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 of Group II (claims 17-20) in the reply filed on 9/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/17/2026.
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 17-20 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the 3D bracket structure" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “each retentive structure has a cross-section that is generally trapezoidal” (where trapezoidal is defined as having 1 pair of parallel sides), and “having the surface being a neutral plane…”. However, claim 17 from which it depends has already established that the “surface of each retentive structure is contoured to the shape of the tooth”, which would lead to surfaces that don’t conform to a plane (a natural tooth shape having curves). These limitations appear to be at odds with one another, since a curved/contoured surface of claim 17 couldn’t be in a plane, and would very likely not be able to be of trapezoidal cross-section either.
Claim 20 recites “each retentive structure is a three-dimensional figure”, however this limitation has already been established in claim 17 from which it depends, making it unclear if this is referring to the same “three-dimensional figure” or an additional/combination of figures. Suggested to include language along the lines of “wherein the three-dimensional figure of each retentive structure is selected from…”.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US 2015/0037747).
Choi shows a customized labial/lingual orthodontic bracket (Fig. 3-4 in particular) produced by an additive manufacturing machine by layer manufacturing (considered product-by-process where only the resulting structure of a bracket is at issue), comprising: a base surface (11) that is contoured to a shape of a tooth of a patient based on a 3D model of the patient’s teeth (considered product-by-process where the resulting structure is a tooth like shape; Choi shows the curved surface 11 which is a tooth like shape), wherein the base comprises a wall (outer edge of 11) at the base surface that surrounds the base surface (shown extending around the perimeter in Fig. 3-4) and also surrounds a plurality of retentive structures within the base (retentive structures 22 for instance of Fig. 3) that are defined by an associated cavity within the base (cavity engraved into 11), with the plurality of retentive structures arranged interior to the wall (Fig. 3-4), wherein each retentive structure is a three-dimensional figure with a positive draft angle greater than 0° (Fig. 8-9 show alternative laser techniques for achieving this undercut structure; see also [65]-[67]), wherein a surface of each retentive structure is contoured to the shape of the tooth of the patient (curved tooth shaped surface 11 is engraved and therefore the outermost surfaces of the retentive structure will follow that same contour), and wherein the wall includes a full perimeter around the 3D bracket structure model that is contoured to the shape of the tooth of the patient (again the entirety of 11 is contoured to a curved tooth-like shape; full perimeter seen in Fig. 3-4). With respect to claim 18, wherein each retentive structure has a cross-section that is generally trapezoidal, and having the surface being a neutral plane oriented toward a tooth structure or tooth surface that is wider than a base plane oriented toward a bracket body (see 112 rejection above; as best understood, Choi shows the protrusions having various shapes [16], one could form a trapezoid by taking cross-sections at various angles through the disclosed shapes; the planes being understood more as sides corresponding to lingual and labial sides as seen in Choi). With respect to claim 19, wherein the customized labial/lingual orthodontic bracket includes a mesial-distal or horizontal slot adapted to receive an archwire (12), a vertical slot adapted to receive at least a portion of the archwire within a middle third of the bracket (17, best seen in Fig. 6), or both (Fig. 6). With respect to claim 20, wherein each retentive structure is a three-dimensional figure selected from semi-lunar cones, full-circle cones, squares, retentive lattices, meshes, and combinations thereof (squares in particular shown in Fig. 3; other shapes discussed in [16]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
