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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 11/7/25.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 43 and amended claim 23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims are directed to non-elected species C, being directed to a method of moving teeth requiring a first anchor portion and first and second active portions on first and second teeth, as previously recited in claim 39 (see Restriction requirement mailed 8/21/25).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 23 and 43 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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) 21-22, 24-27, 29, 41-42, 44-45, and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cassalia (US 2019/0262103 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Cassalia discloses a method for moving a patient's teeth (see abstract, generally throughout), including an anchor tooth (right central incisor, see Figs. 8 and 15-16) and an active tooth (right lateral incisor, left central incisor and left lateral incisor, see Figs. above), to a desired position (above), the method comprising: positioning an anchor portion of an orthodontic wire (e.g. portion of wire and bracket thereon; Examiner relies on interpretation where brackets of 15-16 are used) onto a lingual side of the anchor tooth (see Figs. above via brackets of Figs. 15-16); positioning an active portion of the orthodontic wire (e.g. portion of wires on active teeth as explained above) onto a surface of the active tooth (see Figs. 15-16 and [0081]); trimming the orthodontic wire proximate a marginal ridge of the active tooth (see Figs. 5-7, 6b showing wire placed proximate a marginal ridge; also see [0085] regarding trimming); and bonding the anchor portion to fix the anchor portion to the anchor tooth (e.g. via bracket placement) such that the active portion of the orthodontic wire applies a force to the active tooth to move the active tooth relative to the anchor tooth, the active portion being in facing engagement with the active tooth (e.g. lingual facing bracket slots of bracket of Figs. 15-16 place active portion of wire into facing engagement with the active tooth) while the anchor portion is fixed to the anchor tooth (anchor portion is fixed to anchor tooth via bracket of Figs. 15-16 (claim does not prohibit movement therein) OR anchor portion is fixed to tooth prior to dissolving the dissolvable coating as described in [0075] and [0068]), the active portion being slidable along a surface of the active tooth during treatment (see [0075], [0081] and [0078]-[0080], see Figs. 5-7). The Examiner notes that while Figures are referenced showing placement and arrangement of the wire using composite beads (300), the Examiner relies on the embodiment disclosed in Figs. 15-16 using a bracket with a groove facing the lingual surface of the teeth, containing the wire therein between the bracket and the tooth surface.
Cassalia further discloses wherein the anchor portion includes a wire positioning guide (e.g. bracket of Figs. 15-16), the wire positioning guide bonded to the anchor tooth (via 340), the wire positioning guide configured to mate with the lingual side of the anchor tooth (see citations above; per claim 22); wherein the anchor tooth includes a gingival third section, a middle third section and an incisal third section (implicitly), the anchor portion configured to be mounted in the middle third section (see Fig. 6b showing wire mounted on middle third of tooth, at least in part; per claim 24; relied on embodiment would use bracket of Figs. 15-16 instead of bead); wherein the orthodontic wire is removably attached to a slot (950) of a tray (900, see Fig. 11) for positioning the anchor portion onto the lingual side of the anchor tooth and the active portion onto the surface of the active tooth (per claim 25); where a thin strand of material is wrapped around the orthodontic wire to attach the orthodontic wire to the slot (e.g. floss 600 or engagement jig 901-907, see [0018]; attaches wire to slot at least to some degree as it prevents its escape; per claim 26); wherein the thin strand of material is comprised of dental floss (see [0018]; 600; per claim 27); and wherein the anchor portion and the active portion of the orthodontic wire are positioned relative to the lingual sides of the anchor and active teeth by a tray (900, Fig. 11) having slots (950) and a flexible material (e.g. floss 600 or engagement jigs 901-907, see [0018]; per claim 29).
Regarding claim 41, Cassalia discloses a method for moving a patient's teeth (see abstract, generally throughout), including an anchor tooth (right central incisor, see Figs. 8 and 15-16) and an active tooth (right lateral incisor, left central incisor and left lateral incisor, see Figs. above), to a desired position (above), the method comprising: positioning an anchor portion of an orthodontic wire (e.g. portion of wire and bracket thereon; Examiner relies on interpretation where brackets of 15-16 are used) onto a lingual side of the anchor tooth (see Figs. above via brackets of Figs. 15-16); positioning an active portion of the orthodontic wire (e.g. portion of wires on active teeth as explained above) onto a surface of the active tooth (see Figs. 15-16 and [0081]); trimming the orthodontic wire proximate a marginal ridge of the active tooth (see Figs. 5-7, 6b showing wire placed proximate a marginal ridge; also see [0085] regarding trimming); and bonding the anchor portion to fix the anchor portion in a stationary position to the anchor tooth (e.g. via bracket placement prior to dissolving of gel 65, see [0074]-[0075], and [0068]) such that the active portion of the orthodontic wire applies a force to the active tooth to move the active tooth relative to the anchor tooth, the active portion being in facing engagement with and slidable along the active tooth to apply a force to the active tooth to move the active tooth relative to the anchor tooth (e.g. lingual facing bracket slots of bracket of Figs. 15-16 place active portion of wire into facing engagement with the active tooth; movable at a time when gel 65 is dissolved on active tooth but prior to dissolving on anchor tooth, see citations above additionally including [0083]). See [0075], [0081] and [0078]-[0080], see Figs. 5-7. The Examiner notes that while Figures are referenced showing placement and arrangement of the wire using composite beads (300), the Examiner relies on the embodiment disclosed in Figs. 15-16 using a bracket with a groove facing the lingual surface of the teeth, containing the wire therein between the bracket and the tooth surface.
Cassalia further discloses wherein the anchor portion is fixed to the anchor tooth with a biocompatible adhesive (via bracket of Figs. 15-16 and adhesive 340; per claim 42); wherein the anchor portion includes a wire positioning guide (e.g. bracket of Figs. 15-16), the wire positioning guide bonded to the anchor tooth (via 340), the wire positioning guide configured to mate with the lingual side of the anchor tooth (see citations above; per claim 44); wherein the anchor tooth includes a gingival third section, a middle third section and an incisal third section (implicitly), the anchor portion configured to be mounted in the middle third section (see Fig. 6b showing wire mounted on middle third of tooth, at least in part; per claim 45; relied on embodiment would use bracket of Figs. 15-16 instead of bead); wherein the anchor portion is boned to a center third of the anchor tooth (see explanation above regarding claim 45; per claim 47); and wherein the wire is constructed of Nitinol (see [0069] per claim 48).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassalia in view of Curiel et al (US 2013/0065193 A1).
Regarding claims 28 and 46, Cassalia does not teach the step of comparing the orthodontic wire to images of orthodontic wires on a measurement guide to determine if the orthodontic wire is a desired orthodontic wire of an orthodontic treatment plan as required.
Curiel et al, however, teaches comparing the shape of orthodontic archwires to printed images of orthodontic wires (printed image is interpreted as a measurement guide) to determine if the archwire is the desired wired of the treatment plan (e.g. has the corresponding shape; see [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Cassalia to include Curiel’s step of comparing the wire to images of wires on a measurement guide, as such modification would ensure accuracy when setting up the orthodontic system, ensuring that the wire has the correct and desired shape to accomplish the desired tooth movement.
Claim(s) 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassalia in view of Hicks (US 2008/0057460 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Cassalia does not explicitly teach the use of a straight wire as required.
Hicks, however, teaches a similar orthodontic device comprising an orthodontic wire bonded to the patients teeth (see Fig. 1), wherein a straight wire can be used to achieve the desired forces (see [0026]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of Cassalia to include a straight wire as taught by Hicks, as such modification would make use of readily manufactured wire shapes, allow customization and would merely involve a change of shape of a known element of an invention, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation above necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Briefly, the Examiner notes that the new interpretation, explained above, addresses the amendments made to the claims and the new claims. Specifically, the wire is fixed to the teeth via the use of the bracket of Figs. 15-16 and claim 21 does not prohibit any particular motion as the wire is fixed to the teeth. Further, prior to the gel 65 being dissolved, per claim 41, the anchor tooth would remain stationary. Still further, as noted in the interview summary, [0024]-[0025] describe placing composite beads as desired to prohibit movement. Regarding the step of trimming, as noted by Applicant the wire is trimmed to fit the teeth, and the Examiner interprets the wire being trimmed to a particular tooth to be “proximate” its marginal ridge, as the teeth are relatively small structures, and any location thereon can be interpreted to be proximate another. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation above necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM 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, Eric Rosen can be reached 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 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.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights