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 .
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.
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the use of the term “offset angle” in line 2, is indefinite. It is not understood if said offset angle refers to the angle of the archwire, the bracket or the base portion. Furthermore, it is not understood with respect to what reference (e.g. axis or plane) said angle is measured. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the angle of inclination of the archwire slot with respect a plane of the bracket or base portion that is parallel to the tooth surface.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the term “tip angle” in line 2, is indefinite. It is not understood if said tip angle refers to a tip portion of the bracket or the base portion. Furthermore, it is not understood with respect to what reference (e.g. axis or plane) the angle is measured. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the angle of inclination of the slot wire with respect to the longitudinal axis of the tooth at the face of the tooth compared to the ideal angle of that tooth.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: A claim should be constructed as a single sentence, ending with a period, wherein claim 2 is not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 uses the terms “a second side” and “a base portion”. The Office understands that said terms refer to the “base portion” and the “second side” described in lines 4 and 5 of claim 1. Due to said terms are already described in claim 1, it is suggested to amend the terms as “the[a] second side” and “the[a] base portion” in claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim describes that “no torque angle is incorporated in the bracket portion”. The Office understands that the claim is based on a contingent limitation of “at least a portion of the torque angle being incorporated into the bracket portion or the base portion” form claim 16. However, the claim should describe a further limitation that modifies the parent claim 16 as described in par. [0081] of the present application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim describes that “no torque angle is incorporated in the base portion”. The Office understands that the claim is based on a contingent limitation of “at least a portion of the torque angle being incorporated into the bracket portion or the base portion” form claim 16. However, the claim should describe a further limitation that modifies the parent claim 16 as described in par. [0081] of the present application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 5 uses the terms “a second side” and “a base portion”. The Office understands that said terms refer to the “base portion” and the “second side” described in lines 3 and 4 of claim 23. Due to said terms are already described in claim 23, it is suggested to amend the terms as “the[a] second side” and “the[a] base portion” in claim 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-11, 23, 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murrell (US 20200146781 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Base portion)][AltContent: textbox (Base contour)][AltContent: textbox (Archwire opposing walls)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Archwire floor)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Archwire slot)][AltContent: textbox (First side)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Body)]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Base contour)]
PNG
media_image2.png
490
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Base contour)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (First side)][AltContent: textbox (Second side)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
390
538
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Murrell discloses an orthodontic bracket assembly (10) including:
a bracket portion including a body including a first side and a second side, and an archwire slot (32) formed on the first side of the body (see annotated Fig. 1A above); and
a base portion having been constructed separately from the bracket portion by additive manufacturing (see Fig. 1A and 1B above, and [0245] – “In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined, for example by assembly.“), the base portion includes a first side and a second side, the second side (24) including a base contour configured to contact a surface of a patient's tooth (see Fig. 1C and 2B above, and [0208] – “a rear tooth abutting surface 24 for receiving adhesive, which is shaped to conform to the corresponding shape of the front surface of a tooth “, and [0244] – “the tooth abutting surface 24 of the customized orthodontic appliance 10 is typically overall shaped to conform to a portion or area of the outer tooth surface. Typically, the tooth abutting surface 24 of the customized orthodontic appliance 10 has a footprint (or outer periphery) and the portion of the outer tooth surface corresponds in size and shape to that footprint.“), the bracket portion being affixed to the base portion with the first side of the bracket portion facing away from the first side of the base portion (see Fig. 1A and [0245] – “In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined, for example by assembly.“),
an orthodontic prescription for the patient's tooth being incorporated into the orthodontic bracket assembly, the orthodontic prescription including a torque angle, at least a portion of the torque angle being incorporated into the bracket portion or the base portion (see [0240] – “appliance 10 may have a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip, and angulation” and [0248] – “particular pre-manufactured physical body portion 14 out of the plurality of differently shaped pre-manufactured physical body portions 14 (e.g., body portions 14 having any of a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip and angulation)”).
Regarding claim 2, Murrell discloses that the torque angle is incorporated into the bracket portion and the base portion (see [0240] – where the angle of the archwire slot with respect to the base portion (“relative to the longitudinal axis”) is incorporated into the torque angle; and [0248] - particular pre-manufactured physical body portion 14 out of the plurality of differently shaped pre-manufactured physical body portions 14 (e.g., body portions 14 having any of a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip and angulation)”).
Regarding claim 9, Murrell discloses that the archwire slot (32) includes a floor and opposing walls providing the archwire slot (32) with a rectangular cross-section (see annotated Fig. 1A above – where the shape of the archwire slot has a general rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 10, Murrell discloses that the base contour is structured to receive a surface contour of the patient's tooth depicted in a three-dimensional model of the patient's dentition. (see [0208] – “a rear tooth abutting surface 24 for receiving adhesive, which is shaped to conform to the corresponding shape of the front surface of a tooth “, and [0244] – “the tooth abutting surface 24 of the customized orthodontic appliance 10 is typically overall shaped to conform to a portion or area of the outer tooth surface. Typically, the tooth abutting surface 24 of the customized orthodontic appliance 10 has a footprint (or outer periphery) and the portion of the outer tooth surface corresponds in size and shape to that footprint.“; and [0249] - “The shape of the appliance 10 and/or the shape of the tooth abutting face 24 may be provided in a computer processible format and used in the material build-up process to make the appliance 10/tooth abutting face 24.”; and [0250] - “The shape of the patient's dentition may be captured in the form of a three-dimensional computer model, referred to as a “virtual malocclusion model”.)
Regarding claim 11, Murrell discloses that the structure of the base contour has been calculated as a negative impression of the surface contour of the patient's tooth depicted in the three-dimensional model (see [0250] – “a virtual model of the patient's dentition (upper and/or lower jaw) with the teeth in the initial positions may be obtained from scanning the actual teeth of the patient intra-orally, or from scanning a physical model (for example a plaster model cast from a dental impression) of the patient's teeth.”).
Regarding claim 23, Murrell discloses a process of manufacturing an orthodontic bracket assembly, the process including:
forming a base portion by an additive manufacturing process, the base portion including a first side and a second side, the additive manufacturing process structuring the second side of the base portion to contact a surface of a patient's tooth (see annotated Fig. 1A and 1B above, and [0245] – “In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined, for example by assembly”; therefore, if the base portion and the body portion can be pre-manufactured and assembled afterwards, it is understood that each portion includes a first side and a second side; furthermore, the base portion has a portion configured to contact the surface of the patient’s tooth in which it can be interpreted that is the claimed second side of the base portion);
providing a bracket portion including a body including a first side, a second side, and an archwire slot (32) formed into the first side (see annotated Fig. 1A above), and
affixing the second side of the bracket portion to the first side of the base portion ([0245] – “In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined”; therefore, if the base portion and the body portion can be pre-manufactured and assembled afterwards, it is understood that each portion includes a first side and a second side, in which, the base portion has a portion configured engage the body portion; where it is understood that said engagement point can be the second side of the bracket portion and the first side of the base portion),
the orthodontic bracket assembly including an orthodontic prescription for the patient's tooth to which the bracket assembly is configured to be attached, the orthodontic prescription including a torque angle (see [0240] – “appliance 10 may have a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip, and angulation” and [0248] – “particular pre-manufactured physical body portion 14 out of the plurality of differently shaped pre-manufactured physical body portions 14 (e.g., body portions 14 having any of a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip and angulation)”).
Regarding claim 25, Murrell teaches importing or saving to a computing device a three-dimensional model obtained from a patient's dentition;
calculating a base contour from a surface contour of the patient's tooth depicted in the three-dimensional model; and
through the additive manufacturing process, forming the second side of the base portion to includes the base contour (see annotated Fig. 1A above and [0249] – “The shape of the appliance 10 and/or the shape of the tooth abutting face 24 may be provided in a computer processible format“; [0250] - “In an embodiment, a virtual model of the patient's dentition (upper and/or lower jaw) with the teeth in the initial positions may be obtained from scanning the actual teeth of the patient intra-orally, or from scanning a physical model (for example a plaster model cast from a dental impression) of the patient's teeth. In aspects, it is further possible to scan a dental impression taken from the patients teeth. The shape of the patient's dentition may be captured in the form of a three-dimensional computer model, referred to as a “virtual malocclusion model”; and [0245] - "the base portion 12 is made by additive manufacturing. In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined, for example by assembly"; therefore, the contour of the base portion was based on the shape of the tooth of the patient that was generated in a computer processible format, the contour that is part of the base portion is manufactured by additive manufacturing).
Regarding claim 26, Murrell discloses that calculating the base contour includes calculating a negative impression of the surface contour of the patient's tooth depicted in the three-dimensional model (see [0250] – it is done “a virtual model of the patient's dentition (upper and/or lower jaw) with the teeth in the initial positions” by “scanning the actual teeth of the patient intra-orally, or from scanning a physical model (for example a plaster model cast from a dental impression) of the patient's teeth.”; and [0208] – where “a rear tooth abutting surface 24 for receiving adhesive, which is shaped to conform to the corresponding shape of the front surface of a tooth “).
Regarding claim 28, Murrell discloses further including:
importing or saving the orthodontic prescription to a computing device; and
designing the base portion using the computing device to comprise the torque angle (see [0240], [0243], [0249]-[0250], [0253-[0254] – therefore, , the dental appliance is designed/manipulated and produced using a computer device that uses Computer Aided Design (CAD) software, and where the appliance includes a variety of possible prescriptive values such as possible prescriptive values of torque, tip and angulation.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrell (US 20200146781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shannon et al (US 20210015593 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Murrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, Murrell does not disclose that the orthodontic prescription further includes an offset angle, and at least a portion of the offset angle is incorporated in the bracket portion or the base portion.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Identifier marking)]
PNG
media_image4.png
466
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shannon et al. teaches orthodontic appliances including offset angle, and where said parameter can be incorporated into the appliance as an identifier marking 206 (see Fig. 2, [0024] and Table 1 – where if the appliance includes the information of an offset angle in the identifier marking it is understood that an offset angle is part of the appliance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic bracket of Murrell, with the offset angle of Shannon, in order to provide a more detailed orthodontic prescription tailored to the specific patient.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrell (US 20200146781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andreiko et al. (EP 696444 A2).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Incisal center point)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Line tangent to the surface of the tooth at FA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Facial axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gingival center point of the tooth)][AltContent: textbox (Torque angle/ Facial angle of inclination)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
242
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Slot tip angle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
400
680
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Slot inclination angle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
390
522
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Archwire slot axis)][AltContent: textbox (Tip angle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image8.png
248
278
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
172
218
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Murrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where the slot of the archwire is part of the bracket portion (see Fig. 1A above).
However, Murrell does not disclose that the orthodontic prescription further includes a tip angle, and at least a portion of the tip angle is incorporated in the bracket portion or the base portion (for claim 4); and that the tip angle is configured to exist between a crown long axis (Zo) of the patient's tooth and a line both orthogonal to an axis of the archwire slot and parallel to a floor of the archwire slot, upon affixing the second side of the base portion to the patient's tooth (for claim 7).
Andreiko et al. teaches that it is well known in the art that as part of the design of any orthodontic appliances, it is taken into consideration a “slot inclination angle (SAI), that represents the angle of the slot relative to the base of the bracket that mounts to the surface of the tooth” (see page 10, lines 26-41), where one of the considerations for that inclination angle is the slot tip angle (TAI) with respect to the vertical axis of the tooth and compared it with the ideal inclination of that tooth. Based on that information, the torque and the tip angles of the slot are calculated for that customed backet and treatment (see Fig. 3, 5 and 6 above and page 8, lines 30 through page 9, line 2, and page 11, line 2-19). Where the tip angle exist between an axis (Zo) of the crown of the patient's tooth (see Fig. 3 above) and a line both orthogonal to an axis of the archwire slot and parallel to a floor of the archwire slot (see Fig. 3 and 6 above). Furthermore, due to the tip angle is part of the slot, said slot is part of the bracket portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orthodontic prescription of Murrell, with the tip angle of Andreiko, in order to take into consideration the angle of the slot relative to the base of the bracket already mounted on the surface of the tooth so that the correct torque is applied to that particular tooth condition and orthodontic prescription.
Regarding claim 5, Murrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, Murrell does not disclose that the torque angle is configured to exist between an occlusal plane formed by the patient's tooth and a line normal to a floor of the archwire slot and bisecting the archwire slot, when viewing along an axis of the archwire slot at a cross-section of the bracket assembly taken along an occlusal-gingival direction and through a centroid of the second side of the base portion upon affixing the second side of the base portion to the patient's tooth.
Andreiko teaches that it is well known in the art that a torque angle of the teeth is defined as a facial angle of inclination (FAI), in which is determined by the “facial axis of the tooth, which is a line FA perpendicular to the labial or buccal surface of the tooth at the vertical midpoint FC of the tooth between the incisal center or tip of the tooth IC and the gingival center point of the tooth, which may be represented as applicants' point P4. Through the point FC, a line LFA is defined tangent to the surface of the tooth, perpendicular to the line FA. The facial inclination angles FAI formed by such a line LFA with the such a plane LOP were tabulated by Andrews for patients whose teeth are naturally in positions regarded as ideal” (see Fig. 2D above and page 7, lines 24-34). The “bracket is to be placed at the facial axis point, …, the tangent line is the line LFA. which is inclined at the angle FAI to the archwire plane AWP” (see page 7, lines 24-32).
Therefore, Andreiko teaches that the torque angle/facial angle of inclination (FAI) exists between the occlusal plane/incisal center point (LCP) and the line normal to the floor of the archwire slot/ line tangent to the surface of the tooth at FA (LFA). In this way when the bracket is placed on the facial axis point of the tooth, that can effectively apply forces and moments to the tooth but placed low enough to ensure clearance between the appliance and the overlapping upper teeth as the teeth approach their finish positions (see page 10, lines 32-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the torque angle of Murrell, with the torque angle location approach of Andreiko, in order to apply the necessary forces to the tooth in a location where it will be clear of overlapping the opposing teeth at the end of the treatment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrell (US 20200146781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Chasanoff (US 4655707 A).
Regarding claim 8, Murrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Murrell discloses that the dental appliance can be provided in a plurality of different shapes (see [0248]).
However, Murrell does not disclose that wherein at a cross-section of the bracket assembly along an occlusal- gingival direction through a centroid of a second side of a base portion and viewed along an axis of an archwire slot, an in-out distance of the bracket assembly is a length of a line having an endpoint at a center point of a floor of the archwire slot and an endpoint at the centroid on the second side of the base portion, the center point of the floor of the archwire slot being equidistant from opposing walls of the archwire slot.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Opposing walls)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Floor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Base portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bracket portion)]
PNG
media_image10.png
124
202
media_image10.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Center line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower half)][AltContent: textbox (Upper half)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image11.png
164
256
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Chasanoff teaches a dental appliance including a bracket portion and a base portion, also the appliance can be viewed in an upper half closer to the occlusal plane when installed in the patient and a lower half closer to the gingival line. Both halves include the same geometry in a mirror image of each other at a center line of the appliance. An archwire slot (16) for an archwire (20) is placed along the center line of the appliance when viewed from the top. Said center line is equidistance from the side walls of the archwire slot 16. By having the groove (12) for the arch wire (20) in the center line of the appliance avoids unwanted torque forces from the arch wire (20) to the tooth (see annotated Fig. 1B and 2 above and col. 4, lines 17-21).
Furthermore, due to a centroid is a geometric center of a structure. Having the archwire slot (16) extending along the center line of the appliance, it is understood that the center point of the floor of the archwire slot also is placed on the center line of the appliance, that at the same time it would be equidistant from the opposing walls of the archwire slot 16.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the dental appliance of Murrell, with the shape of the dental appliance and the location of the archwire slot to be in the centroid of the appliance of Chasanoff, in order to avoid unwanted torque forces from the arch wire to the tooth.
Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrell (US 20200146781 A1) as applied to claim 10 and 25 above respectively, in further view of Mashouf (US 20120237887 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 27, Murrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 25, and where Murrell teaches using computer operation to create the base contour (see [0252] - "an area is identified on several of the patient's teeth within the virtual model. The identified area may be used to determine a virtual bonding surface"; [0253] - "this can be done by computer operation"; and [0254] - "the virtual bonding surface may be used to from the shape of the tooth abutting surface 24").
However, Murrell does not disclose that the structure of the base contour has been calculated by a process including performing mathematical best fit approximations along a radius oriented in a first direction across a surface contour of a tooth depicted in a three-dimensional model and a radius oriented in a second direction across the surface contour, where the radius oriented in the first direction intersects the radius oriented in the second direction (for claim 12); and the calculating step of the contour of the base is by mathematical best fit approximations along a radius oriented in a first direction across a surface contour of a tooth depicted in a three-dimensional model and radius oriented in a second direction across the surface contour, where the radius oriented in the first direction intersects the radius oriented in the second direction (for claim 27).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contour/ base indentation)][AltContent: textbox (Direction arrow)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image12.png
426
412
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Mashouf teaches a dental appliance having the base portion contoured following the direction the arrow 37 having a mesio-distal radius of the contour/base indentation 32 and the direction arrow 35 having the occlusal-gingival radius, where the two radius intersects each other (see Fig. 3 above), The contour of the indentations in the bracket portion correspond to radii that provide for optimal bonding between the bracket surface of the base and the corresponding tooth surface (see [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contour of the base portion of Murrell, with the mesio-distal radius and the occlusal-gingival radius for the indentation in the base portion of Mashouf, in order to provide the optimal conditions for maximum surface connection between bracket surface and the tooth surface for improved bonding conditions.
However, Murrell/Mashouf does not disclose that the base contour includes performing mathematical best fit approximations between the two radii.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art to utilize mathematical best fit of the vertical and horizontal radii of the tooth curvature to smooth any errors in the scan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of Murrell, Mashouf, Andreiko and Chasanoff do not disclose that wherein at a cross- section of the bracket assembly along a mesial-distal direction through a centroid of the second side of the base portion and viewed from an occlusal side, the offset angle exists between a first line along a floor of the archwire slot and a second line, the second line intersects a third line at the centroid of the second side of the base portion, the second line is orthogonal to the third line, and at the centroid of the second side of the base portion the third line is normal at least both a mathematical best fit curve of the base contour along a first direction across the base contour and a mathematical best fit curve of the base contour along a second direction across the base contour, wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Regarding claim 24, the prior arts of Murrell, Mashouf, Andreiko and Chasanoff do not disclose that wherein the torque angle exists between an occlusal plane formed by the patient's tooth and a line normal to a floor of the archwire slot and bisecting the archwire slot, when viewing along an axis of the archwire slot at a cross-section of the bracket assembly taken along an occlusal-gingival direction through a centroid of a second side of a base portion upon affixing the second side of the base portion to the patient's tooth.
Claims 16-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, even when Murrell teaches orthodontic bracket assembly including:
a bracket portion including a body (see annotated Fig. 1A above and [0206] - [0208]) including a first side (see annotated Fig. 1A above) and a second side (see annotated Fig. 1A above), an archwire slot (32) formed in the body (see annotated Faig. 1A above and [0210] - "an archwire slot 32"), and
a base portion having been constructed separately from the bracket portion by additive manufacturing (see annotated Fig. 1A above and [0245] - "the base portion 12 is made by additive manufacturing. In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined, for example by assembly"), the base portion including a first side (see annotated Fig. 1A above) and a second side (see annotated Fig. 1A above), the bracket portion being affixed to the base portion with the first side of the bracket portion facing away from the first side of the base portion (see Fig. 1A and [0245] – “In an embodiment, both the base portion 12 and the body portion 14 are initially pre-manufactured and subsequently joined, for example by assembly.“), and the second side of the base portion includes a base contour configured to contact a surface of a patient's tooth (see [0208] - "a rear tooth abutting surface 24 for receiving adhesive, which is shaped to conform to the corresponding shape to the front surface of the tooth"),
an orthodontic prescription for the patient's tooth incorporated into the orthodontic bracket assembly, the orthodontic prescription including a torque angle (see Fig. 1A and 1B above, and [0240] - "appliance 10 may have a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque"), at least a portion of the torque angle being incorporated into the bracket portion or the base portion (see [0240] – “appliance 10 may have a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip, and angulation”; and [0248] – “particular pre-manufactured physical body portion 14 out of the plurality of differently shaped pre-manufactured physical body portions 14 (e.g., body portions 14 having any of a variety of possible prescriptive values of torque, tip and angulation),
However, Murrell does not teach that at a cross-section of the bracket assembly along an occlusal-gingival direction through a centroid of the second side of the base portion and viewed along an axis of the archwire slot:
any torque angle incorporated in the bracket portion is measured between first line and a fourth line, the first line being along floor of the archwire slot, the fourth line being within a plane resting on at least three points of a facial-most surface of the first side of the body of the bracket portion, and
any torque angle incorporated in the base portion is measured between a second line and the fourth line, the second line both intersecting and orthogonal to a third line at the centroid of the second side of the base portion, at the centroid of the second side of the base portion the third line being normal to at least, both a mathematical best fit curve of the base contour along a first direction across the base contour and a mathematical best fit curve of the base contour along a second direction across the base contour, wherein the first direction is different from the second direction.
Andreiko et al. (EP 696444 A2) teaches that it is well known in the art that a torque angle of the teeth is defined as a facial angle of inclination (FAI), in which is determined by the “facial axis of the tooth, which is a line FA perpendicular to the labial or buccal surface of the tooth at the vertical midpoint FC of the tooth between the incisal center or tip of the tooth IC and the gingival center point of the tooth, which may be represented as applicants' point P4. Through the point FC, a line LFA is defined tangent to the surface of the tooth, perpendicular to the line FA. The facial inclination angles FAI formed by such a line LFA with such a plane LOP were tabulated by Andrews for patients whose teeth are naturally in positions regarded as ideal” (see Fig. 2D above and page 7, lines 24-34). The “bracket is to be placed at the facial axis point, …, the tangent line is the line LFA. which is inclined at the angle FAI to the archwire plane AWP” (see page 7, lines 24-32).
It is understood that Andreiko teaches that the torque angle/facial angle of inclination (FAI) exists between the occlusal plane/incisal center point (LCP) and the line normal to the floor of the archwire slot/ line tangent to the surface of the tooth at FA (LFA). In this way when the bracket is placed on the facial axis point of the tooth, that can effectively apply forces and moments to the tooth but placed low enough to ensure clearance between the appliance and the overlapping upper teeth as the teeth approach their finish positions (see page 10, lines 32-36).
However, both Murrell and Andreiko do not teach that a line normal to the mathematical best fit curves of the base contour are used to measure the torque angle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights