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 Invention I in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
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.
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 “like” 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).
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) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 202136431) in view of Lewis (2016/0198576) in view of Moon (2015/0056566).
With respect to claim 1, Ma teaches an orthodontic apparatus (see fig. 1) comprising an orthodontic effective element comprising a first half and a second half being integrally joined together with one another as a single piece (see annaoted figure below, pars. 11, 24 of translation, such that the shaded element is the claimed orthodontic effective element, i.e. only one half of the total element, the first and second half being in shaded element within the box), and an adjustment element 6 comprising a prefabricated component (par. 12 such that it is prefabricated before being mounted in the orthodontic effective element), said orthodontically effective element being a wire type framework (see fig. 1) comprising first and second wire type linkages (see annotated figure below) extending between respective tooth abutting portions thereof (see annotated figure below, fig. 1) and an adjustment element accommodating portion 1 thereof which accommodates the adjustment element (see fig. 1, par. 26 of translation), wherein the orthodontically effective element is made of a material distributed around the adjustment element such that the adjustment element accommodating portion surrounds the adjustment element (see par. 26 of translation). Ma teach the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the orthodontically effective element is formed of a material that is distributed in layers around the adjustment element such that the adjustment element accommodating portion is hardened to the adjustment element and the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor.
PNG
media_image1.png
426
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lewis teaches an medical apparatus (par. 72, such as a hearing aid) comprising an effective element 102 and a prefabricated component 104a/104b, wherein the effective element has an accommodating portion for the prefabricated component (see fig. 2c, such that element 104a is placed in an accommodating portion, see fig, 1 showing the accommodating portions for prefabricated elements), wherein the effective element is formed of a material that is distributed in layers around the prefabricated element such that the accommodating portion is hardened to the prefabricated element (par. 61, specifically surface of the effective element 102a’ functions as an adhesive, abstract, par. 70, fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Ma with the structure of the layers around the premanufactured device as taught by Lewis in order to quickly and easily manufacture the orthodontic element using additive manufacturing methods. Such that it is known that additive manufacturing provides advantages in manufacturing including reduced cost and time. Ma/Lewis teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor.
Moon teaches an orthodontic apparatus comprising an orthodontically effective element comprising a first half and a second half, the first and second halves being integrally joined together with one another as a single piece (such as one half of the device, see device of fig. 2), an adjustment element (portion of element 10 connected to one side) comprising a premanufactured device, the orthodontically effective element being a wire type framework comprising first and second linkages 20 extending between respective tooth abutting portions thereof (60 and connecting element between the bands 60, see fig. 2, such that the linkages and tooth abutting portions are similar to those in the annotated figure above) and the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor (such as through holes 70, par. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Ma/Lewis to include structure to allow the device to be connected with skeletal anchors in order to assist in securing the device to the mouth during use.
With respect to claim 4, Ma/Lewis/Moon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Lewis further teaching the material is bonded chemically or via melting (par. 61, 77, 82, 84, such that the layers are bonded together via melting such that they are extruded in a melted state to be bonded together, further they are bonded by sintering which is chemical). It is noted that the limitation “bonded by chemically or via melting” is being interpreted as a product by process limitations, that is, that the layers of the material are bonded together by heating or a chemical bond. 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 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 202136431) in view of Lewis (2016/0198576) in view of Moon (2015/0056566) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tril (UA 16504).
Ma/Lewis/Moon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Ma teaching the tooth abutting portions are configured to extend over 1 and a half teeth and are shaped to a contour of the respective teeth (see fig. 2), however, does not teach the tooth abutting portions are configured to extend over a plurality of teeth.
Tril teaches an orthodontic apparatus comprising an orthodontically effective element comprising a first half and a second half, the first half and the second half being integrally joined together with one another, the orthodontically effective element being a wire type framework comprising a first and second wire type linkages extending between respective tooth abutting portions (see annaoted figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
484
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Tril further teaches the tooth abutting portions are configured to extend over respective plurality of teeth and are shaped to a contour of the respective pluralities of teeth (see annaoted figure above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tooth abutting portions taught by Ma/Lewis/Moon to contact a plurality of teeth as taught by Tril in order to provide the desired forces to teeth in order to achieve the desired treatment outcome.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 202136431) in view of Lewis (2016/0198576) in view of Moon (2015/0056566) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farzin-Nia et al. (2013/0081271).
Ma/Lewis/Moon teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above however, does not specifically teach the orthodontic element wherein the material comprises a plurality of different materials that are used for different regions of the apparatus.
Farzin-Nia teaches an orthodontic device that is made by 3D printing a material, wherein the material comprises a plurality of different materials that are used for different regions of the apparatus (par. 36). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the material taught by Ma/Lewis/Moon to be a plurality of different materials used for different regions as taught by Farzin-Nia in order to provide the desired effects of the device as different regions ranging from color to forces applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,567 in view of Moon (2015/0056566).
It is noted that the bolded limitations are the limitations taught by patent ‘566 and claimed in the current application.
With respect to claim 1 of the current application, claim 1 of ‘567 teaches:
An orthodontic apparatus comprising: an orthodontically effective element comprising a left half and a right half, the left and right halves being integrally formed together with one another as a single piece part together (such that the claimed first and second half read on the claimed left and right haves of ‘566) with a holding element for holding the apparatus on a jaw of a user; and an adjustment element comprising a prefabricated component, said orthodontically effective element being a wire-type framework comprising left and right wire-type linkages extending from respective tooth-abutting portions thereof to an adjustment element accommodating portion thereof which accommodates the adjustment element (such that the claimed first and second linkages of the application read on the left and right linkages of ‘566), wherein said orthodontically effective element is formed, together with said holding element, of a material that is distributed in layers around the adjustment element and hardened therewith.
‘566 teaches the invention a substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor.
Moon teaches an orthodontic apparatus comprising an orthodontically effective element comprising a first half and a second half, the first and second halves being integrally joined together with one another as a single piece (such as one half of the device, see device of fig. 2), an adjustment element (portion of element 10 connected to one side) comprising a premanufactured device, the orthodontically effective element being a wire type framework comprising first and second linkages 20 extending between respective tooth abutting portions thereof (60 and connecting element between the bands 60, see fig. 2, such that the linkages and tooth abutting portions are similar to those in the annotated figure above) and the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor (such as through holes 70, par. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify ‘566 to include structure to allow the device to be connected with skeletal anchors in order to assist in securing the device to the mouth during use.
With respect to claim 2 of the current application, claim 2 of ‘566 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said tooth-abutting portions are configured to extend over a plurality of teeth and are shaped to a contour of the teeth.
With respect to claim 3 of the current application, claim 4 of ‘566 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said material comprises a plurality of different materials that are used for different regions of the apparatus.
With respect to claim 4 of the current application, claim 5 of ‘566 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said material is bonded chemically.
With respect to claim 5 of the current application, claim 6 of the current application teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus of claim 1, each of the left and right halves of the orthodontically effective element having an area devoid of material, said area being bounded by said left or right respective wire-type linkages, left or right respective further linkages, said respective tooth-abutting portions, and said adjustment element accommodating portion (such that the claimed first and second halves in the current application correspond to the claimed left and right halves in ‘566).
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,232,925 in view of in view of Moon (2015/0056566).
It is noted that the bolded limitations are the limitations taught by patent ‘925 and claimed in the current application.
With respect to claim 1 of the current application, claim 1 of ‘925 teaches:
An orthodontic apparatus comprising: an orthodontically effective element comprising a first half and a second half, the first and second halves being integrally joined together with one another as a single piece part; and an adjustment element comprising a prefabricated component, said orthodontically effective element being a wire-type framework comprising first and second wire-type linkages extending between respective tooth-abutting portions thereof and an adjustment element accommodating portion thereof which accommodates the adjustment element, wherein said orthodontically effective element is formed of a material that is distributed in layers around the adjustment element such that the adjustment element accommodating portion is hardened to the adjustment element.
‘925 teaches the invention a substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor.
Moon teaches an orthodontic apparatus comprising an orthodontically effective element comprising a first half and a second half, the first and second halves being integrally joined together with one another as a single piece (such as one half of the device, see device of fig. 2), an adjustment element (portion of element 10 connected to one side) comprising a premanufactured device, the orthodontically effective element being a wire type framework comprising first and second linkages 20 extending between respective tooth abutting portions thereof (60 and connecting element between the bands 60, see fig. 2, such that the linkages and tooth abutting portions are similar to those in the annotated figure above) and the orthodontic apparatus being configured to be fixed to a skeletal anchor (such as through holes 70, par. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify ‘925 to include structure to allow the device to be connected with skeletal anchors in order to assist in securing the device to the mouth during use.
With respect to claim 2 of the current invention, claim 2 of ‘925 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said tooth-abutting portions are configured to extend over respective pluralities of teeth and are shaped to a contour of the respective pluralities of teeth.
With respect to claim 3 of the current application, claim 3 of ‘925 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said material comprises a plurality of different materials that are used for different regions of the apparatus.
With respect to claim 4 of the current application, claim 4 of ‘925 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said material is bonded chemically or via melting.
With respect to claim 5 of the current application, claim 5 of ‘925 teaches:
The orthodontic apparatus of claim 1, each of the first and second halves of the orthodontically effective element having an area devoid of said material that is bounded respectively by said first or second respective wire-type linkages, first or second further linkages, said respective tooth-abutting portions, and said adjustment element accommodating portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 6/3/2026
Prosecution Insights