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, Claims 1-9 and new claims 21-29 and Species E, Figs. 5B-5F, in the reply filed on 03 September 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 21-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopp et al (U.S. 2003/0198911 A1, hereinafter “Knopp”) in view of Andreiko et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,190,165 B1, hereinafter “Andreiko”).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Knopp discloses an orthodontic attachment device (100 in Figs. 5A-5D) for interacting with an orthodontic appliance (Abstract, para. 0055), the device comprising:
an anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 5D) comprising:
an orthodontic appliance engagement surface (105 in Fig. 5C, para. 0081) on a first portion (101 in Fig. 5D) of the anchoring attachment body (para. 0081, Figs. 5C-5D), the orthodontic appliance engagement surface oriented to contact the orthodontic appliance (para. 0081) and apply a force between the anchoring attachment body and the orthodontic appliance when the orthodontic appliance engages the orthodontic appliance engagement surface (Abstract, paras. 0009 and 0081); a bonding surface (bonding surface in annotated Fig. 5D) on a second portion of the anchoring attachment body (102 in Fig. 5D), the bonding surface capable of anchoring the anchoring attachment body to a tooth (Abstract, paras. 0009 and 0081).
Knopp does not disclose a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the bonding surface, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth.
Andreiko teaches an orthodontic attachment (Abstract, Figs. 1-7) comprising a plurality of protrusions (16 in Fig. 1) that protrude from the bonding surface (Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 4-25).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bonding surface of the appliance of Knopp by adding a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the bonding surface, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth as taught by Andreiko in order to allow for enhancing the adhesion of the device to a tooth and enhancing the chemical bonding with the adhesive to the base (Andreiko col. 6 lines 15-20).
In regard to claims 2, 5, 6, 21, 22, and 23, Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. Knopp does not disclose wherein the plurality of protrusions define a surface that matches a curvature of the tooth,
wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a cylindrical, rounded, or curved cross-section shape,
wherein the plurality of protrusions include at least three protrusions distributed along the bonding surface,
wherein the spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth is configured for a bonding agent between the bonding surface and the tooth,
wherein the plurality of protrusions provide channels and/or openings for a bonding agent, and
wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged in a grid-like pattern or a plurality of ridges.
Andreiko teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions (16 in Fig. 1) define a surface that matches a curvature of the tooth (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 54-60),
wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a rounded cross-section shape (Figs. 2 and 3, cross section at area of 28, col. 6 lines 31-35, mushroom-shaped head),
wherein the plurality of protrusions include at least three protrusions distributed along the bonding surface (Figs. 1 and 4),
wherein the spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth is configured for a bonding agent (32 in Fig. 4) between the bonding surface and the tooth (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 4-25),
wherein the plurality of protrusions provide channels and/or openings for a bonding agent tooth (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 4-25), and
wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged in a grid-like pattern.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bonding surface and plurality of protrusions of the appliance of Knopp in view of Andreiko by specifying that the plurality of protrusions define a surface that matches a curvature of the tooth, that each of the plurality of protrusions has a rounded cross-section shape, that the plurality of protrusions include at least three protrusions distributed along the bonding surface, that the spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth is configured for a bonding agent between the bonding surface and the tooth, that the plurality of protrusions provide channels and/or openings for a bonding agent tooth, and that the plurality of protrusions are arranged in a grid-like pattern as taught by Andreiko in order to allow for enhancing the adhesion of the device to a tooth, enhancing the chemical bonding with the adhesive to the base (Andreiko col. 6 lines 15-20), and enhancing the mechanical bond with an orthodontic adhesive (Andreiko col. 6 lines 43-45).
In regard to claim 28, Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. Knopp further discloses wherein the anchoring attachment body has a rounded shape with a flattened side (Fig. 5D), wherein the flattened side corresponds to an engagement surface (105 in Fig. 5D) for engaging with the orthodontic appliance (para. 0081).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopp in view of Andreiko and Sterrett et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,049,068 A, hereinafter “Sterrett”).
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. Knopp does not disclose wherein the anchoring attachment body is configured to transmit light wavelengths therethrough for activating a bonding agent,
wherein the bonding surface is configured to act as an optical diffuser that diffuses wavelengths of light for activating a bonding agent.
Sterrett teaches an orthodontic appliance (10 in Fig. 1, Figs. 1-3) wherein the body (body in annotated Fig. 2) is capable of transmitting light wavelengths therethrough for activating a bonding agent (Fig. 2, col. 2 lines 18-20, translucent material, col. 2 lines 41-54),
wherein the bonding surface (24 in Fig. 2) is capable of acting as an optical diffuser (Fig. 2, col. 2 lines 18-20, translucent material) that diffuses wavelengths of light for activating a bonding agent (col. 2 lines 41-54).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anchoring attachment body and bonding surface of the appliance of Knopp in view of Andreiko by manufacturing the body and bonding surface of a translucent material so that the anchoring attachment body is capable of transmitting light wavelengths therethrough for activating a bonding agent and that the bonding surface is capable of acting as an optical diffuser that diffuses wavelengths of light for activating a bonding agent as taught by Sterrett in order to allow for bonding of the device to a tooth in a substantially less period of time (Sterrett col. 4 lines 16-20).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopp in view of Andreiko and Wallshein (U.S. Patent No. 4,186,488 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
299
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. Knopp does not disclose wherein the anchoring attachment body comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus, and a second material having a second elastic modulus, wherein the second material is more elastic than the first material.
Wallshein teaches an orthodontic device (Figs. 6a-6b) wherein the anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 6a) comprises a first material (12 in Fig. 6a) having a first elastic modulus (col. 3 lines 27 and line 34, inelastic), and a second material (8 in Fig. 6a) having a second elastic modulus (col. 3 line 28, elastic), wherein the second material is more elastic than the first material (col. 3 line 28, elastic).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anchoring attachment body of Knopp in view of Andreiko by specifying the anchoring attachment body comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus, and a second material having a second elastic modulus, wherein the second material is more elastic than the first material as taught by Wallshein in order to allow for the device to apply resilient forces to a tooth (Wallshein col. 1 lines 48-51) while maintaining a high degree of structural integrity (Wallshein col. 3 lines 43-44).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Knopp in view of Andreiko and Wallshein discloses the invention of claim 7. Knopp does not disclose wherein the second material is layered between the first material,
wherein the first material is arranged as a frame extending between the bonding surface and the orthodontic appliance engagement surface.
Wallshein further teaches wherein the second material (8 in Fig. 6a) is layered between the first material (12 in Fig. 6a, col. 3 lines 39-44),
wherein the first material is arranged as a frame (Fig. 6a) extending between a bonding surface (bonding surface in annotated Fig. 6a) and the orthodontic appliance engagement surface (engagement surface in annotated Fig. 6a).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second materials of Knopp in view of Andreiko and Wallshein by specifying that the second material is layered between the first material, and that the first material is arranged as a frame extending between the bonding surface and the orthodontic appliance engagement surface as taught by Wallshein in order to allow for the device to apply resilient forces to a tooth (Wallshein col. 1 lines 48-51) while maintaining a high degree of structural integrity (Wallshein col. 3 lines 43-44).
In an alternate rejection, Claims 1, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp in view of Andreiko.
PNG
media_image3.png
544
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, the embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp discloses an orthodontic attachment device (100 in Figs. 4-4C) for interacting with an orthodontic appliance (Abstract, para. 0075), the device comprising:
an anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 4A) comprising:
an orthodontic appliance engagement surface (105 in Fig. 4A) on a first portion (101 in Fig. 4A) of the anchoring attachment body (Fig. 4A, para. 0075), the orthodontic appliance engagement surface oriented to contact the orthodontic appliance (106 in Fig. 4A) and apply a force between the anchoring attachment body and the orthodontic appliance when the orthodontic appliance engages the orthodontic appliance engagement surface (paras. 0009 and 0075);
a bonding surface (bonding surface in annotated Fig. 4A) on a second portion of the anchoring attachment body (102 in Fig. 4A), the bonding surface capable of anchoring the anchoring attachment body to a tooth (103 in Fig. 4A).
Knopp does not disclose a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the bonding surface, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth.
Andreiko teaches an orthodontic attachment (Abstract, Figs. 1-7) comprising a plurality of protrusions (16 in Fig. 1) that protrude from the bonding surface (Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 4-25).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bonding surface of the appliance of the embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp by adding a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the bonding surface, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth as taught by Andreiko in order to allow for enhancing the adhesion of the device to a tooth and enhancing the chemical bonding with the adhesive to the base (Andreiko col. 6 lines 15-20).
In regard to claim 24, the embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. The embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp further discloses wherein the anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 4) includes an undercut region (para. 0075, channel formed in a body 101) that is capable of engaging with a complimentary region of the orthodontic appliance (Fig. 4A, para. 0075).
In regard to claim 29, the embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. The embodiment of Figs. 4-4C of Knopp further discloses wherein the anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 4) has a rectangular shape (Fig. 4B, base and body are rectangular in shape, para. 0057).
Claims 1, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,309,215 B1, hereinafter “Phan”) in view of Andreiko.
PNG
media_image4.png
416
525
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Phan discloses an orthodontic attachment device (100 in Fig. 9K) for interacting with an orthodontic appliance (col. 2 line 62-col. 3 line 2, col. 3 lines 10-14), the device comprising:
an anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 9K) comprising:
an orthodontic appliance engagement surface (engagement surface 1 in annotated Fig. 9K) on a first portion (1st portion in annotated Fig. 9K) of the anchoring attachment body (Fig. 9K), the orthodontic appliance engagement surface oriented to contact the orthodontic appliance (col. 10 lines 36-48) and apply a force between the anchoring attachment body and the orthodontic appliance when the orthodontic appliance engages the orthodontic appliance engagement surface (col. 10 lines 36-48);
a bonding surface (bonding surface in annotated Fig. 9K) on a second portion of the anchoring attachment body (102 in Fig. 9K), the bonding surface capable of anchoring the anchoring attachment body to a tooth (col. 9 lines 56-60).
Phan does not disclose a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the bonding surface, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth.
Andreiko teaches an orthodontic attachment (Abstract, Figs. 1-7) comprising a plurality of protrusions (16 in Fig. 1) that protrude from the bonding surface (Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth (Fig. 4, col. 6 lines 4-25).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bonding surface of the appliance of Phan by adding a plurality of protrusions that protrude from the bonding surface, wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged to provide spacing between the bonding surface and the tooth as taught by Andreiko in order to allow for enhancing the adhesion of the device to a tooth and enhancing the chemical bonding with the adhesive to the base (Andreiko col. 6 lines 15-20).
PNG
media_image5.png
239
429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 25, Phan in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. The embodiment of Fig. 9K of Phan does not disclose wherein the anchoring attachment body includes one or more supplemental orthodontic appliance engagement regions, wherein the one or more supplemental orthodontic appliance engagement regions include one or more of a button or a hook.
The embodiment of Fig. 5 of Phan teaches an orthodontic device (Fig. 5) wherein the anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 5) includes one or more supplemental orthodontic appliance engagement regions (supplemental region in annotated Fig. 5), wherein the one or more supplemental orthodontic appliance engagement regions includes a hook (col. 10 lines 21-22).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anchoring attachment body of the appliance of Phan in view of Andreiko by adding a supplemental orthodontic appliance engagement region which includes a hook as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Phan in order to allow for aid in connection to the orthodontic appliance (Phan col. 10 lines 14-19).
In regard to claim 26, Phan in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. Phan further discloses wherein the anchoring attachment body (body in annotated Fig. 9K) includes more than one orthodontic appliance engagement surface (engagement surface 2 in annotated Fig. 9K, col. 10 lines 36-48).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knopp in view of Andreiko and Webber et al (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0165032 A1).
In regard to claim 27, Knopp in view of Andreiko discloses the invention of claim 1. Knopp does not disclose wherein the anchoring attachment body is an additive manufactured anchoring attachment body.
Webber teaches an orthodontic attachment device (Figs. 1A-1C) wherein an anchoring attachment body (106 in Fig. 1A) is an additive manufactured anchoring attachment body (para. 0055).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic devices bonded to teeth. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anchoring attachment body of Knopp in view of Andreiko by manufacturing it as an additive manufactured anchoring attachment body as taught by Webber in order to allow for the device to be created at the location of a professional rather than at a manufacturing facility and avoid having to form the device around a mold of teeth, saving manufacturing costs, materials and employee time (Webber para. 0055).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights