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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each fixing element is attached to a surface of a respective abnormal tooth” in lines 2-3 which should read “each fixing element is configured to attach[[ed]] to a surface of a respective abnormal tooth”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shivapuja et al. (US 20190388189, hereinafter Shivapuja) in view of Lai et al. (US 20230380939, hereinafter Lai) and Huang (US 20180325626).
Regarding Claim 1, Shivapuja discloses dental braces (figures 1-7), comprising: a plurality of fixing elements (B; figures 42 and 44-45)¸wherein each fixing elements is attached to a surface of a respective of abnormal tooth (figure 42) and provided with a first connector (the outer surface of B; figures 42 and 44), wherein the first connector is a groove (figure 42 depicts a groove within B), and a wall of the groove (figure 42); and an orthodontic element (C; figure 44-45) provided with a second connector (the space in which C goes around B when placed on the tooth; figure 44) adapted to the first connector (figure 44-45; paragraph [0237]), wherein the second connector is a protrusion (see illustrated figure 44) adapted to the groove of the first connector and engages with the first connector to form an interference fit (figure 44; paragraph [0237]-[0238]), wherein the orthodontic element is detachably connected to the at least one fixing element (paragraph [0014], [0239]); and an elastic force of the orthodontic element acts on the plurality of abnormal teeth to control movement of the plurality of abnormal teeth (paragraph [0014], [0238]-[0239]).
PNG
media_image1.png
524
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shivapuja does not disclose a cross-sectional width of the groove adjacent to a bottom of the groove is greater than a cross-sectional width of the groove adjacent to an opening of the groove and a wall of the groove is provided with a rough surface or multiple corrugations.
Lai discloses an orthodontic bracket (figures 1-8) the first connector (100a; figures 5-8) is a groove (150a; figure 7), a cross-sectional width of the groove is adjacent to a bottom of the groove is greater (figure 8) than a cross-sectional width of the groove adjacent to an opening of the groove (figure 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the fixing element with the first connector having a groove of Shivapuja to have a cross-sectional width of the groove is adjacent to a bottom of the groove is greater than a cross-sectional width of the groove adjacent to an opening of the groove as taught by Lai in order for a more secure fit of the second connector.
Huang discloses an orthodontic bracket (figure 6), a groove (figure 6) and a wall (figure 6) of the groove is provided with a rough surface (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the wall of Shivapuja to have a rough surface as taught by Huang in order to grip the aligner easier.
Regarding Claim 2, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 1. Shivapuja discloses the orthodontic element is further provided with an accommodating chamber (see illustrated figure 44), wherein the accommodating chamber covers at least part of the respective abnormal tooth (figure 44), and at least partially covers each fixing element (figure 44), and the shape of the side of the accommodating chamber facing the abnormal tooth corresponds to the shape of the outer surface of the abnormal tooth (figure 44); and wherein the second connector is located in the accommodating chamber (figure 44).
Regarding Claim 3, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 2. Shivapuja discloses wherein the accommodating chamber completely covers the at least one fixing element (see illustrated figure 44).
Regarding Claim 6, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 1. Shivapuja does disclose the groove of the first connector (figure 42 depicts a groove which is the slot D fits into) that is located at the top of the orthodontic appliance/bracket (figures 42 and 44), however, Shivapuja does not disclose the groove is provided with at least two recesses.
Lai, in another embodiment discloses the first connector comprises a groove (150a and the groove on 101a; figure 6) the groove is provided at least two recesses (figures 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the groove of the first connector with one recess of Shivapuja to have two recesses as taught by Lai in order to apply the desired forces on the teeth. Therefore, the projection of Shivapuja would be modified by Nicholson to interact with the grooves and provide the different forces on the teeth.
Regarding Claim 7, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 6. Shivapuja does not disclose the at least two recesses intersect.
Lai discloses the at least two recesses intersect (figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first connector of Shivapuja to have two recesses that intersect as taught by Lai in order to apply the desired forces on the teeth.
Regarding Claim 8, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 6. Shivapuja does not disclose a first one of the at least two recesses has a depth greater than a depth a second one of the at least two recesses.
Lai discloses a first one (150a; Figures 5-6) of the at least two recesses has a depth greater than a depth a second one (the indentation on 101a; figures 5-8) of the at least two recesses (figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first connector of Shivapuja to have two recesses that intersect as different depths as taught by Lai in order apply the desired forces on the teeth.
Regarding Claim 9, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 1. Shivapuja does not disclose the groove of the first connector is at least partially curved.
Lai discloses the groove of the first connector is at least partially curved (Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the groove of Shivapuja to be partially curved as taught by Lai in order to hold the archwire in place more securely.
Regarding Claim 10, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 1. Shivapuja discloses the orthodontic element provided with the second connector is integrally formed by three-dimensional (3D) printing (abstract; figures 42 and 44-45). The claimed phrase “integrally formed by three-dimensional (3D) printing” is being treated as a product by process limitation, that is, that the orthodontic element integrally formed. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 11, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 1. Shivapuja discloses the orthodontic element partially covers the plurality of abnormal teeth to control movement (paragraph [0238]).
Regarding Claim 12, Shivapuja as modified by Lai and Huang discloses the bracket of claim 1. Shivapuja discloses the groove of the first connector is provided with one longitudinal recess (figures 42-44).
Shivapuja does not disclose the groove of the first connector is provided with at least one transverse recess and at least two longitudinal recesses and the at least two longitudinal recesses intersect the at least one transverse recess.
Huang discloses the groove of the first connector (figure 6) is provided with at least one transverse recess (Figure 6) and at least two longitudinal recesses ( Figure 6) and the at least two longitudinal recesses intersect the at least one transverse recess (figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the groove of Shivapuja to have the first connector is provided with at least one transverse recess and at least two longitudinal recesses and the at least two longitudinal recesses intersect the at least one transverse recess as taught by Huang in order to hold the aligner in place more securely.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to Shivapuja and Claim 1, The Examiner agrees that Shivapuja does not disclose a cross-sectional width of the groove adjacent to a bottom of the groove is greater than a cross-sectional width of the groove adjacent to an opening of the groove and a wall of the groove is provided with a rough surface or multiple corrugations. Such limitations are taught by Lai and Huang, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772