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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. GB 2205478.7, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The limitations of the arm being inwardly curved towards the plane of defined by the first side base and the central longitudinal axis of the bore of the first wire receiving member being co-planar with the plane defined by the first side of the base are not supported in the originally filed GB 20054787.7 of 04-13-2022 and only find support in the PCT/GB2023/050303 filed on 02-10-2023. As such claims 1 and 26, along with any claims depending from them, will receive a priority date of only 02-10-2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Halke fails to provide for the new claim limitations, however such limitation are provided for in the differently cited embodiments of Halke as laid out in the following action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/27/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 03/27/2026 is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, and 28-30 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 recites the limitation of “bonding the orthodontic device to an erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth, the orthodontic device comprising” in lines 5 and 6 which should read “the one of the plurality of orthodontic device to an erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth, the one of the plurality of orthodontic devices comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 11, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, machine translation cited).
Regarding claim 1, Halke discloses an orthodontic device for use in a dental brace for advancing eruption of a tooth (title and abstract), the device comprising:
a body including a base and a hub member, the base having a first side for bonding to the tooth and an opposing second side, wherein the first side of the base defines a plane that corresponds to a tooth-facing plane, and wherein the hub member extends from the base and has a bottom face connected to the second side of the base, an opposing top face, and a sidewall extending between the bottom face and the top face (See image below);
an arm outwardly extending from the hub member, the arm having a first end and a second end (see image below the arm having a two ends one at the sidewall and the other at the wire receiving member bore), the first end of the arm being connected to the sidewall of the hub member at a point adjacent to the top face thereof, and wherein the arm is formed as being inwardly curved towards the plane defined by the first side of the base (See image below); and
a first wire receiving member secured to the second end of the arm, the first wire receiving member including a first bore or through aperture transversely extending relative to the arm and having a first central longitudinal axis being co-planar with the plane defined by the first side of the base, wherein the bore is arranged for receiving a first brace wire to extend along the first central longitudinal axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth-facing plane (see image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Halke further discloses where the first side of the base of the body includes an indent configured to receive an adhesive for bonding the first side to the tooth (page 7 lines 19-23 disclosing the first side has an indent by being studded or having a waffle like or grid like structure and that is configured to receive adhesive).
Regarding claim 11, Halke further discloses where a diameter of the top face of the hub member is generally half of a diameter of the second side of the base and wherein a thickness of the arm is generally half of the diameter of the top face of the top face of the hub member and wherein a length to width ratio of the device is substantially between 2:1 and 3:1 (see figures 4-6 showing such general relationships and substantial ratios).
Regarding claim 25, Halke further discloses where the device is a bracket that can be used with a plurality of identical brackets to form a dental brace (Title disclosing “bracket” which can be used as desired such as with other identical brackets).
Regarding claim 26, Halke further discloses a method of cosmetic alignment of teeth using a dental brace, the dental brace comprising a plurality of orthodontic devices used as brackets (Fig. 8 showing a brace formed from a plurality of orthodontic devices 19a, 19b, 19c, and 11 used a brackets and combined together with wire 7 as a brace),
where the method includes fitting one of the plurality of orthodontic devices to a partially erupted tooth and bonding to the one orthodontic device to an erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth (Fig. 8 element 11 bonded to the partially erupted part of 23),
the one of the plurality of orthodontic devices bonded to the partially erupted tooth comprising:
a body including a base and a hub member, the base having a first side for bonding to the tooth and an opposing second side, wherein the first side of the base defines a plane that corresponds to a tooth-facing plane, and wherein the hub member extends from the base and has a bottom face connected to the second side of the base, an opposing top face, and a sidewall extending between the bottom face and the top face (See image above);
an arm outwardly extending from the hub member, the arm having a first end and a second end (see image above the arm having a two ends one at the sidewall and the other at the wire receiving member bore), the first end of the arm being connected to the sidewall of the hub member at a point adjacent to the top face thereof, and wherein the arm is formed as being inwardly curved towards the plane defined by the first side of the base (See image above); and
a first wire receiving member secured to the second end of the arm, the first wire receiving member including a first bore or through aperture transversely extending relative to the arm and having a first central longitudinal axis being co-planar with the plane defined by the first side of the base, wherein the bore is arranged for receiving a first brace wire to extend along the first central longitudinal axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth-facing plane (see image above).
Regarding claim 28, Halke further discloses the method further including providing the dental brace (Fig. 8 showing a dental brace provided composed of elements 7, 11, 19a-c), bonding each of the plurality of orthodontic devices used as brackets to respective one of the teeth (Fig. 8 showing each of the devices 7 and 19a-c each bonded to a tooth as a bracket), bonding the one of the orthodontic devices to the erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth (fig. 8 showing element 11 bonded to the erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth), and fitting and securing a brace wire to each of the plurality of orthodontic devices used as brackets and through the first wire receiving member of the one of the plurality of orthodontic devices (Fig. 8 showing a brace wire 7 fitted and secured to the plurality of orthodontic devices used as brackets including the one of the plurality of orthodontic devices used as brackets).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 20, 22, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, machine translation cited).
Regarding claim 2, Halke discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where an embodiment where the arm includes a second wire receiving member that would be disposed between the first and second ends of the arm and would have a second bore or through aperture extending transversely relative to the arm and having a second central longitudinal axis that would be spaced a distance apart from the plane defined by the fist side of the base (page 3 lines 9-14 disclosing the arm can have along its length a plurality of connection points, page 4 lines 23-24 disclosing at least two enclosures which is distinct in relation to lines 25-27 that clearly separately discloses more than two enclosures by reciting “several enclosures are present along the longitudinal axis of the arm” and page 7 makes clear that the enclosures are shaped as 4/4a and would have the same structure for one of the several enclosures and by several being more than two then the at least third enclosure would be at a different location along the arm than element 4 and 4a such as in figure 1 and thus such an arrangement for an arm such as in figure 6 would result in the enclosure being spaced a distance apart from the plane cited in the annotated figure 6 above),
but fails to explicitly disclose where the second wire receiving member would also be parallel to the plane.
However the instant disclosure is silent in regard to such parameter contributing any unexpected results to the appliance. As such these parameters are deemed matter of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results, further Halke discloses the issue of adjusting parameters of the wire receiving members rotationally in relation to the arm and thus the base (page 3 lines 41-447 and page 4 lines 7-9) and further a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the axis of the second of the several wire receiving members/enclosures to have been parallel to the plane defined by the first side of the base based on the particular force application required by the patient’s particular anatomical needs for treatment.
Regarding claim 4, Halke discloses the claimed invention above, including where the second wire receiving member would be configured to receive a second brace wire to extend along the second central longitudinal axis ( page 3 lines 9-14 disclosing the arm can have along its length a plurality of connection points, page 4 lines 23-24 disclosing at least two enclosures which is distinct in relation to lines 25-27 that clearly separately discloses more than two enclosures by reciting “several enclosures are present along the longitudinal axis of the arm” and page 7 makes clear that the enclosures are shaped as 4/4a which are structures configured to receive any number of different wires during use) except for the location of the second wire receiving member to be fixed midway along the arm between the body and the first wire receiving member. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have located the second of the several wire receiving member at a midway location, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art( In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70), and further the instant disclosure is silent in regard to such parameter contributing any unexpected results to the appliance (page 4 of the instant disclosure reciting only “The second wire receiving portion may be fixed midway along the arm, between the body and the first wire receiving portion.”).
Regarding claim 5, Halke further discloses where a diameter of the top face of the hub member is generally half of a diameter of the second side of the base and wherein a thickness of the arm is generally half of the diameter of the top face of the top face of the hub member and wherein a length to width ratio of the device is substantially between 2:1 and 3:1 (see figures 4-6 showing such general relationships and substantial ratios).
Regarding claim 7, Halke as discussed above in relation to claim 2 does disclose where there would be several, and thus a second, wire receiving members and thus would have an first arm portion extending between the first wire receiving member and the second of the several wire receiving members and a second arm portion extending between the second of the several wire receiving members and a subsequent wire receiving member of the several wire receiving members (page 3 lines 9-14 disclosing the arm can have along its length a plurality of connection points, page 4 lines 23-24 disclosing at least two enclosures which is distinct in relation to lines 25-27 that clearly separately discloses more than two enclosures by reciting “several enclosures are present along the longitudinal axis of the arm” and thus by being along the arm would have arm portions between them).
Regarding claim 20, Halke further discloses where the arm is adjustable and the arm is integrally formed with the body (page 3 lines 41-44, see annotated image above showing arm integrally formed).
Regarding claim 22, Halke further disclose where the first wire receiving member is integrally formed in the second end of the arm (fig. 1/3/4/5/6 element 4 is shown as an unitary integral connection to 3/14, and page 3 lines 9-14 disclosing the arm can have along its length a plurality of connection points, page 4 lines 23-24 disclosing at least two enclosures which is distinct in relation to lines 25-27 that clearly separately discloses more than two enclosures by reciting “several enclosures are present along the longitudinal axis of the arm” would be formed similar).
Regarding claim 29, Halke discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including providing a second of several different wire receiving members along the arm (page 3 lines 9-14 disclosing the arm can have along its length a plurality of connection points, page 4 lines 23-24 disclosing at least two enclosures which is distinct in relation to lines 25-27 that clearly separately discloses more than two enclosures by reciting “several enclosures are present along the longitudinal axis of the arm” and page 7 makes clear that the enclosures are shaped as 4/4a which are structures configured to receive any number of different wires during use) but does not disclose removing the brace wire from the first wire receiving portion of the orthodontic device;
and fitting the brace wire, or a replacement brace wire, to the second wire receiving member of the one of the plurality of orthodontic devices.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Halke to include removing the first brace wire from the first wire receiving member and fitting a replacement brace wire into a second of the several wire receiving members in order to provide for an adjustment of force to the partially erupted tooth during treatment as taught by Halke (page 4 lines 25-27 disclosing the several members would allow for adjustment of force on the tooth during treatment).
Regarding claim 30, Halke discloses steps substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of brackets is removed from the respective teeth to detach the dental brace from the teeth however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Halke to remove the brackets from the teeth after treatment was completed as it is well known and common to removed orthodontic appliances upon treatment completion.
Claims 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, machine translation cited) in view of Alqahtani et al. (US 11,246,683 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Halke discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where an embodiment where the arm includes a first and second wire receiving members that have a length (Fig. 1 element 4 having a length along ling a) and the wire receiving member have a bore that is generally half the diameter of the diameter of the wire receiving members (Fig. 5 showing element 4 having a bore with a diameter generally half the diameter of the member) but fails to explicitly disclose where the lengths of the first and second wire receiving members are substantially identical to the diameter of the second side of the base.
Alqahtani discloses an orthodontic device having a base member (Fig. 3 element 102) with an arm (Fig. 3 element 148) and two wire receiving portions (Fig. 3 elements 304/306 of 142a/142b), and the two wire receiving portion are substantially identical in length as wide as the base (column 6 lines 55-57 disclosing the base surfaces having a diameter of 3mm and column 8 lines 26-34 disclosing each half of the wire receiving portions being 1.5mm and thus 3mm in total length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the length of the wire receiving portions that is substantially identically as wide as the base of Halke as taught by Alqahtani in order to adjust the amount of force placed upon the tooth, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Halke discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the first wire receiving member is offset from a center of the body in a direction along the arm (Fig. 1/6 element 4 being a length distance away from the center of the body near element 5) and further discloses where the base comprises a mesh base or pad (page 7 lines 19-23 disclosing the first side has an indent by being studded or having a waffle like or grid like structure and that is configured to receive adhesive), but fails to explicitly disclose where the length is at least 2mm, 5mm, of 7mm.
Alqahtani discloses an orthodontic device having a base member (Fig. 3 element 102) with an arm (Fig. 3 element 148) and two wire receiving portions (Fig. 3 elements 304/306 of 142a/142b), and a first of the wire receiving portions being offset from a center of the body of the base member by at least 2mm, 5mm, of 7mm (fig. 3 element d1 or d2, column 8 lines 5-8 disclosing the distances including 5mm and another being an additional 2mm beyond the 5mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the offset amount of the first wire receiving member of Halke to be offset from a center of the body of the base member by at least 2mm, 5mm, of 7mm as taught by Alqahtani in order to provide for the device to be more efficient as taught by Alqahtani (column 3 lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 17, Halke discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, but fails to explicitly disclose where the first and second wire receiving members are substantially identical in shape and size.
Alqahtani discloses an orthodontic device having a base member (Fig. 3 element 102) with an arm (Fig. 3 element 148) and two wire receiving portions (Fig. 6 element 604 having two wire receiving portions 604a), and the two wire receiving portion are substantially identical in shape and size (Fig. 6 elements 604a/604b being the same in size and shape by having the same indentation form indicated by the same numeral 602).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the size and shape of the wire receiving portions of Halke to be identical in size and shape as taught by Alqahtani in order to provide for the device to be more efficient as taught by Alqahtani (column 3 lines 9-11), further change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and to further reduce the requirement of having additional inventory by maintaining separate hooks as taught by Alqahtani (column 11 lines 27-35).
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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.P.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 08/07/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights