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 information disclosure statement filed fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
The following Foreign Patent Documents lack copies and English translations:
Cite No. 566, CN 1575782
Cite No. 583, JP 2019-529042
Cite No. 592, KR 2004-46323
Cite No. 597, WO 2004028391
Cite No. 605, WO 2008149222
Cite No. 619, WO 2020239429
Cite No. 620, WO 2020257724
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 7 line 2 to “[[the]]an occlusal plane and [[the]]a buccal plane”.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation “each of the one or more modules is coupled to “an adjacent module” in line 4. It is unclear if the “adjacent module” is one of the previously claimed “one or more modules”. If it is, it is unclear how many modules there are since the claim previously recites “one or more modules” (indicating that only one may be required) while the inclusion of an adjacent module would thereby require more than one. If it is not the same, it is unclear if “the one or more modules” recited later in the claim includes the adjacent module or not. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the adjacent modules as being one of the previously claimed one or more modules and suggests amending to clarify.
In regard to claims 1 and 2, it is further unclear if “an adjacent module” in claim 1 line 4 and claim 2 line 2 is a single module or if it is a respective adjacent module for each of the one or more modules. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the adjacent modules as being a respective adjacent module for each of the one or more modules and suggests amending to clarify.
In regard to claim 3, which recites the limitation “a reinforcing tab extending from the one or more modules” in lines 1-2, it is unclear if the claim is requiring a single tab, or a respective tab for each of the one or more modules. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim as requiring a respective tab for each of the one or more modules and suggests amending to clarify.
In regard to claim 4, which recites the limitation “further comprising a removal tab having a length which extends transversely relative to the one or more modules” in lines 1-2, it is unclear if the claim is requiring a single tab, or a respective tab for each of the one or more modules. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim as requiring a respective tab for each of the one or more modules and suggests amending to clarify.
In regard to claims 8-10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the receiving channel” since each of the one or more modules has a receiving channel. It is unclear which one of the receiving channels is being referred to, or if all of the receiving channels of the modules are being referred to. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the limitation as referring to all of the receiving channels of the modules and suggests amending to clarify.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,845,938 B2, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Cleary et al (U.S. Publication No. 2004/0219471 A1, hereinafter “Cleary”).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
415
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
780
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
369
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Kim discloses an indirect bonding tray apparatus (88 in Fig. 17, Figs. 11-17), comprising:
one or more modules (module in annotated Fig. 17, and modules A, B and C in annotated Fig. 15) each defining a receiving channel (receiving channel in annotated Fig. 17) for retaining an orthodontic appliance (46 in Fig. 17) within and capable of placement upon a dentition of a subject (90 in Fig. 17, col. 17 lines 1-2 and 40-44);
wherein each of the one or more modules is coupled to an adjacent module (annotated Fig. 15, Figs. 15-17) such that the one or more modules defines a flattened occlusal surface (70 in Fig. 17, col. 13 lines 23-28, 32-38) which forms a common plane over the apparatus (Figs. 11-17, col. 13 lines 20-23).
Kim does not disclose wherein at least one of the one or more modules defines an access lumen which extends directly through the flattened occlusal surface and is in communication with the receiving channel.
Cleary teaches a similar apparatus (44a in Fig. 8, para. 0092), comprising: one or more modules (module in annotated Fig. 8) each defining a receiving channel (receiving channel in annotated Fig. 8, para. 0095) for retaining an orthodontic appliance (34a in Fig. 8) within and capable of placement upon a dentition of a subject (para. 0021); wherein at least one of the one or more modules defines an access lumen (46a, 48a in Fig. 8, paras. 0093-0096) which extends directly through the occlusal surface and is in communication with the receiving channel (paras. 0093-0096).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of indirect bonding trays. 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 flattened occlusal surface of the apparatus of Kim by adding the access lumen such that the access lumen extends directly through the occlusal surface and is in communication with the receiving channel as taught by Cleary in order to allow for a vacuum to remove air while searing the appliance over the patient’s tooth in order to draw the tray toward the patient’s tooth structure, such that the orthodontic appliances are firmly pressed against the patient’s teeth (Cleary para. 0096-0097).
In regard to claim 2, Kim in view of Cleary discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein each of the one or more modules (module in annotated Fig. 17, modules A, B and C in annotated Fig. 15) is detachably removable from the adjacent module, as the indirect bonding tray apparatus is capable of being cut apart; furthermore, the claims only require one module which may be considered the entire device.
In regard to claim 3, Kim in view of Cleary discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses further comprising a reinforcing tab (reinforcing tab in annotated Fig. 17) extending from the one or more modules (module in annotated Fig. 17, Fig. 15).
In regard to claim 10, Kim in view of Cleary discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim further discloses further comprising an orthodontic bracket (46 in Fig. 17) positionable within the receiving channel (receiving channel in annotated Fig. 17, Figs. 12-13 and 15).
Claims 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cleary and Witte (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0095670 A1).
PNG
media_image5.png
568
795
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Kim in view of Cleary discloses the invention of claim 1. Kim does not disclose further comprising a removal tab having a length which extends transversely relative to the one or more modules.
Witte teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 49) comprising: one or more modules (module in annotated Fig. 49, Fig. 49) each defining a receiving channel (receiving channel in annotated Fig. 49, Fig. 49) for retaining an orthodontic appliance (758 in Fig. 49) within and capable of placement upon a dentition of a subject (para. 0201); further comprising a removal tab (750 in Fig. 49) having a length (tab length in annotated Fig. 49, Fig. 49) which extends transversely relative to the individual module (Fig. 49).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of indirect bonding trays. 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 modules of Kim in view of Cleary by adding the removal tab having a length which extends transversely relative to the individual module as taught by Witte in order to allow for the modules to be pried off of the tooth after being used to bond the bracket to the tooth (Witte para. 0201).
In regard to claim 5, Kim in view of Cleary and Witte discloses the invention of claim 4. Kim does not disclose further comprising a pivoting portion located away from the removal tab such that the removal tab is rotatable about the pivoting portion.
Witte further teaches a pivoting portion (pivoting portion in annotated Fig. 49) located away from the removal tab (750 in Fig. 49) such that the removal tab is rotatable about the pivoting portion (Fig. 49).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of indirect bonding trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a pivoting portion located away from the removal tab such that the removal tab is rotatable around the pivoting portion to the modules of Kim in view of Cleary and Witte, as taught by Witte, in order to allow for the modules to be pried off of the tooth after being used to bond the bracket to the tooth (Witte para. 0201).
In regard to claims 7, 8, and 9, Kim in view of Cleary and Witte discloses the invention of claim 5. Kim does not disclose wherein the pivoting portion is located in proximity to where an occlusal plane and a buccal plane of the indirect bonding tray apparatus meet,
wherein the pivoting portion is located along a buccal plane in proximity to the receiving channel,
wherein the pivoting portion defines a recessed portion in proximity to the receiving channel.
Witte further teaches a pivoting portion (pivoting portion in annotated Fig. 49) located in proximity to where the occlusal plane and buccal plane of the indirect bonding tray apparatus meet (Fig. 49), along a buccal plane (Fig. 49, para. 0009 “lingual and labial versions”) in proximity to the receiving channel (receiving channel in annotated Fig. 49, Fig. 49), wherein the pivoting portion defines a recessed portion in proximity to the receiving channel (Fig. 49).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of indirect bonding trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the pivoting portions of Kim in view of Cleary and Witte are located in proximity to where an occlusal plane and a buccal plane of the indirect bonding tray apparatus meet, along a buccal plane in proximity to the receiving channel, wherein the pivoting portion defines a recessed portion in proximity to the receiving channel as taught by Witte in order to allow for the modules to be pried off of the tooth after being used to bond the bracket to the tooth (Witte para. 0201).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cleary and Witte in view of Doyle (U.S. No. 5,863,198 A).
PNG
media_image6.png
515
634
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Kim in view of Cleary and Witte discloses the invention of claim 5. Kim does not disclose wherein the pivoting portion comprises a break joint configured to yield or bend.
Doyle teaches a similar indirect bonding tray apparatus (Fig. 13) comprising one or more modules (176 in Fig. 13) each defining a receiving channel (receiving channel in annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 13) for retaining an orthodontic appliance (182 in Fig. 13) within and capable of placement upon a dentition of a subject (178 in Fig. 13); wherein a pivoting portion (176a and recessed portion in annotated Fig. 13, Fig. 13) comprises a break joint (176a in Fig. 13) capable of yielding or bending (col. 8 lines 14-20, Fig. 13).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of indirect bonding trays. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the pivoting portions of Kim in view of Cleary and Witte comprise a break joint capable of yielding or bending as taught by Doyle in order to facilitate the removal of the modules from the tooth (Doyle col. 8 lines 14-20).
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
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772