ORTHODONTIC ATTACHMENT

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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 13, 2026 has been entered. Priority The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/375852, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application 18/375852 does not contain support for the second protrusion. Priority is awarded to Application 18/536111 with a filing date of December 11, 2023. 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. Claims 1, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feller (US 2017/0325912 A1). Regarding Claim 1, and 22-25, Feller discloses an orthodontic hook (Figure 4) attachable to a tooth surface, the hook comprising a base pad attachable to the tooth surface (see annotated Figure 4 below), and a hook body (see annotated Figure 4 below) comprising a connection part (see annotated Figure 4 below) projecting from the base pad and extending to a cantilevered part of the hook body that is cantilevered over the base pad such that a slot (108) is formed in the orthodontic hook, the cantilevered part terminating in an end part of the cantilevered part (see annotated Figure 4 below), a first extremity of the end part being a point of maximum extension along the cantilevered part (see annotated Figure 4 below), a second extremity of the end part being maximally proximate to the base pad, the end part forming a first protrusion extending toward the base pad and the first protrusion tapering from the first extremity to the second extremity (see annotated Figure 4 below), a second protrusion extending toward the second extremity from the base pad (see annotated Figure 4 below), the second protrusion defining a fourth extremity at the base pad maximally distal from the connection part (see annotated Figure 4 below), the second protrusion having a tapered shape and tapering from the fourth extremity to a second end of the second protrusion (as seen in Figure 4), a slot constriction being formed between the second extremity and the second end (slot constriction is the narrowest point of the slot located between the second extremity of the end part and the second end of the second protrusion), the second extremity being directly above the second end (as seen in Figure 4 were Figure rotated 90 degrees so that “above” is oriented at the top of the figure), a slot opening being formed between the first extremity and the fourth extremity (as seen in Figure 4), the slot continuously narrowing from the slot opening to the slot constriction (as seen in Figure 4). Feller further discloses a fourth width between the first extremity and the base pad being larger than a fifth width between the second extremity and the second end by what appears to be at least 2.6 times (see second annotation of Figure 4 with widths below), and a first guiding surface of the hook body between the first extremity and the second extremity forming an angle with the base pad that is larger than 30 degrees and less than 85 degrees (as is seen in Figure 4, an angle between the base pad and a surface of the hook body between the first extremity and the second extremity appears to be in a range of 30-85 degrees). Feller discloses that a first length between the first extremity and the second extremity being larger than the fifth width, and a second length between the fourth extremity and the second end being larger than the fifth width see second annotation of Figure 4 with widths below). Additionally, the first length appears to be larger than the fifth width, and the second length is larger than the fifth width. Feller does not specifically disclose that a fourth width between the first extremity and the base pad being larger than a fifth width between the second extremity and the second end by at least 2.6 times, that a first guiding surface of the hook body between the first extremity and the second extremity forms an angle with the base pad that is larger than 30 degrees and less than 85 degrees, that the first length is larger than the fifth width by at least 1.5 times, that the second length is larger than the fifth width by at least 1.5 times, or that the fifth width is less than 0.7 mm. However, the specification of the present disclosure is silent as to the criticality of these values, and throughout the specification references values as optional (“may be”) or in an alternative. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claimed variables of the ranges are result effective variables dependent on the desired properties achieved by the hook (e.g. ease of insertion, holding force, size or shape of components the hook is desired to interact with, and/or clearances in the mouth or where the hook is located). 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 Feller with the fourth width between the first extremity and the base pad being larger than a fifth width between the second extremity and the second end by at least 2.6 times, a first guiding surface of the hook body between the first extremity and the second extremity forming an angle with the base pad that is larger than 30 degrees and less than 85 degrees, the first length larger than the fifth width by at least 1.5 times, the second length larger than the fifth width by at least 1.5 times, and the fifth width less than 0.7 mm., as such modifications would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). PNG media_image1.png 762 628 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 691 445 media_image2.png Greyscale Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed August 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As seen in the annotated Figure above, the fourth extremity of Feller is at the base pad, where the base pad is interpreted as indicated above. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Feller describes a different structure, the applicant is reminded that the claims are interpreted with a lens of the broadest reasonable interpretation, and as outlined above the structure of Feller meets the limitations as claimed. Ther terminology used in the prior art description (i.e. “archwire groove”) does not preclude the interpretation of elements if the structure of the prior art reads on the claims as presented. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that the parameter/ranges are not disclosed by Feller, the examiner respectfully disagrees, and reminds the applicant that criticality for the parameter/ranges claimed is not disclosed. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that the structural relationship for the insertion of an elastic rubber band or the insertion mechanism is not met, the applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Applicant’s comments regarding prior drawing objections are noted; however, new drawing sheets were not received with this response as indicated in the applicant’s remarks. Drawing objections regarding the “third distance” have been withdrawn as the applicant has correctly indicated that this limitation does not appear in pending claims 1 and 22-25. 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 9-5 ET. 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