Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oda et al (US 2018/0049847).
Oda et al disclose in Figure 10 an archwire 520 comprised of a plurality of connectors 524 configured to couple with a plurality of orthodontic brackets 530, 532. The Oda et al connectors 524 include a tab extending to a free end positioned at the top side of the connector and first and second arms 526, 527 disposed on the bottom side of the connector and extending to fee ends. Oda et al further disclose a plurality of interproximal loops 522, 523 disposed between adjacent connectors of the plurality of connectors. Note Figure 10 of Oda annotated below identifying each of the claimed structures.
PNG
media_image1.png
487
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 2, 3 and 14, note the consistent thickness and the rectangular cross-section illustrated in Oda et al Figure 10. In regard to claim 4, the opening 529 in Oda et al meets the broad groove limitation. In regard to claims 6, 7, note the directions and the arrangement of elements identified in the ODA et al annotated Figure 10 above. In regard to claim 12, the Oda et al brackets are capable of being mounted on the lingual surfaces of a patient’s teeth.
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 2, 3, 8, 9, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al (US 2018/0049847) in view of Roein Peikar et al (US 2017/0156823).
While Oda et al appears to illustrate an archwire that is cut/machined from a flat sheet of metal, they don’t appear to expressly state such a manufacturing method that would provide for a “consistent thickness” and “rectangular cross-section” as required in claims 2, 3, 14 and 20. To the limited extent that such limitations arguably are not necessarily present in Oda et al, then Roein Peikar et al is cited as teaching such a manufacturing method (see e.g. paragraphs [0034]-[0036]) which would provide for the consistent thickness and rectangular cross-section limitations. To have constructed the Oda et al Figure 10 archwire 520 from a flat sheet of material as taught by Roein Peiklar et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, with respect to claims 8 and 9, Oda et al does not appear to indicate that the archwire material is of shape memory metal. Roein Peikar et al, however, teaches the conventional use of such metal material (paragraphs [0034]-[0036]) for archwires. To have used a shape memory metal for the Oda et al archwire 520 in order to take advantage of its well-known elastic properties would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 571 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712