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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that the replacement figures point to one of the wire type linkages has an anchorage, however, it is not illustrated to show it being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figures 4-5 in the drawings submitted with the current application contain words rather than reference numbers. It is noted the user of words in the drawings is not proper. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the response to arguements is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The use of the term “type” in the claims with respect to “a wire-type framework” renders the claim limitations indefinite. It is noted that the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(b), III, E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach the limitations of claim 5, specifically are devoid of material in each of the first and second halves and the limitations of claim 1 including the left and right halves being integrally joined in combination with the other claimed limitations.
The closest prior art of Cammarata teaches an orthodontically effective element comprising a left half 17 and a right half 18, the left and right halves being integrally joined together with one another as a single piece part (see fig. 7), and an adjustment element A’/B’ comprising a prefabricated component, the orthodontically effective element comprising respective tooth abutting portions and an adjustment element accommodating portion thereof which accommodate the adjustment element (see fig. 7), the orthodontically effective element is formed of a material that is distributed around the adjustment element such that the adjustment element accommodating portion is hardened to the adjustment element (see fig. 7), however, does not teach the orthodontically effective element being a wire-type framework comprising left and right wire type linkages extending between respective tooth abutting portion thereof and an adjustment element accommodating portion and the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on September 8, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application 15/311301 (patent 11,730,567) and application 18/347,448 (patent 12,232,925) has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the drawing objections should be with drawn because support for the limitation including the apparatus can be fixed to skeletal anchors is provided in par. 23 of the specification. While it is noted that supported is provided in the specification for the limitation, the drawing do not show the claimed structure for fixing it to a skeletal anchor. It is noted that there is not enough support in the specification for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine where the structure is located on the device or what the structure would be. The applicant argues that conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box) and since mini-implant systems are well known and conventional devices, as detailed illustration of the features is not necessary. However, it is noted that the drawings are not objected to for not illustrating the skeletal anchor, as the anchor is not being claimed and the examiner agrees that a skeletal anchor is not needed to be illustrated. However, the claimed apparatus being configured to be connected to a skeletal anchor, as claimed, is needed to proper understanding of the claimed invention. Such as how the claimed orthodontic apparatus is configured as claimed. What part of the apparatus, i.e. the effective element of the adjustment component configured to function as claimed. The applicant has not provided enough discussion in the originally filed specification or in the original drawing to illustrate this limitation. Therefore, the drawing objections are maintained.
The applicant further argues that the 112(b) rejection regarding the limitation “type” should be withdrawn as the limitation does not render the claims indefinite. The applicant argues that the term “wire-type framework” is not an attempt to broaden a specific term, but rather is a holistic compound expression that conveys a specific and well-understood meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant argues that the limitation is claiming a framework having the general form, shape, and structural characteristic of wire, as distinguished from, for example a plate type or shell type framework. However, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that the term is not a well understood term in the art and further the applicant has not provided a specific definition for the term. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim a framework having a structure with elongated connection elements, such that they are like a wire in shape and material or if the applicant is trying to claim a structure with elongated connection element that are wire like in only shape and not material. The above examples are just a few to point out the use of the term “type” in the claim making the limitation indefinite. While it is noted that the applicant has used the term throughout the specification, the limitation is not being rejected under new matter and only indefiniteness. The specification is not held to the same laws and standards as the claims. It is noted that in view of the above response, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Beeby has been cited to teach support arms 21connecting left and right segments of a 3D printed dental device and further having support structure 23..
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 10/8/2026
