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.
Objection to Duplicate Claims
Claim 28 is objected to as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18. Dependent claim 15 repeats limitations already set forth in parent claim 13.
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 17, 18, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasakura (US 6,190,166).
In regard to claim 17, as illustrated in annotated Figure of Sasakura below, Sasakura discloses an archwire 1a comprising a connector 1b wherein the connector 1b comprises a tab 12 at a first side of the connector extending outward from the connector to a free end and arms 14 disposed at a second end of the connector opposite the first side. The tab further comprises a groove (as identified in the annotated Figure) form an outer surface of the free end of the tab.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 18 and 28, note annotated Figure 2 below illustrating the arms spaced apart from one another in a mesial-distal direction to an extent greater than a width of the tab. In regard to claim 27, the Sasakura archwire connector has contact surfaces that are flat in a mesial-distal direction on opposite lateral sides of the tab.
PNG
media_image2.png
366
383
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakura (US 6,190,166) in view of Roein Peikar et al (US 10,383,707).
In regard to claim 1, as set forth above Sasakura discloses an archwire 1, 1a including a plurality of connectors 1b configured to couple with a plurality of brackets 2. The plurality of connectors 1b include a tab 12 and arms 14 as identified in annotated Figure 1 above. The tab 12 is disposed on a first side (top side) of the connector and extending outward therefrom to a free end and the arms 14 on a second side (bottom side) of the connector opposite the first side and are spaced apart from one another in a mesial-distal direction. The free end is spaced by the tab from “one or more surfaces” (as identified in annotated Figure 1 above) at a first side of the connector where the “one or more surfaces” are adjacent the tab. Sasakura does not disclose the claimed “plurality of interproximal loops” for the archwire. Roein Peikar et al, however, for a similar orthodontic archwire (Figure 1) having connectors 104 teaches that it is desirable to provide the archwire with interproximal loops 106 in order to exert tension or compressive forces (column 11, lines 24-27) on the patient’s teeth in order to move them in the desired direction. To have provided the Sasakura et al archwire 1a with interproximal loops in order to exert tension or compressive forces on the patient’s in order to position the patients teeth as desired as taught by Roein Peikar et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 2, the illustrated Sasakura et al archwire is of a relatively consistent thickness in the lingual-buccal direction. Furthermore, forming the orthodontic device of a consistent thickness in order to avoid irritation to the patient’s mouth would have been obvious tone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In regard to claim 4, note the groove having a concave surface identified above in annotated Figure 1. In regard to claim 6, the interproximal loops 106 taught by Roein Peikar et al appear to have a constant curvature (it is noted that the some of the interproximal loops 106 are illustrated as being connected to generally straight parts of the archwire). In regard to claim 7, Roein Peikar et al teach extending the interproximal loops in a gingival direction from connector and then occlusally to the other adjacent connector. In regard to claim 8, Roein Peikar et al teach forming the archwire of a shape memory alloy customized for a particular patient (see e.g. column 10, lines 28-60). In regard to claim 10, the Sasakura connectors 1b couple with the brackets 2 such that they do not slide.
In regard to claims 13, 15 and 23, note the remarks above with respect to claim 1 and annotated Figure 2 above illustrating the arms spaced apart from one another in a mesial-distal direction to an extent greater than a width of the tab. In regard to claim 16, note the “stepwise portion” identified above in annotated Figure 2 of Sasakura.
In regard to claim 21, note the “one or more surfaces” identified above annotated Figure 1 of Sasakura above. In regard to claim 22, Sasakura discloses the arms 14 extending at least partially in a mesial-distal direction forming spaces. Moreover, it would have been obvious in modifying the Sasakura archwire 1a to include interproximal loops as taught by Roein Peikar et al to include space between the arms and the loops so that the structures would not interfere with one another. In regard to claim 24, the ends of the Sasakura arms 14 near the connector include a mesial distal surface facing in a gingival direction that are spaced from the free end. In regard to claim 25, note the groove identified in annotated Figure 1 above. In regard to claims 26 and 27, the “one or more surfaces” identified in annotated Figure 1 of Sasakura above meet the “connector surfaces” limitation.
Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s amendment/remarks regard the previous rejections based on Oda et al are generally persuasive, however, the broad claims are not patentable over other prior art references as identified above.
Action Made Final
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights