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 ACKNOWLEDGEDIn the response received 12/3/2024, Applicant elected Embodiment I for further prosecution. Because the 9-3-2024 Restriction Requirement indicated Group I to include both Embodiment I and Embodiment II, the Examiner reached out to the Attorney of Record, Margaret Polson for clarification and direction on the election. During this interview that took place on 4/25/2025, Attorney Polson confirmed that the election of Embodiment I (rather than Group I) was an inadvertent oversight. Attorney Polson clarified that the election was intended to be for Group I which includes Embodiment I (1.1-1.8) and Embodiment II (2.1-2.8). A summary of this discussion is attached in the form of PTO-413 or 413B Interview Summary, and included herein. Therefore, Applicant’s election of Group I for further prosecution herein is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed 12/3/2024 and in the telephone interview conducted 4/25/2025.
Groups II-IV are hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being for the nonelected design.
EXAMINER COMMENT
Although there are examples in the prior art of dental braces, the differences with respect to the appearance and conformation of e.g. the distal end “A”, notably a different shape to the features indicated by arrow below in the side by side comparison of the claimed design as compared to the prior art is/are considered significant design feature(s) and result in an overall distinct visual appearance. See annotation below:
PNG
media_image1.png
438
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SPECIFICATION
REPRODUCTION DESCRIPTIONS
A clear and accurate description of the reproductions is required. (See Hague Rule 7(5)(a), 37 CFR 1.1024, MPEP 2920.04(a)II). As outlined in the 9-3-2024 Requirement for Restriction, Group I is comprised of Embodiments 1 and 2. Accordingly, the following figure descriptions must be added to the specification:
--2.1 : Perspective
2.2 : Perspective
2.3 : Right
2.4 : Left
2.5: Bottom
2.6:Top
2.7: Front
2.8: Back—.
REJECTIONS
35 U.S.C. §112(a) and (b)
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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. The claim is found to be indefinite and nonenabling for the following reasons:
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because there are inconsistencies between the views of the drawings that are so great that the overall appearance of the design is unclear (MPEP § 1504.04), specifically:
There are inconsistencies in depiction of features between views. For example, there are solid edge lines indicated by arrow in 1.3 and 1.4 that are missing from the comparable region of 1.7 (inside the circular region). See annotated sections of 1.3, 1.4 vs. 1.7 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
340
1052
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly, the features depicted by arrows in 2.1 and 2.2, are depicted differently (missing solid line features seen in 2.1 and 2.2) in 2.3 and 2.4. Compare 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 below:
PNG
media_image3.png
1369
2275
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The features depicted by arrow are missing from the comparable areas inside the circular regions of 1.1 and 1.4. Compare annotated enlargements of 1.1. and 1.4 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
798
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Similarly, the features depicted by arrow in 1.2 are missing from the comparable area inside the circular region of 1.3. Compare annotated enlargements of 1.2. and 1.3 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
795
479
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The feature indicated by arrow in 1.2, is missing from the comparable area of 1.3 below (inside circular region):
PNG
media_image6.png
777
415
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Corrective option – add missing lines to the comparable regions or remove the solid lines indicated by arrow. Applicant is cautioned that in either case, care should be taken so as not to introduce new matter.
The claim is indefinite and non-enabling because the visual disclosure is inadequate such that the appearance and shape or configuration of the design for which protection is sought cannot be determined or understood (MPEP § 1504.04). Specifically:
the claim is indefinite and non-enabling in the area shown darkened in Reproductions 1.5 and 2.5, because the depth and three-dimensional appearance cannot be determined from the views in which it appears. Specifically, it cannot be determined if these surfaces are coplanar, contoured or if certain areas are recessed. And if they are recessed or contoured, how far recessed or contoured they are cannot be determined:
PNG
media_image7.png
633
1447
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Because of the inconsistencies and inadequate disclosure identified above, the claimed design is in fact subject to multiple interpretations, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the design without the use of conjecture. This renders the claim indefinite and non-enabled. To overcome this rejection, it is suggested that applicant submit new drawings of the claimed design that show the design clearly and consistently. If certain non-enabled portions of the design cannot be fully enabled without the introduction of new matter, applicant may remove from the claim the areas or portions of the design that are considered indefinite and nonenabling by converting them to broken line and amending the specification to indicate those portions form no part of the claimed design.
IF REPLACEMENT DRAWINGS ARE SUBMITTED
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. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as “Annotated Sheet”) including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. 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.
CAUTION AGAINST NEW MATTER
When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f).
PRIOR ART CITED
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and (b).
DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION
All discussions between the applicant and the examiner regarding the merits of a pending application will be considered an interview and are to be made of record. See MPEP 713. The examiner will not discuss the merits of the application with applicant's representative if the representative is not registered to practice before the USPTO. Appointment as applicant's representative before the International Bureau pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Regulations under the Hague Agreement does NOT entitle such representative to represent the applicant before the USPTO. Furthermore, an applicant that is a juristic entity must be represented by a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Additional information regarding interviews is set forth below.
TELEPHONIC OR IN PERSON INTERVIEWS
A telephonic or in person interview may only be conducted with an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO ("registered practitioner") or with a prose applicant (an applicant who is the inventor and who is not represented by a registered practitioner).
The registered practitioner may either be of record or not of record. To become "of record", a power of attorney (POA) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.32 must be filed in the application. Form PTO/AIN80 "Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO", available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms-patent-applications-filed-or-after-september-16-2012, may be used for this purpose. See MPEP 402.02(a) for further information. Interviews may also be conducted with a registered practitioner not of record provided the registered practitioner can show authorization to conduct an interview by completing, signing and filing an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form" (PTOL-413A) (available at the USPTO web page indicated above). See MPEP 405. For acceptable ways to submit forms to the USPTO, see "When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence" below.If a pro se applicant or registered practitioner located outside of the United States wishes to communicate by telephone, it is suggested that such person email the examiner at [Michelle.Christeon@uspto.gov] to arrange a time and date for the telephone interview. Please include proposed days and times for the proposed call. When proposing a day/time for the interview, please take into account the examiner's work schedule indicated in the last paragraph of this communication. The email should also be used to determine who will initiate the telephone call.
EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS
The merits of the application will not be discussed via email (or other electronic medium) unless appropriate authorization for internet communication is filed in the application. Form PTO/SB/439 "Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application or Request to Withdraw Authorization for Internet Communications" may be used to provide such authorization and is available at the USPTO web page indicated above. The authorization may not be sent by email to the USPTO. For acceptable ways to submit the authorization form to the USPTO, see "When Responding to Official USPTO Correspondence" below. See MPEP 502.03 II for further information.
WHEN RESPONDING TO OFFICIAL USPTO CORRESPONDENCE
When responding to official correspondence issued by the USPTO, including a notification of refusal, please note the following:
The USPTO transacts business in writing. All replies must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.33(b)(3), a reply submitted on behalf of a juristic applicant must be signed by an attorney or agent registered to practice before the USPTO. Applicants may submit replies to Office actions only by:
Online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only)
https ://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-onIine/efs-web-guidance-and-resources
Mail: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA, 22313-1450
Facsimile to the USPTO's Official Fax Number (571-273-8300)
Hand-carry to USPTO's Alexandria, Virginia Customer Service Window
CONCLUSION
Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by the applicant. If the applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE M. CHRISTEON whose telephone number is (571)272-1859. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00- 5:30 pm. 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, Sheryl Lane, can be reached on 571-272-7609. 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.
/M.M.C./Design Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2915
/JENNIFER L REMPFER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2933