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 with traverse of Species H in the reply filed on August 3, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that generic claims 1-3, 10, and 13 are generic. The examiner finds this argument persuasive, and will examine these claims as generic to all species. Regarding applicant’s arguments that the Figures do not represent multiple embodiments, the applicant is directed to the language in the specification description of Figures which describes each Figure as relating to “some embodiments” indicating multiple embodiments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11-12, and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 3, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 14, the limitation “a lingual side edge” should be worded as “a second lingual side edge” to avoid confusion with the lingual side edge introduced in line 5 and the limitation in line 16 “a buccal side edge” should be worded as “ a second buccal side edge” to avoid confusion with the buccal side edge cited in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "one or more additional appliances" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2021/0315669 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang discloses an orthodontic treatment system (abstract), comprising a series of appliances configured to progressively implement a treatment plan on a set of teeth and gums (abstract), the series of appliances comprising at least a first appliance (Figure 2, X101) and a second appliance (Figure 2, X103), where the first appliance includes a first support portion (Figure 6A, 11) configured to be in contact with at least some of the teeth, the first support portion has a lingual side edge extending toward the gums to form a first inner wall to be arranged on a lingual side of a dental arch (as seen in Figure 6A, inner wall of appliance), and the first support portion has a buccal side edge extending toward the gums to form a first outer wall configured to be in contact with labial and buccal muscles (as seen in Figure 6B, outer wall of appliance), the first outer wall, the first support portion, and the first inner wall together define a first upper groove configured to limit an upper dental arch and a first lower groove configured to limit a lower dental arch (as seen in Figures 6A, 6B, and 7A, 7B the appliance forms an upper groove for the upper dental arch and a lower groove for the lower dental arch which are limited as seen in Figure 7C), and in a sagittal direction, an anterior region of the first upper groove is spaced apart from an anterior region of the first lower groove by a first distance configured for a first stage of the treatment plan (Figure 13A). Huang further discloses a second appliance (Figure 10, 20) that includes a second support portion configured to be in contact with at least some of the teeth, the second support portion has a lingual side edge extending toward the gums to form a second inner wall to be arranged on a lingual side of a dental arch, and the second support portion has a buccal side edge extending toward the gums to form a second outer wall configured to be in contact with the labial and buccal muscles, the second outer wall, the second support portion, and the second inner wall together define a second upper groove configured to limit the upper dental arch and a second lower groove configured to limit the lower dental arch (where all second elements are found in the second appliance as described in [0051 – 0052)], and in the sagittal direction, an anterior region of the second upper groove is spaced apart from an anterior region of the second lower groove by a second distance configured for a second stage of the treatment plan (Figure 5B), and the first distance differs from the second distance (as described in [0045] and Figs. 13a-b).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang discloses the orthodontic treatment system according to claim 1, wherein the second stage is subsequent to the first stage, and the second distance is less than the first distance (as described in [0056] and Figs. 13a-b).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang.
Regarding Claims 3, Huang discloses the orthodontic treatment system of Claim 1 as described above and discloses that the relationship between the first distance of and expanding pace and the second distance of an expanding space is smaller than or equal to 0.4 times the first expanding space or larger than 0.2 times the first expanding space ([0020-0022]) depending on the teeth to me affected, but does not specifically disclose that the difference between the first distance and the second distance is in a range of 1 mm to 5 mm in response to the first stage and the second stage being adjacent stages of the treatment plan. However, as modification of the distance between the first expanding space and the second expanding space would merely involve routine skill in the art as a clinician would determine the appropriate and desired amount of movement based on the needs of the patient, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a difference in a range of 1mm to 5mm between the first distance and the second distance if that would be the most desirable range for the patient based on expected outcomes as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang discloses the orthodontic treatment system of Claim 3 as described above but does not specifically disclose that a vertical height of an anterior region of the first support portion is equal to a vertical height of an anterior region of the second support portion. However, as modification of the vertical heights of the anterior region from the first support portion to the second support portion would merely involve routine skill in the art as a clinician would determine the appropriate and desired amount of spacing based on the needs of the patient, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a vertical height of an anterior region of the first support portion is equal to a vertical height of an anterior region of the second support portion if that would be the most desirable height for the patient based on expected outcomes as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 13, Huang discloses the orthodontic treatment system of Claim 1 as described above, and teaches use of one or more additional appliances ([0015] teaches a third orthodontic appliance), but does not specifically teach that the vertical heights of posterior regions of the first support portion, the second support portion, and one or more support portions of the one or more additional appliances progressively decrease as treatment progresses. However, as modification of the vertical heights of the anterior region from the first support portion to the second support portion would merely involve routine skill in the art as a clinician would determine the appropriate and desired amount of spacing based on the needs of the patient, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the vertical heights of posterior regions of the first support portion, the second support portion, and one or more support portions of the one or more additional appliances progressively decrease as treatment progresses if that would be the most desirable height relationship between components for the patient based on expected outcomes as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable, which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claims 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Bergersen (US 2005/0037311 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Huang discloses the invention of Claim 1 substantially as described above, but does not teach a torque ridge on an inner surface of at least one of the first inner wall or the first outer wall and/or on an inner surface of at least one of the second inner wall or the second outer wall, where the torque ridge protrudes from the inner surface toward the teeth. In the same art of dental appliance, Bergersen teaches a torque ridge (Figure 35, rib 334) that protrudes from the inner surface of the inner wall toward the teeth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Huang to add a torque ridge/rib as taught by Bergersen in order to increase lingual root torque of the upper or lower teeth (Bergersen [0249]).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang as modified by Bergersen discloses the invention of Claim 6 and Bergersen further discloses that the torque ridge may extend to one or more front upper or lower teeth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the orthodontic appliance of Huang as modified by Bergersen to cover at least four teeth consecutively up to three teeth that are spaced if that was the optimum configuration for the best patient outcome as determined by the practitioner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9-5 ET.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
