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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species B, and species b in the reply filed on April 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro et al. (US 2022/0087781 A1, hereinafter “Navarro”) in view of Suriano et al. (US 2020/0163742 A1, hereinafter “Suriano”).
Regarding Claim 1, Navarro discloses an orthodontic device for treating misalignment of teeth (abstract), the device comprising a base (Figure 5, 151) having a first surface and an opposite second surface (see Figure 5), where the base includes a seat (159) formed along the first surface, and where the second surface is configured for mounting the base to a first tooth (as described in [0055] the bracket base 151 is secured to the teeth). Navarro further discloses an arm (Figure 1A, 100) including a top surface and an opposite bottom surface (see Figure 1A), the arm having an elongated body with a coupling portion (first end 107) at a proximal end of the arm and a bonding portion (second end 109) at an opposite distal end of the arm, where the bonding portion includes a bonding surface formed along the bottom surface of the arm for mounting the bonding portion to a second tooth offset from the first tooth (as seen in Figure 2, second end 109 has a surface that attaches to coupler 150 to mount to a second tooth as seen in Figure 8). Navarro further discloses a mount (Figure 1A,132) rotatably coupled to the seat of the base (as described in [0051]), where the mount is rotatable about a rotational axis relative to the seat and that rotation of the mount relative to the seat adjusts a position of the arm relative to the base ([0051]).
Navarro discloses the invention substantially as claimed, and discloses a receiver (see annotated Figure 1A below) but does not disclose that the receiver has a cavity formed therein and an opening along an end face of the receiver, the receiver configured for receiving the coupling portion of the arm. In the same art of orthodontic devices, Suriano teaches a receiver (Figure 11, 8) and arm (Figure 11, 11) where the receiver has a cavity and an opening (seen at 13) along an end face of the receiver for receiving the coupling portion of the arm (as described in [0047]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the receiver of the mount and the arm of Navarro as a two piece construction with the receiver having a cavity and opening along an end face for receiving the arm as is taught by Suriano in order to make the length of the arm adjustable dependent on the specific size and need of the patient.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, and 4, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, and Navarro further discloses that the base includes a first opening and a second opening in communication with the seat, the first opening and second opening axially aligned relative to one another, and wherein the mount is slidable into the seat via either the first opening or the second opening (as seen in Figure 5 as annotated below, Navarro has a first opening and a second opening that are axially aligned and the mount is slidable into the seat via either opening). The mount of Navarro would also be slidably removable from the seat via either the first opening or the second opening.
Regarding Claim 5, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, and Navarro further discloses that the mount includes a rounded body portion abutting the seat to facilitate rotation of the mount relative to the seat (as seen in Figure 1A, mount 132 has a rounded body portion).
Regarding Claim 6, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, and Navarro further discloses that the mount includes a body portion coupled to the seat, the mount further including a stem disposed between the body portion and the receiver (see annotated Figure 1A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
187
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 6 as described above, and Navarro further discloses that the base includes a first tie wing and a second tie wing extending from the top surface (see annotated Figure 5 below), and where the stem of the mount is disposed between the first tie wing and the second tie wing, and where the first tie wing and the second tie wing abut the stem to restrict lateral movement of the stem along an occlusal-gingival direction (as seen in Figure 2, the stem sits between the first tie wing and the second tie wing which would restrict lateral movement of the stem).
Regarding Claim 8, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 6 as described above, and Navarro further discloses that the top surface of the base includes a stop portion configured to abut the stem of the mount and restrict vertical movement of the stem along a labial-lingual direction (see annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
539
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, and Suriano further discloses that the receiver includes a ramped section formed along the end face thereof to facilitate insertion of the arm into the cavity of the receiver (as seen in Figure 11, 0-ring 12 is seated in the opening of tube 8 which is stepped/ramped to accommodate the o-ring). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the receiver opening of Navarro in view of Suriano with a ramped section as taught by Suriano in order to provide a fit that is tight as per the use of the O-ring of Suriano.
Regarding Claim 12, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, and Navarro further discloses that the receiver is crimpable to retain the arm in position ([0051] teaches that the coupler can be made of metal or a polymer, in which case it can be crimped).
Regarding Claim 13, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, but does not specifically disclose that the rotatable range of the mount is between 40 degrees to 75 degrees relative to the base. However, the Examiner notes that the specific range is a result effective variable dependent on the needs of the patient and based on the figures of Navarro it appears that the device of Navarro would function in this range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device Navarro in view of Suriano to include a rotatable range of the mount of 40 degrees to 75 degrees relative to the base, as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 14, Navarro in view of Suriano discloses the device of Claim 1 as described above, and Navarro further discloses an elastic band coupled to the base, where the elastic band resists rotation of the arm along the labial-lingual direction (as described in [0047]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro in view of Suriano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YUKITA et al. (US 2020/0046466 A1, hereinafter “Yukita”).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Navarro in view of Suriano disclose the invention of Claim 1 as described above, but do not disclose that the top surface of the arm includes a scale comprising spaced-apart indicia with a set of markings on the top surface of the arm. In the same art of orthodontic devices, Yukita teaches an arm for a coupling member with spaced-apart indicia with a set of markings on the top surface of the arm (Figure 3A, 36A as described in [0076]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the indicia with a set of markings to the top surface of the arm of the device of Navarro in view of Suriano to provide a measurable method for tracking the size of the arm as improvement progresses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5 ET.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights