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 (IDS) submitted on May 27, 2026 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 9 of the claim “to be arranged as a distal side” is believed to be in error for -to be arranged at a distal side-. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-13, 15-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (4,725,229).
Miller discloses with respect to claim 1, a ligature 16 is made of superelastic material (see abstract, fig. 12), wherein the ligature forms a closed loop (see fig. 12, col. 3, ll. 63-64) configured to be removably fitted around an orthodontic bracket and be retained around the orthodontic bracket based on a superelastic effect of the material of the ligature (col. 3, ll. 58-61, col. 4, ll. 23-32, claim 1, such that the loop is stretched over the bracket and the superelastic properties of the material of the loop will attempt to return to its original shape once the force to stretch the loop is removed and exert a force on the bracket, wherein the closed loop includes an occlusal portion configured to be arranged at an occlusal side of the bracket, a gingival portion configured to be arranged at a gingival side of the bracket, a mesial potion configured to be arranged at a mesial side of the bracket, and a distal portion configured to be arranged at a distal side of the bracket (see annotated figure below and fig. 11, such that the ligature is configured to be placed a bracket in the claimed orientation), a plane being defined by the occlusal portion and the gingival portion (see fig. 12, such that the plane is the plane of the paper, such that the plane is a surface in which the ligature can be placed on, i.e. a plane below the ligature), wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure below), such that the mesial portion and the distal portion are both arranged entirely at the same side of the plane (see explanation above, such that the plane is the plane in which the ligature is above, so the mesial and distal side are both entirely on one side of the plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
218
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 7, wherein the ligature is configured such that in a pre-mounting state, a perimeter of the loop is the same as the perimeter of the loop after fitting around the orthodontic bracket, and wherein in the pre-mounting state, a distance between the occlusal portion and the gingival portion and/or a distance between the mesial portion and the distal portion is different than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. It is noted that the limitations of claim 7 are functional with respect to how the ligature is related to a bracket that is not claimed, such that the structure of the prior art is configured to function as claimed. It is noted that apparatus disclosed by Miller is the same as what is claimed, such as a closed loop made out of a superelastic material. Therefore, since the loop is a closed loop the perimeter would be the same in both positions, as it is a continuous perimeter around the ligature. Further depending on the shape and/or size of the bracket that the ligature is mounted on and further the orientation of the ligature when placed on the bracket, the ligature would have a different distance between the occlusal portion and the gingival portion and/or a distance between the mesial portion and the distal portion then when in the pre-mounted state. Such that the ligature is configured to be stretched over a bracket to be retained thereon. Depending on the size of the bracket, the ligature may be stretched and not able to return to it memorized shape due to the bracket impeding the ligature, make the distance in either or both claimed directions to be different in that it would be greater than in the pre-mounted state. It is noted that the ligature is configured to function in a variety of ways as later claimed and discussed in detail. The above explanation is just one example of how it is configured to function as claimed.
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 8, wherein the ligature is configured such that in a pre-mounting state the mesial and distal portion have more curvature than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that the ligature disclosed by Miller is capable of functioning as claimed. As discussed above, depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket in relation to the ligature, when the ligature is fitted on the bracket is capable of having a shape with less curvature in the mesial and distal portions then when in the pre-mounted positions. Such that when the ligature is placed on the bracket, it may be stretched in the occlusal gingival direction, resulting in elongation of the mesial and distal portions, which would reduce the curvatures in the mesial and distal portions. Such that the bracket would prevent the ligature to returning to its pre-mounted shape.
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 9, wherein the ligature is configured such that a distance between the occlusal portion and the gingival portion in the pre-mounting state is smaller than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that when the ligature is placed on the bracket, depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket relative to the ligature, the distance would be as claimed. For example the distance of the bracket in the occlusal and gingival direction is greater than the distance between the occlusal and gingival portions of the ligature so that when the ligature is placed on the bracket and stretched, the ligature would not be able to fully return to its original shape, including the distance between the occlusal and gingival portions as the bracket would prevent it from doing so thereby increasing the distance between the occlusal and gingival portions of the ligature when mounted on the bracket.
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 10, wherein the ligature is configured such that a distance between the mesial and distal portions in the pre-mounting state is substantially the same as after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that depending on the shape and/or size of the bracket in relation to the ligature, the distance between the mesial and distal portions would be substantially the same in the pre-mounted and mounted state. Such that the size of the bracket is of a size that when the ligature is placed on it, would be substantially the same or smaller as the distance between the mesial and distal portions of the ligature so that the mesial and distal portions can return to their stored memory shape when fixed on the bracket.
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 11, wherein the ligature is configured such that in the pre-mounting state, a distance between the mesial and distal portion is larger than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket in relation to the ligature, the ligature is configured as claimed. Such that the ligature could be stretched in the occlusal and gingival direction a large amount reducing the distance between the mesial and distal portions and the shape of the bracket is such that it would allow for distance to be reduced between the mesial and distal portions in order to allow for greater stretching in the occlusal/gingival direction.
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 12, wherein the ligature is configured such that in the pre-mounting state, a distance between the mesial and distal portions is smaller than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that the ligature is configured to function as claimed such that depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket in relation to the ligature, the ligature can be stretched when fit around the bracket so that the distance between the mesial and distal portions is increased, such that the bracket prevents the mesial and distal portions from returning to their original distance.
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 13, wherein the loop in the pre-mounting state is substantially circular in a top view (see fig. 12).
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 15, wherein the superelastic material is nitinol (see abstract, col. 3, ll. 64-65).
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 16, wherein the ligature is made from a wire that is welded at its ends to from the closed loop (see fig. 12, col. 3, ll. 62-63).
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 20, the ligature comprising marking 24 indicating an orientation for mounting around an orthodontic bracket (see fig. 12, such that the weld is a mark that indicated orientation).
Miller further discloses with respect to claim 21, an orthodontic kit comprising an orthodontic bracket (see fig. 11), a ligature made of superelastic material (see abstract, col. 3, ll. 64-65), the orthodontic bracket comprising an arch wire slot 8 and one or more wings 10 on a gingival side of the arch wire slot, and one or more wings 10 at an occlusal side of the arch wire slot, and wherein the wings are configured to retain the ligature (col. 3, ll. 48-61, such that hook 22 is part of the wing), and wherein the ligature forms a closed loop (see fig. 12, col. 3, ll. 63-64) configured to be removably fitted around an orthodontic bracket and be retained around the orthodontic bracket based on a superelastic effect of the material of the ligature (col. 3, ll. 58-61, col. 4, ll. 23-32, claim 1, such that the loop is stretched over the bracket and the superelastic properties of the material of the loop will attempt to return to its original shape once the force to stretch the loop is removed and exert a force on the bracket, wherein the closed loop includes an occlusal portion configured to be arranged at an occlusal side of the bracket, a gingival portion configured to be arranged at a gingival side of the bracket, a mesial potion configured to be arranged at a mesial side of the bracket, and a distal portion configured to be arranged at a distal side of the bracket (see annotated figure below and fig. 11, such that the ligature is configured to be placed a bracket in the claimed orientation), a plane being defined by the occlusal portion and the gingival portion (see fig. 12, such that the plane is the plane of the paper, such that the plane is a surface in which the ligature can be placed on, i.e. a plane below the ligature), wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure below), such that the mesial portion and the distal portion are both arranged entirely at the same side of the plane (see explanation above, such that the plane is the plane in which the ligature is above, so the mesial and distal side are both entirely on one side of the plane).
PNG
media_image3.png
346
229
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-13, 15-16, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanson (5,885,074).
Hanson discloses with respect to claim 1, a ligature (see fig. 3), wherein the ligature is made of a superelastic material (see abstract, col. 5, ll. 43-67, col. 6, ll. 1-21), wherein the ligature forms a closed loop (see fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 32-36) configured to be removably fitted around an orthodontic bracket and be retained around the orthodontic bracket based on a superelastic effect of the material of the ligature (col. 5, ll. 13-67, col. 6, ll. 1-21, abstract, such that the loop is stretched over the bracket and the superelastic properties of the material of the loop will attempt to return to its original shape once the force to stretch the loop is removed and exert a force on the bracket), and wherein the closed loop includes an occlusal portion configured to be arranged at an occlusal side of the bracket, a gingival portion configured to be arranged at a gingival side of the bracket, a mesial portion configured to be arranged at a mesial side of the bracket, and a distal position configured to be arranged as a distal side of the bracket (see annotated figure above, such that the ligature is configured to be placed and arranged in the mouth so that the sides are orientated in the desired directions, see annotated figure below), a plane being defined by the occlusal portion and the gingival portion (see fig. 3, such that the plane is the plane of the paper, such that the plane is a surface in which the ligature can be placed on, i.e. a plane below the ligature), wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure below), such that the mesial portion and the distal portion are both arranged entirely at the same side of the plane (see explanation above, such that the plane is the plane in which the ligature is above, so the mesial and distal side are both entirely on one side of the plane).
PNG
media_image4.png
298
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
326
465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 3, comprising, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, one or more wave-shaped segments (see fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 14-35)
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 5, wherein the occlusal and/or gingival portion comprise a wave shaped segment (see annotated figure above, such that each of the portions have a wave shape segment).
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 6, wherein the mesial and/or distal portion comprise a wave-shaped segment (see annotated figure above, such that each of the portions have a wave shape segment).
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 7, wherein the ligature is configured such that in a pre-mounting state, a perimeter of the loop is the same as the perimeter of the loop after fitting around the orthodontic bracket, and wherein in the pre-mounting state, a distance between the occlusal portion and the gingival portion and/or a distance between the mesial portion and the distal portion is different than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. It is noted that the limitations of claim 7 are functional such that the structure of the prior art is configured to function as claimed. It is noted that apparatus disclosed by Hanson is the same as what is claimed, such as a closed loop made out of a superelastic material. Therefore, since the loop is a closed loop, the perimeter would be the same in both positions, as it is a continuous perimeter around the ligature. Further depending on the shape and/or size of the bracket that the ligature is mounted on and further the orientation of the ligature when placed on the bracket, the ligature would have a different distance between the occlusal portion and the gingival portion and/or a distance between the mesial portion and the distal portion then when in the pre-mounted state. Such that the ligature is configured to be stretched over a bracket to be retained thereon. Depending on the size of the bracket, the ligature may be stretched and not able to return to it memorized shape due to the bracket impeding the ligature, make the distance in either or both claimed directions to be different in that it would be greater than in the pre-mounted state. It is noted that the ligature is configured to function in a variety of ways as later claimed and discussed in detail. The above explanation is just one example of how it is configured to function as claimed.
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 8, wherein the ligature is configured such that in a pre-mounting state the mesial and distal portion have more curvature than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that the ligature disclosed by Hanson is capable of functioning as claimed. As discussed above, depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket in relation to the ligature, when the ligature is fitted on the bracket is capable of having a shape with less curvature in the mesial and distal portions then when in the pre-mounted positions. Such that when the ligature is placed on the bracket, it may be stretched in the occlusal gingival direction, resulting in elongation of the mesial and distal portions, which would reduce the curvatures of the wave portions in the mesial and distal portions. Such that the bracket would prevent the ligature to returning to its pre-mounted shape.
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 9, wherein the ligature is configured such that a distance between the occlusal portion and the gingival portion in the pre-mounting state is smaller than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that when the ligature is placed on the bracket, depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket relative to the ligature, the distance would be as claimed. For example the distance of the bracket in the occlusal and gingival direction is greater than the distance between the occlusal and gingival portions of the ligature so that when the ligature is placed on the bracket and stretched, the ligature would not be able to fully return to its original shape, including the distance between the occlusal and gingival portions as the bracket would prevent it from doing so thereby increasing the distance between the occlusal and gingival portions of the ligature when mounted on the bracket.
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 10, wherein the ligature is configured such that a distance between the mesial and distal portions in the pre-mounting state is substantially the same as after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that depending on the shape and/or size of the bracket in relation to the ligature, the distance between the mesial and distal portions would be substantially the same in the pre-mounted and mounted state. Such that the size of the bracket is of a size that when the ligature is placed on it, would be substantially the same or smaller as the distance between the mesial and distal portions of the ligature so that the mesial and distal portions can return to their stored memory shape when fixed on the bracket.
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 11, wherein the ligature is configured such that in the pre-mounting state, a distance between the mesial and distal portion is larger than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket in relation to the ligature, the ligature is configured as claimed. Such that the ligature could be stretched in the occlusal and gingival direction a large amount reducing the distance between the mesial and distal portions and the shape of the bracket is such that it would allow for distance to be reduced between the mesial and distal portions in order to allow for greater stretching in the occlusal/gingival direction.
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 12, wherein the ligature is configured such that in the pre-mounting state, a distance between the mesial and distal portions is smaller than after fitting around the orthodontic bracket. Such that the ligature is configured to function as claimed such that depending on the size and/or shape of the bracket in relation to the ligature, the ligature can be stretched when fit around the bracket so that the distance between the mesial and distal portions is increased, such that the bracket prevents the mesial and distal portions from returning to their original distance.
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 13, wherein the loop in the pre-mounting state is substantially circular in a top view (see fig. 3, such that it is a loop that is substantially circular in that it has an overall circular shape with some waves in it).
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 15, wherein the superelastic material is nitinol (see abstract, col. 5, ll. 43-47).
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 16, wherein the ligature is made from a wire that is welded at its ends to from the closed loop, col. 4, ll. 31-39, col. 5, ll. 33-35).
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 20, the ligature comprising marking indicating an orientation for mounting around an orthodontic bracket (see fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 33-35, such that the joint of the ends is a marking as claimed).
Hanson further discloses with respect to claim 21, an orthodontic kit comprising an orthodontic bracket (col. 5, ll. 14-35, such as the two are disclosed together and therefore are a kit), a ligature made of superelastic material the ligature (see fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 43-47, see abstract), the orthodontic bracket comprising an arch wire slot 42 and one or more wings 40 on a gingival side of the arch wire slot, and one or more wings 38 at an occlusal side of the arch wire slot, and wherein the wings are configured to retain the ligature (see fig. 8, which it is noted that the embodiment of the spiral ligature is shown with the bracket, Hanson discloses the wave ligature with the bracket in the same manner), and wherein the ligature forms a closed loop (see fig. 3, col. 5, ll. 32-36) configured to be removably fitted around an orthodontic bracket and be retained around the orthodontic bracket based on a superelastic effect of the material of the ligature (col. 5, ll. 13-67, col. 6, ll. 1-21, abstract, such that the loop is stretched over the bracket and the superelastic properties of the material of the loop will attempt to return to its original shape once the force to stretch the loop is removed and exert a force on the bracket), and wherein the closed loop includes an occlusal portion configured to be arranged at an occlusal side of the bracket, a gingival portion configured to be arranged at a gingival side of the bracket, a mesial portion configured to be arranged at a mesial side of the bracket, and a distal position configured to be arranged as a distal side of the bracket (see annotated figure above, such that the ligature is configured to be placed and arranged in the mouth so that the sides are orientated in the desired directions, see annotated figure above), a plane being defined by the occlusal portion and the gingival portion (see fig. 3, such that the plane is the plane of the paper, such that the plane is a surface in which the ligature can be placed on, i.e. a plane below the ligature), wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure below), such that the mesial portion and the distal portion are both arranged entirely at the same side of the plane (see explanation above, such that the plane is the plane in which the ligature is above, so the mesial and distal side are both entirely on one side of the plane).
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(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hanson (5,885,074).
Hanson teaches that the ligature wire is made of a flat strip of metal, but is silent as to how the strip is made. The claimed phrase “is made by blanking from a flat metallic sheet” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the ligature wire is blanked/cut from a flat sheet of metal. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Hanson is silent as to the process used from the ligature wire, it appears that the product in Hanson would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is made of flat metallic wire (col. 5, ll. 20-33).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson (5,885,074) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gladstone (2,767,469).
Hanson discloses each and every structural element of the ligature in claim 1 (see claimed detailed rejection above)
Hanson teaches that the ligature is made from a flat metal wire, but is silent as to the method of making. The claimed phrase “is made by blanking from a flat metallic sheet” means that the ligature was made by blanking/cutting a flat metal sheet, as explained in the instant application.
Gladstone teaches that blanking is a known method for forming ligatures (col. 1, ll. 24-28, such as it is stamped/blanked from a sheet of metal).
Therefore, even if “blanking from a flat metallic sheet” results in different structural characteristics of the end product than other methods, it still would have been prima facie obvious at the time the invention was made to use a “blanking” material in Hanson as claimed since Gladstone teaches that blanking/stamping is recognized as a useful technique for forming ligatures.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (4,725,229) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hanson (5,885,074).
Miller teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the ligature has a diameter of 0.008-0.012 inches.
Hanson teaches a ligature made of superelastic material and configured to be fitting around an orthodontic bracket, wherein the ligature forms a closed loop configured to fit around the orthodontic bracket and be retained around the orthodontic bracket based on a superelastic effect of the material of the ligature (see abstract). Hanson further teaches the wire for the ligature has a diameter of 0.008-0.012 inches (col. 4, ll. 48-51, such that a diameter of the ligature, in cross section of the wire, is within the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the diameter of the wire used for the ligature taught by Miller with that taught by Hanson in order to provide the desired fitting and forces on the bracket.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (4,725,229) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siegel (WO 2012/069774).
Miller teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach wherein the ligature is made by woven or braided wires or wire bundles.
Siegel teaches an orthodontic device made of a wire of superelastic material and the wire is braided wire or wire bundles (see par. 13, 17, 20, 22, 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the ligature with the single wire of superelastic material taught by Miller to includes braided wires or wire bundles taught by Siegel in order to provide a ligature with superior strength against breaking (see par. 13 of Siegel).
Claim(s) 23 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (4,725,229) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Georgakis (6,193,508).
Miller teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, a height of the closed loop with respect to the plane various continuously.
Georgakis teaches a ligature 28 (see figs. 8-9), wherein the ligature is made of a superelastic material (col. 9, ll. 31-35), wherein the ligature forms a closed loop (see fig. 9, col. 10, ll. 7-10) configured to be removably retained on an orthodontic bracket and be retained on the orthodontic bracket based on a superelastic effect of the material of the ligature (col. 9, ll. 61-67, col. 10 ll. 1-3, such that the superelastic properties case it to act as a spring to retain it on the bracket), and wherein the closed loop includes an occlusal portion configured to be arranged at an occlusal side of the bracket, a gingival portion configured to be arranged at a gingival side of the bracket, a mesial portion configured to be arranged at a mesial side of the bracket, and a distal position configured to be arranged as a distal side of the bracket (such that in use the ligature has a portion arranged on the bracket in the mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal directions), a plane being defined by the occlusal portion and the gingival portion (see annotated figure below), wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure below), such that the mesial portion and the distal portion are both arranged entirely at the same side of the plane (see annotated figures below).
With respect to claim 23, Georgakis further teaches wherein prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, a height of the closed loop with respect to the plane various continuously (see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Miller with the varying height taught by Georgakis in order to provide a shape sufficient to pass over the archwire in order to provide the desired forces on the teeth. Such as to produce a low coefficient of friction between the arch wire and bracket which could reduce overall treatment time (see col. 9, ll. 35-43).
PNG
media_image6.png
242
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
180
462
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (4,725,229) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aronen (2018/0214251).
Miller teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach where the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a constant curvature along an occlusal-gingival direction.
Aronen teaches a ligature 110 (see fig, 1), made of an elastic metal (par. 28), wherein the ligature forms a closed loop (see fig. 1) configured to be removably retained on an orthodontic bracket and be retained on the orthodontic bracket based on an elastic effect of the material of the ligature (see fig. 1, par. 28), and wherein the closed loop includes an occlusal portion configured to be arranged at an occlusal side of the bracket, a gingival portion configured to be arranged at a gingival side of the bracket, a mesial portion configured to be arranged at a mesial side of the bracket, and a distal position configured to be arranged as a distal side of the bracket (such that in use the ligature has a portion arranged on the bracket in the mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal directions, see figs. 3-4 showing the loop on a bracket), a plane being defined by the occlusal portion and the gingival portion (such that the plane is a plane in which the loop would rest on if one a surface, such as it is parallel to surface 124), wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket, has a curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure below), such that the mesial portion and the distal portion are both arranged entirely at the same side of the plane (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image8.png
294
457
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 22, Aronen further teaches, wherein the closed loop, prior to fitting around the orthodontic bracket has a constant curvature along an occlusal gingival direction (see annotated figure above, such that the loop is circular, par. 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the oval shape of the loop taught by Miller with the circular shape having a constant curvature as taught by Aronen in order to provide a loop that fits snugly on the bracket depending of the shape and size of the bracket. It is noted that Aronen teaches the shape of the loop can be a variety of shapes including oval (par. 27), therefore, Aronen teaches that the different shapes are known equivalents in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that limitations with respect to how the loop retained on the bracket and how the shape/size of the ligature changes between a pre-mounted and mounted configuration are not functional, but rather structural. While it is agreed, that the structure of the loop, including the material, is required for the claimed loop to be configured to be retained on the bracket as claimed, the prior art teaches all of the claimed structural limitations of the loop including the same superelastic material. It is noted that Miller teaches the loop made out of the claimed superelastic material can be bent through large deflections without yield and permanent distortion and it also has shape memory (see col. 3, ll. 64-68, col. 4, ll. 1-46). Therefore, with respect to claim 1, the claimed loop is configured to be retained on the bracket as claimed, such that it is retained on the bracket due to the superelastic properties of the loop. With respect to claimed loop being configured to as claimed in claims 7-12, it is noted that the loop is a super elastic material and can be stretched in any number of ways and depending on the size and shape of the bracket that the loop is placed on, the loop is configured as claimed. Such that the claimed limitation is a result of stretching the loop and changing it from the pre-mounted state to a mounted state. Such as in the mounted state, it has been stretched around the bracket in order to retain it on the bracket. Therefore, while the limitations require the loop to be “configured” as claimed, the limitation is functional in that the loop is configured to be stretched, i.e., function as claimed. It is noted that the prior art teaches the loop configured as claimed as discussed above in detail, and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Miller does not teaches a closed loop configured to be removably fitted around an orthodontic bracket, but rather in figures 1-9 shows a locking loop which is a self-ligating bracket, that is, a bracket which incorporates the ligature as part of the bracket itself. The applicant argues that tubes 12 and 18 close the loop. However, it is noted that the embodiment using the tubes 12 and 18 of Miller are NOT being used in the rejection above and therefore the applicant’s arguments with respect to them are moot.
The applicant argues that the embodiment of figures 10-12, which were used in the rejection above, teach a locking loop 16 retained by a crimped lip 22 and the loop is closed by a weld as illustrated in fig. 12. It is noted that the embodiment of figures 10-12 read on the claimed invention. As the applicant’s own loop is retained on a bracket by a hook (tie wing) similar to the lip 22 of Miller. While it is noted that Miller teaches placing the locking loop/ligature on the bracket and then crimpling the lip to assist in retained the loop of the bracket, the structure of the claimed loop is still taught by Miller, as the loop is removable from the bracket, such as by uncrimping the lip, and it is still retained on the bracket by the superelastic material of the loop as claimed. It is noted that the tie wing 10 with the lip 22 and the opposite tie wing 10 are the similar to the tie wings of the applicants bracket in that they retain the loop on the bracket and allow it to be stretched.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that the loop includes a weld, it is noted that the loop of Miller is configured as claimed as the weld creates the closed loop. It is further noted that the applicant claims the loop is formed by a weld (see claim 16).
Further it is noted that the with respect to claim 1, the applicant is NOT claiming the bracket and only the loop. Such that the loop is configured as claimed in that it can be retained and removed from a bracket as claimed as it is a separate element from the bracket and could be used with any bracket having tie wings that function as a hook element to retain the loop on the bracket.
The applicant further argues that Miller and Hanson both do not teach the curvature along the occlusal gingival axis, however, as discussed above in detail and illustrated in the annotated figures, the prior art of both Miller and Hanson teaches a curvature as claimed and therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
The applicant further argues that both Miller and Hanson teach that the ligatures are not structures so as to be removably fitted around the bracket. However, as discussed above, the ligature and the bracket in both Miller and Hanson are separate elements, the ligature has the claimed structure, such as it is a closed loop made of a superelastic material. It is noted that the ligature is configured to be removably connected to a bracket as claimed since they are separate elements and the ligature us an elastic closed loop. It is noted that as discussed above, the applicant is NOT claiming the bracket (with respect to claim 1). See detailed discussion above regarding the claimed ligature and how it is configured to be removably connected to a bracket. It is noted that as discussed above in detail, both Miller and Hanson teaches a ligature configured to be removably connected to a bracket as claimed and therefore, the claimed limitations are met by the prior art and the applicant’s arguments are moot.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Hanson does not teach a curvature prior to fitting the ligature on the bracket, however, as illustrated in fig. 3 and discussed above in detail, Hanson does teach a curvature in the occlusal-gingival direction before fitting on a bracket, therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
New claims 22-23 are rejected under new prior art and therefore, the applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 22-223 are moot.
Conclusion
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 HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 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 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights