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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 07/21/2026, have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments against the rejections in view of the prior art of record have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Upon careful consideration the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assessments. The prior art in proper combination discloses all the structures require by the claims. The only difference between the Applicant’s invention, as claimed, and the combined teachings of the prior art, are the dimensions of said structures. The Specification uses the word “preferably” for several of the claimed ranges (e.g. [0061] and [0063]) and for other ranges there is not listed any criticality. Further, the Specification recites “the shape, dimensions and spacing of the apertures are designed and optimized to affix the arch bar 10 to the teeth using dental occlusion ties such as those disclosed at U.S. patent 11,045,235, which are constructed of suture with a round, smooth, non-ribbed plastic coating, a rigid metal needle/introducer on one end and a self-locking, infinitely adjustable locking mechanism on the other end” ([0062] and [0064]).
There is a lack of evidence regarding the claimed dimensions being critical, unexpected etc.,. Therefore, optimized parameters in the rejection below, are well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, absent any evidence to the contrary.
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 saddle and slot claimed in claims 20 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the corrected drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 20 and 22 recite the terms saddle and slot without providing proper antecedent basis in the Specification.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 20100124727 A1) in view of Ghobadi (US 20150297272 A1), in view of Fields (US 6086365 A), further in view of Parks (US 20060078849 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Shah discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation (Figure 1, Abstract), comprising: a generally elongate body (100) configured to be contoured to a dental arch ([0022]); and configured to be trimmed to a selected length for attachment to one or more teeth of a patient (Shah’s arch bar is made of a pliable material which can be substantially conformed to the patient's teeth, such as plastics or polymers [0022]; therefore, they can be configured to be cut and segmented for placement on one or more teeth); a plurality of elongated apertures formed through the body (since the apertures could be rectangular [0022]).
Wherein a plurality of structural columns (spaces between adjacent apertures) disposed between adjacent ones of the elongated apertures (Figure 1), the structural columns maintaining structural integrity of the body during tightening of the ligature material extending through the elongated apertures, and the structural columns being dimensioned relative to the adjacent elongated apertures to maintain flexibility of the body for contouring to the dental arch while resisting deformation of the body during tightening of the ligature material (the examiner notes that these limitations constitute functional language, where the structures taught by the prior art device have all the necessary components and dimensions to be able to maintaining structural integrity of the body and to maintain flexibility of the body for contouring to the dental arch while resisting deformation of the body during tightening of the ligature material).
Wherein the elongated apertures and the structural columns are arranged in an alternating repeating pattern along substantially the entire length of the body (Figure 1); wherein the aperture geometry is configured to: receive and guide flexible the ligature material through the body and around one or more teeth, permit passage of the ligature material through interdental embrasures at multiple angles of approach, distribute fixation loads through the body during tightening of the ligature material, maintain a low-profile ligature path that limits vertical clearance between the ligature material and the body to inhibit migration of the ligature material relative to the body, and facilitate secure attachment of the body to the dental arch using at least one of metallic wire, coated suture, polymeric filament, or non-metallic ligature material (the examiner notes that these limitations constitute functional language, where the structures taught by the prior art device have all the necessary components and dimensions to be able to perform the limitations as claimed; please note that Shah’s device receive and guide flexible the ligature material (116) through the body and around one or more teeth, permit passage of the ligature material through interdental embrasures at multiple angles of approach, etc. see Figure 6 and [0027]).
Wherein the body (100) further comprises a plurality of depending attachment features (108) extending below a lower edge of the body (as shown in Shah’s Figure 6, the dimensions of the receptacles 108 surpasses the height of the body of the arch bar) and configured for connection to an opposing arch bar by at least one of wire (116 [0028]), guiding elastics, or another intraoral connector; and at multiple angles of approach and to distribute fixation loads while limiting vertical clearance to inhibit migration of the ligature relative to the body.
Shah fails to disclose “a plurality of elongated, oval or substantially oval apertures formed through the body and oriented with their major axes generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body, each aperture having a width of about 0.150- 0.175 in. at a widest point and a height of about 0.040- 0.060 in., and having opposed longitudinally spaced arcuate end portions joined by generally parallel side portions, the arcuate end portions having a radius of about 0.020 in. and defining smooth radiused transitions configured to facilitate passage of a ligature material through the aperture while reducing localized stresses in the body during tightening of the ligature material”, “wherein a plurality of structural columns disposed between adjacent ones of the elongated oval apertures at a spacing of about 0.030- 0.040 in., each structural column having a width of about 0.035 in. and a thickness of about 0.016 in.” and “wherein edges defining the elongated oval apertures and the depending attachment features are rounded or beveled to reduce contact abrasion and soft tissue trauma with to gingival and oral mucosal tissues”.
Ghobadi discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation, comprising: a generally elongate body (20) configured to be contoured to a dental arch (Figure 1, Abstract); further comprising a plurality of elongated, oval or substantially oval apertures (36) formed through the body and oriented with their major axes generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and having opposed longitudinally spaced arcuate end portions joined by generally parallel side portions (as shown in Figure 3) and defining smooth radiused transitions configured to facilitate passage of a ligature material through the aperture while reducing localized stresses in the body during tightening of the ligature material (since the structures taught by Ghobadi have all the necessary conditions to perform the functional language as claimed). Additionally, Ghobadi discloses beveled/chamfered ([0088]) and rounded parts (Figure 6), which the Examiner note would make the arch bar configured to minimize abrasiveness and soft-tissue trauma to gingival and oral mucosal tissues. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Shah’s apertures, to make them oval, as disclosed by Ghobadi, since such modification would allow the dentist to quickly and safely locate the fasteners in desired positions to avoid driving the fasteners into sensitive and/or damaged tissue ([0077]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the edges of the bar, the apertures, and the depending attachment features to make them rounded or beveled to minimize damage to the soft tissue of the oral cavity.
Fields discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation, comprising: a generally elongate body (10) configured to be contoured to a dental arch (Figure 1, Abstract); wherein the body has a height of about 0.120-0.140 in. (e.g. 3 mm to about 6 mm) and a thickness of about 0.012-0.020 in. (e.g. 0.2 mm to about 0.6 mm) (see col 5, lines 55-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Shah/Ghobadi’s arch bar to make the plurality of structural columns comprising the dimensions (e.g. thickness) as taught by Fields and comprising the bodies dimensions taught by Fields, since such modification would create an arch bar for intraoral fixation of appropriate dimensions for making a prolonged treatment comfortable.
Shah, Ghobadi and Fields, as combined above, fail to disclose “each aperture having a width of about 0.150- 0.175 in. at a widest point and a height of about 0.040- 0.060 in.”, “the arcuate end portions having a radius of about 0.020 in.” and “wherein a plurality of structural columns disposed between adjacent ones of the elongated oval apertures at a spacing of about 0.030- 0.040 in., each structural column having a width of about 0.035 in.”.
Parks discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation, comprising: a generally elongate body configured to be contoured to a dental arch (Figure 8, Abstract); further comprising a plurality of elongated apertures (14) formed through the body and comprising depending attachment features are selected from cleats and hooks (15). Parks teaches that the length and spacing apertures for use in attachment to teeth is a result effective variable, wherein the longer length of the apertures allows attachments to be moved within the apertures and adjusted so that each aperture is associated with a desired tooth surface ([0048]). Parks recognizes that the length and spacing cannot be so great that the necessary number and spacing of apertures is not present for the desired adjustment (figure 6 and [0048]). Therefore, since Park sets forth that length and spacing apertures are a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify the dimensions of the apertures taught by Shah/Ghobadi/Fields to include each aperture having a width of about 0.150- 0.175 in. at a widest point and a height of about 0.040- 0.060 in., the arcuate end portions having a radius of about 0.020 in. and wherein a plurality of structural columns disposed between adjacent ones of the elongated oval apertures at a spacing of about 0.030- 0.040 in., each structural column having a width of about 0.035 in., since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (for example one of ordinary skills in the art could optimize the dimensions of the aperture in order to allow the dentist to quickly and safely place fasteners associated with a desired tooth surface) In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Shah, Ghobadi, Fields and Parks as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Fields discloses wherein the body has a height of about 0.120-0.140 in. and a thickness of about 0.014-0.018 in. (see col 5, lines 55-59). Shah discloses selected to permit repeated contouring without fracture while resisting permanent deformation during intraoral fixation and is trim-to-fit in length or segmentable for placement on one or more teeth (Shah’s arch bar is made of a pliable material which can be substantially conformed to the patient's teeth, such as plastics or polymers; therefore, they can be configured to be cut and segmented for placement on one or more teeth), wherein the body comprises a biocompatible metal selected from titanium or stainless steel, or a high-strength polymeric or ceramic composite ([0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Shah, Ghobadi, Fields and Parks , as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Shah discloses wherein the depending attachment features (108) are selected from cleats and hooks (the inter-arch receptacles 108 are substantially similar in construction and configuration to the female, or ratchet, portion of a standard zip tie; therefor, they have hooks or cleats inside [0025]), the depending attachment features comprising at least one J-hook or at least one cleat (see cleat/hook inside receptacles 108, shown in Shah’s Figure 5); wherein each depending attachment feature projects below the lower edge of the body (as shown in Shah’s Figure 6, the dimensions of the receptacles 108 surpasses the height of the body of the arch bar) sufficiently to permit engagement by an interarch connector while maintaining the connector spaced from the elongated oval apertures through which the arch bar is secured to the dentition, wherein each depending attachment feature is configured to receive and retain at least one of a wire loop, a guiding elastic, or another intraoral connector while resisting inadvertent disengagement during maxillomandibular fixation (Shah: 116, [0027]). And Ghobadi discloses wherein the depending attachment features comprise rounded or beveled exterior surfaces configured to minimize irritation of gingival and oral mucosal tissues during use ([0088] and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 17, Shah discloses an arch bar for maxillomandibular fixation (Figure 1, Abstract), comprising: an elongate bar (100) configured to be contoured to a patient's maxillary or mandibular dental arch and to be trimmed in length (Shah’s arch bar is made of a pliable material which can be substantially conformed to the patient's teeth, such as plastics or polymers [0022]; therefore, they can be configured to be cut and segmented for placement on one or more teeth).
A plurality of elongated apertures formed through the bar and oriented generally horizontally relative to a longitudinal axis of the bar (since the apertures could be rectangular [0022]), the apertures dimensioned to receive a securement tie and to guide the securement tie around one or more teeth to affix the bar to the dentition while constraining transverse movement of the securement tie within each aperture (the examiner notes that these limitations constitute functional language, where the structures taught by the prior art device have all the necessary components and dimensions to be able to perform the limitations as claimed; please note that Shah’s device receive and guide flexible the ligature material (116) through the body and around one or more teeth, permit passage of the ligature material through interdental embrasures at multiple angles of approach, etc. see Figure 6 and [0027]).
A plurality of structural columns (spaces between adjacent apertures) defined between adjacent apertures to maintain bar integrity under fixation loads the structural columns being dimensioned relative to the adjacent apertures to maintain flexibility of the bar for contouring to the dental arch while resisting deformation of the bar during tightening of the securement tie (the examiner notes that these limitations constitute functional language, where the structures taught by the prior art device have all the necessary components and dimensions to be able to maintaining structural integrity of the body and to maintain flexibility of the body for contouring to the dental arch while resisting deformation of the body during tightening of the ligature material).
And a plurality of depending attachment features (108) that extend below a lower edge of the bar (as shown in Shah’s Figure 6, the dimensions of the receptacles 108 surpasses the height of the body of the arch bar) and are positioned and shaped to couple to an opposing arch bar using a wire, an elastic, or another intraoral connector (116 [0028]).
Shah fails to disclose “a plurality of elongated, oval or substantially oval apertures, each aperture having a width of about 0.150- 0.175 in. at a widest point and a height of about 0.040- 0.060 in., and having opposed longitudinally spaced arcuate end portions joined by generally parallel side portions, the arcuate end portions having a radius of about 0.020 in. and defining smooth radiused transitions configured to facilitate passage of a securement tie through the aperture while reducing localized stresses in the bar during tightening of the securement tie”, “a plurality of structural columns defined between adjacent apertures at a spacing of about 0.030- 0.040 in., each structural column having a width of about 0.035 in. and a thickness of about 0.016 in.” and “wherein edges of the bar, the apertures, and the depending attachment features are rounded or beveled to minimize abrasiveness and soft-tissue trauma to gingival and oral mucosal tissues”.
Ghobadi discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation, comprising: a generally elongate body (20) configured to be contoured to a dental arch (Figure 1, Abstract); further comprising a plurality of elongated, oval or substantially oval apertures (36) formed through the body and oriented with their major axes generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the body and having opposed longitudinally spaced arcuate end portions joined by generally parallel side portions (as shown in Figure 3) and defining smooth radiused transitions configured to facilitate passage of a ligature material through the aperture while reducing localized stresses in the body during tightening of the ligature material (since the structures taught by Ghobadi have all the necessary conditions to perform the functional language as claimed). Additionally, Ghobadi discloses beveled/chamfered ([0088]) and rounded parts (Figure 6), which the Examiner note would make the arch bar configured to minimize abrasiveness and soft-tissue trauma to gingival and oral mucosal tissues. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Shah’s apertures, to make them oval, as disclosed by Ghobadi, since such modification would allow the dentist to quickly and safely locate the fasteners in desired positions to avoid driving the fasteners into sensitive and/or damaged tissue ([0077]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the edges of the bar, the apertures, and the depending attachment features to make them rounded or beveled to minimize damage to the soft tissue of the oral cavity.
Fields discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation, comprising: a generally elongate body (10) configured to be contoured to a dental arch (Figure 1, Abstract); wherein the body has a height of about 0.120-0.140 in. (e.g. 3 mm to about 6 mm) and a thickness of about 0.012-0.020 in. (e.g. 0.2 mm to about 0.6 mm) (see col 5, lines 55-59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Shah/Ghobadi’s arch bar to make the plurality of structural columns comprising the dimensions (e.g. thickness) as taught by Fields and comprising the bodies dimensions taught by Fields, since such modification would create an arch bar for intraoral fixation of appropriate dimensions for making a prolonged treatment comfortable.
Shah, Ghobadi and Fields, as combined above, fail to disclose “each aperture having a width of about 0.150- 0.175 in. at a widest point and a height of about 0.040- 0.060 in.”, “the arcuate end portions having a radius of about 0.020 in.” and “wherein a plurality of structural columns disposed between adjacent ones of the elongated oval apertures at a spacing of about 0.030- 0.040 in., each structural column having a width of about 0.035 in.”.
Parks discloses an arch bar for intraoral fixation, comprising: a generally elongate body configured to be contoured to a dental arch (Figure 8, Abstract); further comprising a plurality of elongated apertures (14) formed through the body and comprising depending attachment features are selected from cleats and hooks (15). Parks teaches that the length and spacing apertures for use in attachment to teeth is a result effective variable, wherein the longer length of the apertures allows attachments to be moved within the apertures and adjusted so that each aperture is associated with a desired tooth surface ([0048]). Parks recognizes that the length and spacing cannot be so great that the necessary number and spacing of apertures is not present for the desired adjustment (figure 6 and [0048]). Therefore, since Park sets forth that length and spacing apertures are a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify the dimensions of the apertures taught by Shah/Ghobadi/Fields to include each aperture having a width of about 0.150- 0.175 in. at a widest point and a height of about 0.040- 0.060 in., the arcuate end portions having a radius of about 0.020 in. and wherein a plurality of structural columns disposed between adjacent ones of the elongated oval apertures at a spacing of about 0.030- 0.040 in., each structural column having a width of about 0.035 in., since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (for example one of ordinary skills in the art could optimize the dimensions of the aperture in order to allow the dentist to quickly and safely place fasteners associated with a desired tooth surface) In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah in view of Ghobadi, in view of Fields, in view of Parks, further in view of Boronkay (US 20170007363 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Shah, Ghobadi, Fields and Parks, as combined above, disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Shah discloses wherein the depending attachment feature comprises a J-hook (see cleat/hook inside receptacles 108, shown in Shah’s Figure 5). Shah, Ghobadi and Fields, as combined above, fail to specifically disclose “including: a downwardly extending stem integrally formed with the body, the stem extending about 0.040- 0.090 in. below the lower edge of the body; an upwardly directed return portion joined to the stem by a curved intermediate portion, the return portion subtending about 180-240° with an inner radius of about 0.020- 0.030 in.; wherein the curved intermediate portion defines a connector-receiving recess having a throat opening of about 0.030- 0.055 in. and configured to retain a wire loop, guiding elastic, or other intraoral connector while permitting selective installation and removal thereof; and wherein a free end of the return portion terminates in a rounded surface having a radius of about 0.015-0.025 in. and presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area of about 0.005- 0.020 in2, the rounded surface configured to reduce trauma to adjacent gingival and oral mucosal tissues”.
However, Ghobadi further discloses the J-hook including: a downwardly extending stem integrally formed with the body, an upwardly directed return portion joined to the stem by a curved intermediate portion, wherein the curved intermediate portion defines a connector-receiving recess having a throat opening, and configured to retain a wire loop, guiding elastic, or other intraoral connector while permitting selective installation and removal thereof; and wherein a free end of the return portion terminates in a rounded surface (Annotated Figure 2, below), the rounded surface configured to reduce trauma to adjacent gingival and oral mucosal tissues. The examiner notes that the structures disclosed by Ghobadi have all the necessary components to be able to perform the functional language as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to further modify Shah’s depending attachment features, to make them the hooks disclosed by Ghobadi, since such modification would allow the dentist to quickly and safely complete installation wire around the hooks without having the pass the wire between teeth ([0084]).
Shah, Ghobadi, Fields and Parks, as immediately combined above, fail to disclose “the stem extending about 0.040- 0.090 in. below the lower edge of the body”, “the return portion subtending about 180-240° with an inner radius of about 0.020- 0.030 in.”, “a throat opening of about 0.030- 0.055 in.” and “a rounded surface having a radius of about 0.015-0.025 in. and presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area of about 0.005- 0.020 in2”.
Boronkay discloses systems, methods, and appliances for improved orthodontic treatment of a patient's teeth (Abstract). Boronkay discloses that the appliance comprises hook for mounting elastics such as flexible bands, ligatures, or adjunct devices ([0249]). Boronkay recognizes that the locations, dimensions and shapes of the hooks are result effective variables for the purpose of connecting elastic bands into the appliance and for protecting soft tissue (e.g. curving or angle away from soft tissue [0249]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify the hooks taught by Shah, Ghobadi, Fields and Parks, in order to make them comprising the stem extending about 0.040- 0.090 in. below the lower edge of the body, the return portion subtending about 180-240° with an inner radius of about 0.020- 0.030 in., a throat opening of about 0.030- 0.055 in. and a rounded surface having a radius of about 0.015-0.025 in. and presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area of about 0.005- 0.020 in2, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (for example one of ordinary skills in the art could optimize the dimensions of the hooks in order to protect the soft tissues of the oral cavity) In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 2.)]
Regarding claims 20 and 22, Shah, Ghobadi and Fields, as combined above, fail to specifically disclose “wherein the depending attachment feature comprises a cleat including: a first portion extending downwardly from the body, the first portion and a second portion together projecting below the lower edge of the body by about 0.070- 0.10 in.; a second portion extending outwardly from the first portion, the first and second portions defining a pair of opposed arms establishing a slot width of about 0.035- 0.045 in. and an undercut saddle depth of about 0.015-0.030 in.; and a distal enlarged cleat portion configured to engage a wire loop, guiding elastic, or other intraoral connector, wherein the enlarged cleat portion includes rounded peripheral surfaces having a radius of about 0.015- 0.025 in. and defining an enlarged connector-retention surface presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area of about 0.005- 0.020 in2 that resists inadvertent disengagement of the interarch connector while reducing irritation to adjacent oral soft tissue”.
However, Ghobadi further discloses wherein the depending attachment feature comprises a cleat (222) including: a first portion extending downwardly from the body; a second portion extending outwardly from the first portion, the first and second portions defining a pair of opposed arms establishing a slot and an undercut saddle depth of about; and a distal enlarged cleat portion configured to engage a wire loop, guiding elastic, or other intraoral connector, wherein the enlarged cleat portion includes rounded peripheral surfaces and defining an enlarged connector-retention surface presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area that resists inadvertent disengagement of the interarch connector while reducing irritation to adjacent oral soft tissue (Annotated Figure 7). The examiner notes that the structures disclosed by Ghobadi have all the necessary components to be able to perform the functional language as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Shah/Ghobadi/Fields’ attachment features to make them the cleats taught by Ghobadi, since such modification would a case of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Shah, Ghobadi and Fields, as immediately combined above, fail to disclose “the first portion and a second portion together projecting below the lower edge of the body by about 0.070- 0.10 in.”, “a slot width of about 0.035- 0.045 in.”, an undercut saddle depth of about 0.015-0.030 in.”, “wherein the enlarged cleat portion includes rounded peripheral surfaces having a radius of about 0.015- 0.025 in.”, “wherein the enlarged cleat portion includes rounded peripheral surfaces and defining an enlarged connector-retention surface presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area of about 0.005- 0.020 in2”.
Boronkay discloses systems, methods, and appliances for improved orthodontic treatment of a patient's teeth (Abstract). Boronkay discloses that the appliance comprises cleats/hook for mounting elastics such as flexible bands, ligatures, or adjunct devices ([0249]). Boronkay recognizes that the locations, dimensions and shapes of the cleats/hooks are result effective variables for the purpose of connecting elastic bands into the appliance and for protecting soft tissue (e.g. curving or angle away from soft tissue [0249]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify the cleats taught by Shah, Ghobadi, Fields and Parks, in order to make them comprising the first portion and a second portion together projecting below the lower edge of the body by about 0.070- 0.10 in., a slot width of about 0.035- 0.045 in., an undercut saddle depth of about 0.015-0.030 in., wherein the enlarged cleat portion includes rounded peripheral surfaces having a radius of about 0.015- 0.025 in., wherein the enlarged cleat portion includes rounded peripheral surfaces and defining an enlarged connector-retention surface presenting a labial/oral mucosa-facing surface area of about 0.005- 0.020 in2, since it has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (for example one of ordinary skills in the art could optimize the dimensions of the cleats in order to protect the soft tissues of the oral cavity) In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP § 2144.05).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 2. Annotated Figure 7. )]
PNG
media_image2.png
566
831
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Luis Ruiz Martin/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights