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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment field 6/1/26.
All previous claim interpretation under 35 USC 112, F is maintained herein.
The amendments to the abstract filed 6/1/26 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Ayan in view of Tong, as explained in the previous office action and below, does not properly teach all limitations of the claimed invention, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Ayan is relied on to provide the teaching of the distraction assembly as a whole, comprising the distractor and the activation tool, with the tool being physically connected to the first part of the distractor (as noted below). The connection between the tool and the distractor provides a fixed and removable assembly due to the physical connection by the hook and stop as explained below. Tong is only relied on to teach the known use of providing a connection between an orthodontic device and an orthodontic tool using both a physical and magnetic coupling between them. The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the additional magnetic coupling into the tool and device of Ayan to improve the security of the connection among the other benefits explained below. The Examiner notes that should the teachings of Tong be applied to the device of Ayan the magnets would be placed as claimed in order to function. Still further, the Examiner notes that in the modified device with the magnetic and physical coupling means, the connection between the tool and the device is provided to be fixed, yet removable. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Tong is only relied on to teach the magnetic coupling and plastic construction, and all other components and structures are already disclosed in Ayan and not subject to further modification. Applicant’s arguments do not address the modification explained above and relied on below, and instead are based on other features and structure of Tong which are not relied on for the modification, and address the disclosure of Tong too narrowly, overlooking the general connection that Tong teaches.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the interpretation of the terms under 35 USC 112, F, the Examiner does not find such arguments persuasive as the claims currently recite a nonstructural modifier with a generic placeholder, without sufficient structure, which imparts interpretation under 35 USC 112 F. The Examiner suggests reciting structural features of the drive member and drive mechanism in claim 1 and 3, respectively, in order to remove the claims from interpretation under 35 USC 112 F. Claim 4 contains said structure and as such the term “drive mechanism” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112 F in claim 4.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but respectfully, are not persuasive.
NOTE: In order to move the application forward, the Examiner suggests incorporating the previously allowable claim limitations into claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayan (US 2009/0081602 A1) in view of Tong et al (US 11058517).
Regarding the above claims, Ayan discloses a distraction assembly (see Figs. 1-4), comprising: a palatal distractor (Fig. 1), which comprises an activation rod (5) and a body (4) segmented into a first part (left 4) and a second part (right 4, Fig. 1-1a), the rotation of the activation rod causing a relative displacement of the first part and the second part along a distraction axis X (e.g. width, see [0004], [0061]-[0062]), an activation tool (22), which comprises a drive member (14) configured to drive the activation rod in rotation (see [0060]-[0061]), the activation tool being removably attached by means of a fixed connection to the first part (via 16/20, see citations above; frictional retention by 16/0 forms removable and fixed connection). Ayan further discloses wherein the activation tool comprises a hook (20) being removable hooked onto the distractor (Figs. 2 and 3a; per claim 6); and wherein the activation tool comprises a stop (16) bearing on the body, preferably at least on the first part (see Fig. 2; per claim 7). Ayan, however, does not teach wherein the first part comprising a first magnetic assembly composed of at least one first permanent magnet, the activation tool comprising a second magnetic assembly composed of at least one second magnet, the fixed connection between the first part and the activation tool comprising a magnetic coupling between the first magnetic assembly and the second magnetic assembly (per claim 1) or the first permanent magnet is integrated into an envelope of plastic material (per claim 5) as required.
Tong et al, however, teaches an orthodontic assembly comprising an orthodontic device (100) and a positioning/manipulating tool (105, Fig. 1c), wherein the tool and device can be removably connected together by both a physical securement (e.g. grasping of the device via the tool) and a magnetic coupling forming a fixed and removable connection, wherein a first part of the device (102) comprising a first magnetic assembly composed of at least one first permanent magnet, the tool comprising a second magnetic assembly composed of at least one second magnet, the fixed connection between the first part and the tool comprising a magnetic coupling between the first and second magnetic assemblies (see col 7, lines 1-3, and col 6, lines 22-67). Tong further discloses that the device is formed of plastic or a plastic insert (see col 5, lines 35-39 and col 6, line 61), and as such the magnet would be formed or placed therein, surrounded by an envelope of the plastic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the connection between the device and tool of Ayan, to additionally include first and second magnetic assemblies and plastic envelope holding the magnet, as taught by Tong, as such modification would improve the security of the connection between the components, aid in centering or initial mating thereof, and reduce the risk of slippage when in use, and provide a secure attachment means for the magnet, while reducing the risk of loss thereof, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Ayan/Tong, as combined above, does not teach wherein the first magnetic assembly comprises a plurality of first permanent magnets and the second magnetic assembly comprises a plurality of second permanent magnets, and wherein the fixed connection between the palatal distractor and the activation tool comprises a magnetic coupling between the first permanent magnets of the first magnetic assembly and the second permanent magnets of the second magnetic assembly as required. However, the Examiner notes that such modification would merely involve a duplication of known parts of the device which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the specific number of magnet pairs is described as merely preferable in the instant disclosure (see [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ayan/Tong, as combined above, to include a plurality of first and second magnets, as such modification would merely involve a duplication of known parts of the device, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayan in view of Tong, as combined above, further in view of Hashimoto (KR 20100094426 A).
Regarding claim 2, Ayan/Tong, as combined above, does not teach wherein the second magnetic assembly in the tool is formed of a permanent magnet as required.
Hashimoto, however, teaches a magnetic orthodontic tool with a permanent magnet (60) forming a second magnetic assembly in a tool, used to engage a first magnetic assembly in an orthodontic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ayan/Tong, as combined above, to include Hashimoto’s teaching of providing the second magnetic assembly as a permanent magnet, as such modification would improve the strength and reliability of the magnetic connection.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayan in view of Tong, as combined above, further in view of Chon (KR 102064710).
Regarding claims 3-4, Ayan/Tong, as combined above, discloses all the features of the claimed invention, including wherein the assembly comprises a drive mechanism (Ayan, 5.1/15) arranged on the tool and distractor, interposed between an output means (9) and the activation rod (5), wherein activation of the output means drives a rotation of the activation rod via the drive mechanism (14, see Ayan, citations above), and wherein the drive mechanism comprises a first gear (5.1) and a second gear (15), the first gear being attached to the activation rod, the second gear being arranged on the tool and being driven in rotation by the output means, the first gear being engaged with the second gear (see Ayan, Figs and citations above). Ayan/Tong, as combined above, while teaching a manually actuatable output means (9 Ayan), does not teach that the drive mechanism is attached to an output shaft of a drive electric motor, such that rotation of the shaft drives second gear and first gear to rotate the activation rod as required.
Chon, however, teaches a similar dental tool (see Figs. 3-4) comprising a similar drive member (e.g. rack 140), wherein the operation of the drive member is performed by a drive electric motor (110) having an output shaft (120) to operate the rack. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Ayan/Tong, as combined above, to include Chon’s drive electric motor, as such modification would merely involve the automation a previously manual activity, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(III)) and would improve ease of installation as the user would not need to provide additional force or leverage to the device in order to operate, merely pressing a switch in order to function, also improving accuracy of placement and locating. The Examiner notes that should the device of Ayan/Tong, as combined above, be modified with the teachings of Chon, as combined above, the drive mechanism would be interposed between the output shaft of the motor and the activation rod, a rotation of the shaft driving rotation of the rod via the drive mechanism, and wherein the second gear being driven in rotation by the motor as required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, either alone or in proper combination, does not teach the specific arrangement of at least two first and second permanent magnets of the first and second magnetic assemblies being arranged obliquely to each other, in combination with the other required limitations of the claims.
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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM EST.
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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights