DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art fails to provide for the new limitations of determining a location for a patient customized attachment after the step of determining of the magnitude and the direction of the force system occur however this limitation is addressed by previously applied art of Knopp et al. (US 2003/0198911 A1) in view of Sherwood et al. (US 2007/0238065 A1) in combination with the new prior art of Lemchen et al. (WO 2008/083237 A2). Upon further review Lemchen does disclose a sequence of steps that is a first step of determining the initial tooth position and the final position, determining bone density and relation of the tooth/teeth to the bone density, placing an initial staring point anchorage and from such an initial set up determining the magnitude and force system to achieve the movement and then from that determined magnitude and force the computer method then itself “determines from the input data where to place an anchor or anchors…taking into account the same information regarding the shape of the teeth being used as an anchor” which is understood to be a redetermining of the needed location. As such the new limitation is provided for in light of Lemchen. The claims do not exclude additional method steps by use of the open ended “comprising” and as such the additional step of a first initiating placement would not appear to be excluded.
Claims 1-11 are still rejected under 102(b) over Knopp et al. (US 2003/0198911 A1) as the process limitations in claims 1-11 would not appear to result in a product different that those taught and cited in Knopp.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Knopp et al. (US 2003/0198911 A1).
Regarding claims 1-11, Knopp discloses a series of orthodontic appliance aligners (title, abstract, Fig. 1b showing the producing of a series of appliances aligners of Fig. 1b and Fig. 1c element 40 that produces the series of aligner appliances) where at least one of the aligners is designed to interact with a tooth attachments for eliciting a selected movement of a patient's tooth (Knopp Title and abstract, Fig. 3 element 100 interacting with a tooth attachment 101) which would produce an aligner that would interact with a tooth attachment.
Regarding claims 1-11 these claims recite the series of patient-customized orthodontic aligners as being made a the process of receiving a digital model of a patient's tooth, the tooth being planned to move from a first position to a second position in a stage of orthodontic treatment; determining a magnitude and a direction of a force system for eliciting a tooth movement from the planned first position to the planned second position; after determining the magnitude and the direction of the force system, determining a location of a patient customized attachment and designing the patient-customized attachment configured to engage at least one of the series of patient- customized orthodontic aligners when worn by a patient and, in combination with the at least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners, apply a repositioning force to the patient's tooth corresponding to the force system having the magnitude and the direction, the patient- customized attachment having a patient-customized shape and location generated based on one or more parameters having values determined based on the digital model and the force system having the magnitude and the direction; designing the at least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners to engage the patient-customized attachment when worn by the patient, the at least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners having a shape customized responsive to the attachment, the digital model, and the force system having the magnitude and the direction, wherein the at least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners includes an attachment receiving well having a shape configured to engage the patient-customized attachment, wherein the patient-customized shape and the attachment receiving well shape are different, and to apply the force system having the magnitude and the direction to the patient's tooth when the at least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners is worn by the patient and a surface of the attachment receiving well contacts the patient-customized attachment; and fabricating the series of patient-customized orthodontic aligners including the at least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners in claim 1, and similar in claim 2 where the process would further include digitally modifying a generic tooth attachment, with claims 3-11 further adding only addition process steps alone. These limitations are being viewed as a product by process claims of merely reciting a process to make the product as discussed above, the presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited, even though Knopp may recite a different process used to fabricate the series of aligners, it appears that Knopp’s product would be the same as that claimed.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 12-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knopp et al. (US 2003/0198911 A1) which incorporates by reference Phan et al. (US 2002/0106604 A1) in view of Sherwood et al. (US 2007/0238065 A1) further view of Lemchen et al. (WO 2008/083237 A2).
Regarding claims 12, 21, and 29, Knopp discloses a method for designing and manufacturing a series of orthodontic appliance aligners (title, abstract, Fig. 1b showing the producing of a series of appliances aligners of Fig. 1b) and designing tooth attachments for eliciting a selected movement of a patient's tooth (Knopp Title and abstract), the method comprising:
receiving a digital model of the patient's tooth by generating the digital tooth model with a means for generating that is planned to move from a first position to a second position in a stage of treatment (Knopp Fig. 1b box 1 “digitize initial tooth arrangement”. While applicant’s specification fails specifically disclose the term “means for generating” it is best understood that Applicant intends that the means for generating a digital model of a patient’s tooth as comprising taking a scan/x-ray/tomographic/sonographic and other techniques of cast or a patient’s actual anatomy in paragraph [00791]. Knopp discloses a scanner for the function claimed in paragraph [0072]. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Knopp disclose the means for generating a digital model as a scanner for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f/6th analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the scanner of Knopp would be functionally equivalent structure, the model being a tooth planned to move from a first to a second position as Fig. 1b reciting the initial tooth arrangement that is to be arranged to intermediate and ultimately final positions);
determining/designing, using a means for determining, a magnitude and direction being a force system for the movement path for eliciting the selected movement path when applied to the patient's tooth(Knopp Fig. 1b box 3 providing multiple incremental data sets of the forces to move the teeth as selected in box 2, paragraph [0009]-[0010]) where the force system includes a magnitude and a direction for a force or a torque (paragraph [0008] lines 1-4 disclosing the determining of an adequate rotational and direction forces and thus functional magnitude of force and in desired directions and toque by the rotational force) by a means for determining (While applicant’s specification fails specifically disclose the term “means for determining” it is best understood that Applicant intends for the means for determining a force system as comprising a programable processor/microprocessor, either special or general purpose in paragraph[0168]. Knopp discloses a processor for the function claimed in paragraph [0064]. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Knopp disclose the means for determining the force system for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f/6th analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the processor of Knopp would be functionally equivalent structure) and
determining/designing, using a means for designing, a first force application means configured as a patient customized geometry for an attachment by generating an attachment having a geometry based on the determined magnitude/direction or torque of the force system of the movement path of the selected movement of a patient’s tooth that would engage at least one of the series of patient customized orthodontic aligners at a receptacle/well (Fig.4c element 108) and in combination with the at least one of the patient customized aligners apply a repositioning force to the patient’s tooth corresponding to the force system such that the first force application means in the form of a patient customized attachment would have a customized shape and location generated based on one or more parameters having values determined based on the digital model and the force system ( While applicant’s specification fails specifically disclose the term “means for designing” and fails to specifically disclose the term “first force application means” it is best understood that Applicant means that the means for designing the force application means is a programable processor/microprocessor, either special or general purpose in at least paragraph[0168] and that the first force application means as is the patient customized attachment in at least paragraph [0081] . Knopp discloses a processor for the function of designing a first force claimed in paragraph [0021] and a first force application means of a patient customized attachment configured with a geometry for the attachment by generating an attachment having a geometry based on the determined magnitude/direction or torque of the force system of the movement path of the selected movement of a patient’s tooth that would engage at least one of the series of patient customized orthodontic aligners and in combination with the at least one of the patient customized aligners apply a repositioning force to the patient’s tooth corresponding to the force system such that the first force application means in the form of a patient customized attachment would have a customized shape and location generated based on one or more parameters having values determined based on the digital model and the force system in paragraph [0021] disclosing a virtual attachment that is designed to match the parameters of the magnitude/direction or torque of the force system by modifying/customizing the attachment shape and position from an original shape and position on a virtual model to achieve the customized parameter values of magnitude and direction of force applied to the attachment to match the determined force values of the system, Knopp paragraph [0009] lines 8-10 disclosing the attachment is configured, Phan as incorporated into Knopp paragraph [0009] lines17-23 and paragraph [0013] lines 31-33 the attachments are designed for specific reposition forces. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Knopp disclose the means for designing the force system for performing the same function and the first force application means for the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f/6th analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the processor and customized attachment of Knopp would be functionally equivalent/identical structures under the 112f/6th analysis.);
and designing, using a means for designing, at least one of the patient customized orthodontic aligners to engage the first force application means when worn by the patient, the aligner having a shape customized responsive to the first force application means , the digital model, and the magnitude/direction or torque of the force system, wherein the at least one patient customized aligner includes a second force application means having a shape configured to engage with the first force application means, the shape of the second force application means and the patient customized shape of the first force application means are different and when the aligner is worn the magnitude/direction or torque of the force system is applied to the patients tooth and the first and second force application means contact each other (While applicant’s specification fails specifically disclose the term “means for designing” and fails to specifically disclose the term “second force application means” it is best understood that Applicant intends that the means for designing customized aligner is a programable processor/microprocessor, either special or general purpose in at least paragraph[0168] and that the second force application means is the one or more surfaces or portions of the internal cavity of the patient customized aligner that contact the attachment called the activator in at least paragraph [0054].
Knopp discloses a processor for the function of designing a first force claimed in paragraph [0021] and a second force application means design in the aligner as having a shape customized responsive to the first force application means , the digital model, and the magnitude/direction or torque of the force system, wherein the at least one patient customized aligner includes a second force application means having a shape configured to engage with the first force application means, the shape of the second force application means and the patient customized shape of the first force application means are different and when the aligner is worn the magnitude/direction or torque of the force system is applied to the patients tooth and the first and second force application means contact each other in paragraphs [0010]-[0012] disclosing the designing of an aligner shell having a force transmitting component for transmitting/applying a force to the attachment/first force application means in response to the magnitude/direction or torque of the force system, paragraph [0021] disclosing the modifying of the attachment or shell, the modifying of the attachment would thus also modify the interaction with the aligner shell and make the aligner customized, Figs. 1e-8a etc. showing the second means having a different shape than the first means of the attachment and that the first and second means contact each other to apply the determined magnitude/direction or torque of the force system
Because both applicant’s disclosure and Knopp disclose the means for designing the force system for performing the same function and the second force application means for the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f/6th analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the processor and customized aligner of Knopp would be functionally equivalent/identical structures under the 112f/6th analysis),
and fabricating the series of patient customized orthodontic aligners including the at least one of the patient customized orthodontic aligners/appliances (paragraphs [0062]-[0063] the fabrication of the series of aligner appliances).
Knopp discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the determining of the magnitude and direction for a force or torque for eliciting a tooth movement includes the magnitude and direction of the force or torque to elicit the movement from the first position to a second position in a stage of orthodontic treatment and applying the force or torque to the patient’s tooth.
However Sherwood discloses a method and system for providing dynamic orthodontic assessment and treatment profiles for design and creating orthodontic aligners (title and abstract) including the determining a first tooth position and a second tooth position and determining a force system of a magnitude and direction of force to elicit an a tooth movement from the first position to the second position (Fig. 4 element 404 having inputs of beginning/first tooth position and end/second tooth position for a stage of treatment and determining the magnitude/amount of force to elicit the movement from the first to second position paragraph [0126] disclosing the calculation of the amount of force in both liner and torsional directions to create the change in position from the first to the second position) and applying the determined amount of force or toque to the patient’s tooth (paragraph [0019] lines 1-14 the calculated force that is then applied to the tooth for moving from the first to second position is determined to be optimal base on the iterative process).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the tooth being planned to move from a first position to a second position in a stage of treatment such that the magnitude and direction being determined is of the force or torque to elicit the tooth movement from the first position to the second position and used to design the appliance to apply the determined force or torque to the patient’s tooth as taught by Sherwood into the determining of the magnitude and direction for a force for eliciting tooth movement as taught by Knopp for the purpose of providing a determination of the magnitude and direction that would be orthodontically acceptable/optimal before creating an appliance to move the tooth from a first position to second position for a stage in orthodontic treatment as taught by Sherwood (paragraph [0119] lines 12-13 and Fig. 4 element 404 and 470 that a force and position is calculated to be within a maximum allowable amount and direction/path).
Knopp/Sherwood discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the determining and designing of the a patient-customized attachment and the at least one of the patient customized aligners is after determining a location of a patient customized attachment with is after the determining of the magnitude and the direction of the force system .
However Lemchen discloses a method and system for determining and applying orthodontic forces dependent on bone density (title and abstract) where the model of the patient’s tooth is received (Fig. 1/2 the scanning of the teeth creates a digital model) and a planned movement of a tooth from a first position to a second position is determined (paragraph [0007] lines 8-13 disclosing a selected attachment point on a selected tooth is determined and a force to the point is determined that would move the tooth a predetermined distance and direction, and the step of calculating the force includes specifying the magnitude and direction of force in paragraph [0010] all, further paragraph [0031] all discloses that the movement of the tooth with require different magnitudes and directions of force depending on the orientation of the tooth at its desired designated displacement position, and paragraph [0032] lines 1-4 disclosing that that from these forces to achieve the designated displacement the computer determines where to place and anchor or anchors) and gets a first location for placement of an anchor screw in a jaw (paragraph [0022] lines 1-13) then after this initial set up determines a magnitude and force system for moving the tooth from the initial position to the final position (paragraph [0023] lines 1-10) based off of how the tooth/teeth would move through the jaw bone (para graph [0025] lines 13-16 disclosing determining magnitude and direction of forces) and after the determining of the magnitude and force system determines a location of a patient customized attachment to achieve the movement in light of the determined magnitude and force system (paragraph [0026] lines 1-4 disclosing the computer then determines a placement of anchors for the patient based on their custom bone density and tooth start and end points) and that the computer specifies an appliance to be used to provide for the needed force to achieve the movement after the force needed to achieve the movement has been determined (paragraph [0038 lines 1-4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teaching of determining an initial tooth position and final position, a placement of an initial anchorage that allows for a determining of magnitude and direction of force needed to achieve a desired repositioning of a tooth followed by determining a location for a patient customized attachment which is then used for a computer based determining a location of a patient customized attachment and how to use an appliance to provide for that force with the force determined before the determining/designing of an appliance to achieve the movement as taught by Lemchen into the determining of the force system in relation the order of designing/determining an appliance to meet that force system as taught by Knopp for the purpose of providing for the arrangement of the appliance to be based upon the needed magnitude and direction of forces to achieve a desired tooth movement through the density of a patient’s bone that would be effective as taught by Lemchen (paragraph [0014] all that the appliance for the needed force is calculated after the calculation of force in paragraph [0007] and paragraph [0010] disclosing the force would be effective. It should be noted that the claim language preamble includes the open ended “comprising” which does not preclude additional steps or actions in the claim).
Further regarding claims 13, 19, 22, and 30, Knopp further discloses wherein designing a patient-customized attachment includes:
selecting the first force application means/digital model of a generic tooth attachment from a group of first force application means/generic tooth attachments (figs. 17a-e element 100 selected);
modeling a first force system applied to a tooth having the first force application means and engaged with least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners (paragraph [0021] “the modifying of the virtual attachment increase the force” thus determining an increase in force requires determining/modeling the first force system that is to be increased) ; and
generating the patient-customized shape by modifying one or more parameter values based on the determined magnitude/direction of force or torque of the force system so that the first force application means/attachment is such that a second force system applied to the tooth by the first force application means/attachment when engaged with second force application means/inner surface of the least one of the patient-customized orthodontic aligners when worn by the patient more closely corresponds to the force system than the first force system (paragraph [0021] “a similar shape formed by truncating a portion of the virtual attachment” would result in “the modifying of the virtual attachment increase the force” thus the shape modified of the attachment to increase the parameters of the magnitude/direction or torque of the force transmitted or the location and length of the engagement point between the aligner’s second force application means of an inner surface that contacts the first force application means of the customized attachment, paragraph [0020] the aligner/second means and the attachment/first means are so shaped to more closely align to the magnitude/direction of forces determined to move the appliance along a channel for its determined repositioning).
Regarding claim 23, Knopp further discloses wherein the one or more parameters includes one or more of geometry, shape, sizing, composition, arm vector, an arm length of the generic tooth attachment or positioning of the digital model of the generic tooth attachment (paragraph [0021] disclosing the parameter includes shape and thus the arm vector or armlength being modified by truncating or positioning)
Regarding claims 14, 15, 24, and 25, Knopp further discloses wherein the patient-customized shape includes a clipping plane surface defined by a plurality of clipping plane parameters that include one or more of a clipping plane area, a clipping plane width, or a clipping plane length (Fig. 10a either elements 105 and 126 both being clipping planes with areas, widths, and lengths, further Figs. 1e, 2, 3-9 show various geometries of the attachment 105 that would also having such parameters, as flat surface has come inherent two dimensional length and width, thus having an area mathematically).
Regarding claims 17, 18, 26, and 27, Knopp further discloses where the plurality of clipping plane parameters comprises setting a first angle determined based on the determined geometry generated based on the determined movement path from the force system of the selected movement of the tooth with the clipping plane surface having a rotation with relative to an occlusal plane of the patient, and setting a second angle determined based on the determined geometry generated based on the determined movement path from the force system of the selected movement of the tooth with the clipping plane surface having a rotation relative to a second plane extending along longitudinal and buccal-lingual axes of the patient's tooth (Knopp Fig. 10 and 10a both element 105 and 126 have first angles in respect the occlusal plane and second angles in relation to a plane longitudinal and buccal-lingual, i.e. sagittal, further Figs. 1e, 2, 3-9 show various geometries of the attachment 105 that would also having such plane parameters as there is not requirement for the angle to be any particular angle and thus any plane would have an angle in relation to its Cartesian coordinates in space and would have been “set” by via their selection and placement of the digital attachment on the digital model during the planning such as Fig. 1b, paragraph [0021] all disclosing the modifying of the attachment to enhance the treatment ).
Regarding claim 16, Knopp further discloses wherein the force system comprises a range for a force or torque value to be applied to the patient's tooth (paragraph [0083] disclosing the system includes a range of forces that that are a magnitude and direction that are coupled to cause rotation and thus a torque).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Knopp further discloses wherein the values of the one or more parameters are selected from a range of values (paragraph [0011] all disclosing the parameters including the range of the locus of engagement between the attachment and the aligner, paragraph [0012] disclosing the locus of engagement having a range of at least about 1mm, paragraph [0057] all disclosing the position of the attachment and relation to the aligner have a range of values for the resulting range of engagement).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
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 05/29/2026
/EDWARD MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights