 4, Riley discloses the invention of claim 3. Riley further discloses wherein the one or more retention sockets (110 in Figs. 1A-1C) are shaped to removably attach with a head of the implanted TAD (paras. 0008 and 0066-0068).
In regard to claim 6, Riley discloses the invention of claim 4. Riley further discloses wherein the implanted TAD (TAD in Fig. 1B) has a head (paras. 0008, 0066 and 0068) and the partial recessed surface has a shape of a cylinder (Figs. 1A-1C, para. 0067).
In regard to claim 7, Riley discloses the invention of claim 3. Riley further discloses wherein the palatal portion includes at least two retention sockets (110 in Figs. 1A-1C, three retention sockets in Fig. 1A, two shown in Fig. 1B and four shown in Fig. 4E).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baughman et al (U.S. Patent No. 8,444,412 B2, hereinafter “Baughman”).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 19, Baughman discloses a dental appliance (Figs. 3-5b) comprising: an alignment portion (alignment portion in annotated Fig. 4a) shaped to fit over multiple teeth of a patient (Fig. 5a, col. 2 lines 65-66), the alignment portion having a buccal side (buccal side in annotated Fig. 4a) and a lingual side (lingual side in annotated Fig. 4a); and the buccal side having integrally formed portions (16 in Fig. 4a, col. 2 line 62- col. 3 line 7) capable of fitting over an implant (col. 3 lines 1-7).
In regard to claim 20, Baughman discloses the invention of claim 19. Baughman further discloses wherein the implant comprises a temporary anchorage device (TAD) (12 in Figs. 3 and 5a, col. 2 lines 62-66).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Baughman.
In regard to claim 5, Riley discloses the invention of claim 4. Riley does not disclose wherein the implanted TAD has a spherical head and the partial recessed surface has a spherical shape, though Riley does disclose that the head of the TAD may be shaped in a variety of configurations (para. 0008).
Baughman discloses a similar apparatus (Figs. 3-5b and 10c) comprising an implanted TAD (34 in Fig. 10c) and retention sockets having partially recessed surfaces (col. 3 lines 35-40, complimentary female mating portion), wherein the implanted TADs have a spherical head (Fig. 10c) and the partial recessed surfaces have a spherical shape (col. 3 lines 35-40, complimentary female mating portion).
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 appliances coupled to implanted TADs. 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 implanted TAD and partial recessed surface of Riley by replacing the head of the implanted TAD with a spherical head and replacing the partial recessed surface to have a spherical shape as taught by Baughman in order to allow the aligner to be snap-fitted into place so as to be accurately positioned on the teeth and removable retained in the desired position (Baughman col. 1 lines 45-51).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Raby et al (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0253696 A1, hereinafter “Raby”).
PNG
media_image3.png
456
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose further comprising: two or more palatal arms extending from the palatal portion, the palatal arms having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being integrally formed with the palatal portion, and the distal end shaped to fit over a tooth of the patient.
Raby teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A-3) comprising a unibody aligner (10 in Fig. 1C) having a palatal portion (palatal portion in annotated Fig. 1C, para. 0052) comprising two or more palatal arms (16A and 16F in Fig. 1C, para. 0058) extending from the palatal portion (Fig. 1C), the palatal arms having a proximal end (proximal end in annotated Fig. 1C) and a distal end (distal end in annotated Fig. 1C), the proximal end being integrally formed with the palatal portion (para. 0054, integrally formed), and the distal end shaped to fit over a tooth of the patient (Fig. 1C, paras. 0036-0037).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal portion of Riley by adding two or more palatal arms extending from the palatal portion, the palatal arms having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being integrally formed with the palatal portion, and the distal end shaped to fit over a tooth of the patient as taught by Raby in order to allow for expansion in a horizontal plane as the arms relax from initial deflected states (Raby para. 0004).
Claims 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Sato et al (U.S. Publication No, 2018/0368944 A1, hereinafter “Sato”).
PNG
media_image4.png
503
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 9, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose two or more palatal arms extending from the palatal portion, the palatal arms having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being hingedly connected to the palatal portion, and the distal end shaped to fit over a tooth of the patient.
Sato teaches an apparatus (Figs. 24A-24B) comprising a unibody aligner (unibody aligner in annotated Fig. 24A, paras. 0212, 0251 and 0258) having a palatal portion (2404 in Fig. 24A) comprising two or more palatal arms (arms in annotated in Fig. 24A) extending from the palatal portion (Fig. 24A, para. 0258), the palatal arms having a proximal end (proximal end in annotated Fig. 24A) and a distal end (distal end and single-tooth aligner in annotated Fig. 24A), the proximal end being hingedly connected to the palatal portion (para. 0259, rotation), and the distal end shaped to fit over a tooth of the patient (Fig. 24A, para. 0251, tooth engagement structure can be analogous to those of 13C-13D which fit over tooth).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal portion of Riley by adding two or more palatal arms extending from the palatal portion, the palatal arms having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being hingedly connected to the palatal portion, and the distal end shaped to fit over a tooth of the patient as taught by Sato in order to allow for the expansion force to be balanced and directed so that the teeth move more evenly and the arch expansion process maintains a proper or desired shape of the dental arch (Sato para. 0259).
In regard to claim 10, Riley in view of Sato discloses the invention of claim 9. Riley does not disclose wherein the two or more palatal arms are made from the same material as the unibody aligner.
Sato teaches an apparatus (Fig. 24A-24B) wherein the two or more palatal arms are made from the same material as the unibody aligner (paras. 0116, 0251, shell analogous to Fig. 13E, para. 0212, fabricated from one material).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal arms of Riley by fabricating the arms out of the same material as the unibody aligner as taught by Sato in order to allow the arms to have desired material properties (Sato para. 0212).
In regard to claim 11, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose further comprising: two or more connectors extending from the palatal portion, the connectors having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being connected to the palatal portion, and the distal end being connected to a single tooth aligner.
Sato teaches an apparatus (Figs. 24A-24B) comprising a unibody aligner (unibody aligner in annotated Fig. 24A, paras. 0212, 0251 and 0258) having a palatal portion (2404 in Fig. 24A) further comprising: two or more connectors (arms 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 24A, two arms) extending from the palatal portion (Fig. 24A, para. 0258), the connectors having a proximal end (proximal ends in annotated Fig. 24A) and a distal end (distal ends in annotated Fig. 24A), the proximal end being connected to the palatal portion (Fig. 24A, paras. 0258-0259), and the distal end being connected to a single tooth aligner (single tooth aligners in annotated Fig. 24A).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal portion of Riley by adding two or more connectors extending from the palatal portion, the connectors having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end being connected to the palatal portion, and the distal end being connected to a single tooth aligner as taught by Sato in order to allow for the expansion force to be balanced and directed so that the teeth move more evenly and the arch expansion process maintains a proper or desired shape of the dental arch (Sato para. 0259).
In regard to claim 12, Riley in view of Sato discloses the invention of claim 11. Riley does not disclose further comprising a loop-shaped connector integrally formed with the alignment portion and the single tooth-aligner.
Sato teaches an apparatus (Figs. 24A-24B) comprising a unibody aligner (unibody aligner in annotated Fig. 24A, paras. 0212, 0251 and 0258) having a palatal portion (2404 in Fig. 24A) further comprising a loop-shaped connector (Fig. 24A, loops in annotated Fig. 24A) integrally formed with the alignment portion and the single tooth-aligner (paras. 0212, 0251 and 0258).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal portion of Riley in view of Sato by adding a loop-shaped connector integrally formed with the alignment portion and the single tooth-aligner as taught by Sato in order to allow for the expansion force to be balanced and directed so that the teeth move more evenly and the arch expansion process maintains a proper or desired shape of the dental arch (Sato para. 0259).
In regard to claim 14, Riley discloses the invention of claim 7. Riley does not disclose wherein an elongate unfilled space extends between a distal end and a proximal end of palatal arms and an edge of the palatal portion.
Sato teaches an apparatus (Figs. 24A-24B) wherein an elongate unfilled space (space in annotated Fig. 24A) extends between a distal end (distal end in annotated Fig. 24A) and a proximal end (proximal end in annotated Fig. 24A) of palatal arms (arms 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 24A) and an edge of the palatal portion (edge in annotated Fig. 24A).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal portion of Riley by adding palatal arms having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein an elongate unfilled space extends between a distal end and a proximal end of palatal arms and an edge of the palatal portion as taught by Sato in order to allow for the expansion force to be balanced and directed so that the teeth move more evenly and the arch expansion process maintains a proper or desired shape of the dental arch (Sato para. 0259).
In regard to claim 15, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose further comprising reinforcing structures integrally formed in the palatal portion.
Sato teaches an apparatus further comprising reinforcing structures integrally formed in the palatal portion (para. 0275).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 palatal portion of Riley by adding reinforcing structures integrally formed in the palatal portion as taught by Sato in order to direct force from the palatal portion to other portions of the aligner (Sato para. 0275).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Sato in view of Peikar et al (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0156823 A1, hereinafter “Peikar”).
In regard to claim 13, Riley in view of Sato discloses the invention of claim 11. Riley does not disclose wherein the two or more connectors are loop-shaped metal wires, and the single tooth aligner is made from the same material as the unibody aligner.
Sato teaches an apparatus (Figs. 24A-24B) comprising a unibody aligner (unibody aligner in annotated Fig. 24A, paras. 0212, 0251 and 0258) having a palatal portion (2404 in Fig. 24A) wherein the two or more connectors are loop-shaped wires (Fig. 24A, two loops in annotated Fig. 24A), and the single tooth aligner is made from the same material as the unibody aligner (paras. 0251, and 0258 and 0212, tooth engagement structures, regulating structures and transpalatal element can be fabricated from one material).
Peikar teaches loop-shaped wires (2302 in Figs. 23A-23b, paras. 0216 and 0266) which are made of metal (para. 0209, 0143, and 0257).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances.
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 connectors and single tooth aligner of Riley in view of Sato by fabricating the connectors of loop-shaped wires, and fabricating the single tooth aligner from the same material as the unibody aligner as taught by Sato in order to allow for the expansion force to be balanced and directed so that the teeth move more evenly and the arch expansion process maintains a proper or desired shape of the dental arch (Sato para. 0259).
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 connectors and single tooth aligner of Riley in view of Sato by fabricating loop-shaped wires of metal as taught by Peikar in order to allow for formation of the wires of the appliance with a variety of manufacturing techniques (Peikar para. 0143).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Phan et al (U.S. Publication No. 2002/0192617 A1, hereinafter “Phan”) and Raby.
In regard to claim 16, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose comprising one or more metal spacers, and wherein the palatal portion has a thickness greater than thickness of the alignment portion.
Phan teaches an apparatus (Fig. 5) comprising one or more metal spacers (36 in Fig. 5, para. 0082).
Raby teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A-3) wherein a palatal portion (18 in Fig. 1C, para. 0052) has a thickness greater than thickness of an alignment portion (paras. 0042 and 0055, 18 may have thickness between 2.5-3 mm while alignment portion 12 may have thickness of about 1 mm).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances.
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 appliance of Riley by adding one or more metal spacers as taught by Phan to allow for holding soft tissues away from the teeth to disrupt the tongue-cheek equilibrium and facilitate dental movement (Phan para. 0082).
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 appliance of Riley by fabricating the palatal portion has a thickness greater than thickness of the alignment portion as taught by Raby to allow for the palatal portion to have sufficient rigidity to act as an anchor while the alignment portion is thick enough to withstand the forces applied by the expander (Raby paras. 0042 and 055).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Phan.
In regard to claim 17, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose further comprising metallic, longitudinal reinforcing structures disposed along the buccal side.
Phan teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2) further comprising metallic, longitudinal reinforcing structures (22 in Fig. 2, para. 0080, one or more wires) disposed along the buccal side (Fig. 2, 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 shell appliances. 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 appliance of Riley by adding metallic, longitudinal reinforcing structures disposed along the buccal side as taught by Phan to allow for structural reinforcement and aid in the application of orthodontic repositioning forces (Phan para. 0080).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley in view of Moon et al (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0231485 A1, hereinafter “Moon”).
In regard to claim 18, Riley discloses the invention of claim 1. Riley does not disclose further comprising one or more double loops wires positioned in between sections of the buccal side.
Moon teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2D, para. 0109) further comprising one or more double loops wires (Fig. 2D, para. 0108-0109) positioned in between sections of the buccal side (Figure 1, placed at Closing/Opening Loops 310).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic shell appliances. 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 appliance of Riley by adding one or more double loops wires positioned in between sections of the buccal side as taught by Moon to allow for imparting controllability to the appliance and augmenting properties of the appliance to enhance effectiveness for realigning the teeth (Moon para. 0014).
Conclusion
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 9/24/2025