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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
More specifically, claim 22 recites: “determining an angle of the hook relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth”. This language is not supported by the original disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter. ((See also 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f), MPEP 608.04, 706.03(o)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 22, 24 - 28, 30, 33, 36 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Griffin et al. US 2019/0377327 (hereinafter Griffin).
Regarding claim 21, Griffin teaches: method of manufacturing customized orthodontic tubes for patients, the method comprising:
obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) model of one or more teeth of a patient (Fig. 1 - - measure dentition data from scan/CB-CT; construct 3D CAD model of teeth);
generating a 3D model of an orthodontic tube structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth of the patient, the orthodontic tube structure including a hook for creation of force by an attachment to the orthodontic tube structure, the hook being angled relative to a body of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 1 - - CCAA is designed; Fig. 10, [0054] - - CCAA includes a hook that provides the capability to use additional systems that create vectors of force; Fig. 10 shows the hook being angled relative to a body of the CCAA); and
using an additive manufacturing device to produce a customized orthodontic tube based on the 3D model of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 1 - - CCAA is printed).
Regarding claim 22, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: generating the 3D model of the orthodontic tube structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth of the patient comprises:
determining an angle of the hook relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth; and
generating the 3D model of the orthodontic tube structure with the hook angled at the determined angle (Fig. 10 shows the hook being angled relative to a body of the CCAA; thus the angle is determined).
Regarding claim 24, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: determining the angle of the hook relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure based on a prescription ([0014], [0086] - - the bracket design is based on a prescription).
Regarding claim 25, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the angled hook is angled between 90 degrees labially and 30 degrees lingually from a face of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 26, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the angled hook is angled up to 45 degrees away from a body of the orthodontic tube structure in a plane of the hook (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 27, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the hook is connected to the body of the orthodontic tube structure at an intersection of a gingival and buccal surface of the body of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 28, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: hook is on a buccal surface of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 30, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the hook is a curved hook (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 33, Griffin teaches: an additively manufactured customized orthodontic tube produced by an additive manufacturing device using a 3D model of an orthodontic tube structure generated using a 3D model of one or more teeth of a patient (Fig. 1), the additively manufactured customized orthodontic tube comprising:
a hook for creation of force by an attachment to the orthodontic tube structure, the hook being angled relative to a body of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10, [0054] - - CCAA includes a hook that provides the capability to use additional systems that create vectors of force; Fig. 10 shows the hook being angled relative to a body of the CCAA).
Regarding claim 36, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the angled hook is angled between 90 degrees labially and 30 degrees lingually from a face of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 37, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the angled hook is angled up to 45 degrees away from a body of the orthodontic tube structure in a plane of the hook (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 38, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: the hook is connected to the body of the orthodontic tube structure at an intersection of a gingival and buccal surface of the body of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 39, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: hook is on a buccal surface of the orthodontic tube structure (Fig. 10).
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 23, 29, 34, 35, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. US 2019/0377327 (hereinafter Griffin) in view of Ye et al. CN 210009156 (hereinafter Ye).
Regarding claim 23, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Griffin does not explicitly teach: determining the angle of the hook relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth comprises:
determining the angle of the hook such that the hook avoids contact with the patient's mouth when the customized orthodontic tube is placed in the patient's mouth.
However, Ye teaches: determining the angle of the hook relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure using the 3D model of the one or more teeth comprises:
determining the angle of the hook such that the hook avoids contact with the patient's mouth when the customized orthodontic tube is placed in the patient's mouth (Page 2 - - “Further, the end of the traction hook is close to the jaw pad. In this way, the end of the traction hook can be prevented from contacting the skin of the patient's oral cavity, and the patient's oral cavity can be prevented from being worn.”).
Griffin and Ye are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to orthodontic parts.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Griffin, and incorporating avoid hook contacting patient’s mouth, as taught by Ye.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve patient’s comfort, as suggested by Ye (Page 2).
Regarding claim 29, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Griffin does not explicitly teach: the hook has a configurable angle relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure.
However, Ye teaches: the hook has a configurable angle relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure (Page 3 - - “the traction hook is bent by the medical staff”; bent is configuring angle).
Griffin and Ye are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to orthodontic parts.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Griffin, and incorporating bending a hook, as taught by Ye.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve patient’s comfort, as suggested by Ye (Page 2).
Regarding claim 34, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Griffin does not explicitly teach: the hook is angled such that the hook avoids contact with the patient's mouth when the customized orthodontic tube is placed in a patient's mouth.
However, Ye teaches: the hook is angled such that the hook avoids contact with the patient's mouth when the customized orthodontic tube is placed in a patient's mouth. (Page 2 - - “Further, the end of the traction hook is close to the jaw pad. In this way, the end of the traction hook can be prevented from contacting the skin of the patient's oral cavity, and the patient's oral cavity can be prevented from being worn.”).
Griffin and Ye are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to orthodontic parts.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above orthodontic tube, as taught by Griffin, and incorporating avoid hook contacting patient’s mouth, as taught by Ye.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve patient’s comfort, as suggested by Ye (Page 2).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Griffin and Ye teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Griffin further teaches: an angle of the hook is determined based on a prescription ([0014], [0086] - - the bracket design is based on a prescription).
Regarding claim 40, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Griffin does not explicitly teach: the hook has a configurable angle relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure.
However, Ye teaches: the hook has a configurable angle relative to the body of the orthodontic tube structure (Page 3 - - “the traction hook is bent by the medical staff”; bent is configuring angle).
Griffin and Ye are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to orthodontic parts.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above orthodontic tube, as taught by Griffin, and incorporating bending a hook, as taught by Ye.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve patient’s comfort, as suggested by Ye (Page 2).
Claims 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. US 2019/0377327 (hereinafter Griffin) in view of Jolley US 2022/0160471 (hereinafter Jolley).
Regarding claim 31, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Griffin does not explicitly teach: the hook is a straight hook.
However, Jolley teaches: the hook is a straight hook ([0050] - - poking hook).
Griffin and Jolley are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to orthodontic parts.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Griffin, and incorporating straight hook, as taught by Jolley.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve tooth alignment, as suggested by Jolley ([0048]).
Regarding claim 32, Griffin teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Griffin does not explicitly teach: the hook is a ball hook.
However, Jolley teaches: the hook is a ball hook ([0050] - - ball hook).
Griffin and Jolley are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to orthodontic parts.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Griffin, and incorporating ball hook, as taught by Jolley.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve tooth alignment, as suggested by Jolley ([0048]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights