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 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 “An archwire located in a lumen of a self-ligating orthodontic bracket or molar tube” and “the archwire engages with opposite sides of the lumen in the orthodontic bracket or molar tube”, which leads to clarity issues on whether or not the bracket or tube is trying to be positively recited here. It is suggested to add “when in use” or “configured to” to clarify this issue. For purposes of examination, the claims will be considered as directed only to the archwire.
Claim 10 recites “the set comprises archwires with different sized cross-sections”, making it unclear if these are the same archwires as those incorporated from claim 1 or different archwires. It is suggested to use the language “the archwires” in line 3 to avoid this.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikami (WO 2004/060194).
Chikami shows an archwire located in a lumen of a self- ligating orthodontic bracket or molar tube, wherein the archwire has a non-rectangular cross-section (Fig. 31-32 for instance) comprising two opposite pairs of substantially right-angled edges (top right corners in Fig. 31 and Fig. 32) connected together by respective connecting edges (all edges therebetween) and the archwire engages with opposite sides of the lumen in the orthodontic bracket or molar tube (considered intended use that any archwire is capable of fulfilling depending on the slot; though Chikami does show this in Fig. 17 and 27 for instance). With respect to claim 2, wherein the connecting edges are straight edges (Fig. 31, 32). With respect to claim 3, wherein the non-rectangular cross-section comprises a non-regular hexagon (Fig. 31 for instance has 6 sides as required by a non-regular hexagon). With respect to claim 6, wherein the non-rectangular cross-section is elongate (Fig. 32 for instance has a shape that is wider than it is tall). With respect to claim 7, wherein the non-rectangular cross-section is not elongate (Fig. 28-29 for instance have a shape that is not elongate). With respect to claim 8, wherein each connecting edge comprises a series of two or more sub-edges (Fig. 32 for instance). With respect to claim 9, wherein the cross-section of the archwire is constant along the whole length of the archwire (Fig. 28-32 for instance show the same cross-section along the length, in addition to being required to fit the brackets along their length).
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao (US 5,468,147).
Yao shows an archwire (Fig. 3) located in a lumen of a self- ligating orthodontic bracket or molar tube (see 112 above), wherein the archwire has a non-rectangular cross-section (Fig. 3 for instance) comprising two opposite pairs of substantially right-angled edges (any opposing corners in Fig. 4) connected together by respective connecting edges (edges therebetween) and the archwire engages with opposite sides of the lumen in the orthodontic bracket or molar tube (considered intended use that any archwire is capable of fulfilling depending on the slot and how the wire is oriented therein). With respect to claim 4, wherein the connecting edges are curved edges (at 30, 32, 36, and 40).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikami in view of Vogt (US 7,354,267).
Chikami discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show wherein the archwire is hollow.
Vogt similary teaches archwires wherein the archwire is hollow (Fig. 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chikami’s archwire by having it be hollow as taught by Vogt in order to provide a lighter engagement force yet has sufficient dimension to completely fill the slots of the orthodontic brackets when desired (col. 2, lines 45-47).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikami in view of Jordan (US 5,711,418).
Chikami discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show a set of archwires wherein each archwire is as claimed above, wherein the set comprises archwires with different sized cross-sections from each other (see 112 above).
Jordan similarly teaches dental archwires wherein a set of archwires is provided with different sized cross-sections from each other (col. 1, lines 25-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chikami’s archwire by including it in a set of different cross-sectional sizes as taught by Jordan in order to allow the selection in accordance with the orthodontist’s preferred treatment technique (col. 1, lines 25-34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772