DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 25, 27, 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims should be amended to more clearly coincide with the disclosure of the tooth-contacting surfaces of the radial grip may form a continuous or discontinuous structure that has a diameter that is the same size or slightly smaller than the diameter of the target tooth.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 11 and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Domroese et al (US 20220047358 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Domroese discloses an orthodontic device 100 comprising:
a body comprising a plurality of tooth-receiving cavities having a first shape corresponding to a target dental arch position, wherein the body applies a first orthodontic force against one or more target teeth of a dental arch of a patient (paragraph 0028-0029), wherein said first orthodontic force generates movement of said one or more target teeth toward a target tooth position corresponding to the target dental arch position (paragraph 0028-0029); wherein a tooth-receiving cavity of the plurality of tooth-receiving cavities includes a radial grip 102a (figure 1B for example) comprising one or more projections arranged around a radius of an interior of the tooth-receiving cavity (figure 1B for example; also paragraphs 0032-0033), the radial grip configured to contact a target tooth held within the tooth-receiving cavity around a circumference of the target tooth (figures 1A, 1B for example; paragraphs 0032 and 0034), including between the target tooth and one or more teeth immediately adjacent to the target tooth of the dental arch (paragraphs 0032-0033; “interproximal region”; some examples, gingival ridges 102 may extend across one or more interproximal regions. By extending across one or more interproximal regions, gingival ridges 102 may stiffen two or more adjacent shells at gingival ridges 102), wherein the radial grip is configured to apply a radially inward force on the target tooth held within the tooth-receiving cavity (paragraphs 0034 and 0041 and 0043: “grip” and increased thickness contacting tooth results in inward/radial force), further wherein the radial grip extends between 20% and 90% of an inner surface area of the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity (paragraphs 1B, ID, 1E for example; (figure 1E for example; paragraph 0035 discloses ridge engaging lingual and labial surfaces of a tooth; paragraph 0038: some examples, gingival ridges 102 may extend across one or more interproximal regions. By extending across one or more interproximal regions, gingival ridges 102 may stiffen two or more adjacent shells at gingival ridges 1023).
Re. claims 11 and 29, further wherein the radial grip extends between 30% and 80% of an inner surface area of the interior of the at least one tooth-receiving cavity (figure 1E for example; paragraph 0035 discloses ridge engaging lingual and labial surfaces of a tooth; paragraph 0038: some examples, gingival ridges 102 may extend across one or more interproximal regions. By extending across one or more interproximal regions, gingival ridges 102 may stiffen two or more adjacent shells at gingival ridges 102), further wherein the one or more projections has a prominence relative to an inner surface of the tooth-receiving cavity, wherein the prominence is between about 0.1 mm and 0.7 mm (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the one or more projections has a prominence relative to an inner surface of the tooth-receiving cavity, wherein the prominence is between 0.1 mm and 0.7 mm (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the one or more projections has a prominence relative to an inner surface of the tooth-receiving cavity, wherein the prominence is between 0.2 mm and 0.6 mm (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the radial grip 102/102a comprises a band extending around the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity (figure 1B for example, paragraph 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 6, the one or more projections arranged around the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity are on a buccal side and a lingual side of the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity (figure 1E for example; paragraph 0035 discloses ridge engaging lingual and labial surfaces of a tooth; paragraph 0038: some examples, gingival ridges 102 may extend across one or more interproximal regions. By extending across one or more interproximal regions, gingival ridges 102 may stiffen two or more adjacent shells at gingival ridges 102).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the radial grip extends between 30% and 80% of the inner surface area of the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity (figure 1E for example; paragraph 0035 discloses ridge engaging lingual and labial surfaces of a tooth; paragraph 0038: some examples, gingival ridges 102 may extend across one or more interproximal regions. By extending across one or more interproximal regions, gingival ridges 102 may stiffen two or more adjacent shells at gingival ridges 102).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the radial grip has a rounded edge (figure 1F; paragraphs 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the first orthodontic force is applied in addition to the radially inward force (paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0034, 0036 and 0041).
Regarding claim 25, 27, 30, wherein the radial grip has a diameter that is the same or smaller than a diameter of the target tooth (paragraph 0034: shaped to correspond to contour of a respective tooth such that the interior diameter is the same size as that of the tooth; furthermore, the target tooth is not claimed as part of the claimed invention and this is interpreted as functional recitation wherein the device can be used with patients having a variety of tooth sizes; furthermore, the diameter of the grip can be interpreted as a cross-sectional diameter).
Regarding claim 26, 28, 31, wherein the radial grip forms a continuous structure around the circumference of the target tooth (figure 1E; paragraph 0038: some examples, gingival ridges 102 may extend across one or more interproximal regions. By extending across one or more interproximal regions, gingival ridges 102 may stiffen two or more adjacent shells at gingival ridges 102)
As set forth above, the reference discloses that the radial grip extends between 20% and 90% or between 30% and 80% of an inner surface area of the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity. Otherwise, the references teaches the benefit of a ridge extending along all lingual, labial and interproximal surfaces of a tooth (paragraphs 0035 and 0038) and further discloses half of a facial surface and opposite half of a lingual surface of a tooth being contacted by the ridge for the purpose of causing tooth rotation and other ridge locations in table 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these benefits and have a radial grip extend along all surfaces of a single tooth, or at least between 30% and 80% of an inner surface area of the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity, as taught by Domroese, for the purpose of providing desired forces and rigidity.
Regarding claim 5, Domroese discloses wherein the radial grip comprises a plurality of projections arranged around the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity (144/146 in figure 1G or 103A/103B in figure 1F) but is silent regarding the projections arranged symmetrically around the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Domroese by having the projections be identical to each other such that they are symmetrical around the interior of the tooth-receiving cavity since such a modification would have been made by a mere duplication parts. Furthermore, paragraph 0033 discloses By including a plurality of segments, the respective gingival ridge may allow for selected flexible regions between each segment of the plurality of segments. The selected flexibility at the selected flexible regions may enable better control of direction(s) and magnitude(s) of force(s) applied by the appliance body 104 to teeth 106 compared to gingival ridges 102 without a plurality of segments, thereby establishing why certain locations and sizes of the projections are chosen. It would therefore be obvious to provide the projections symmetrical as claimed for the purpose of providing a desired level of equal force on two sides of the tooth.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domroese and in view of Wucher et al (US 20240108438 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Domroese discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Domroese is silent regarding the radial grip comprises a textured surface. However, Wucher teaches providing a textured surface to increase grip on teeth (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to modify Domroese by providing the radial grip with a textured surface, as taught by Wucher, for the purpose of increasing the grip on the teeth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero, can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights