`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/404,352
`
`02/24/2012
`
`Teruko YAMAMOTO
`
`P41595
`
`4561
`
`7055
`7590
`08/07/2013
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
`RESTON, VA 20191
`
`EXAMINER
`NELSON, MATTHEW M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3776
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`
`
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/07/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`gbpatent @ gbpatent.c0m
`greenblumbernsteinplc @ gmail.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/404,352 YAMAMOTO ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`MATTHEW NELSON first“ 3776
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 30 May 2013.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)lX| This action is non-final.
`a)I:| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`5)|XI Claim(s) 1,2 and 5-16 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)|:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`7)IZ| Claim(s) 1,2 and 5-16 is/are rejected.
`8)I:I Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`9)|:l Claim((s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atents/init events"
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PF"I-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:I The drawing(s) filed on _ is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of the:
`a)I:I All
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`3) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`
`Paper NOISIIMa” Date —
`PTO/SB/08
`t
`St t
`I
`D'
`t'
`f
`2 IXI I
`)
`4) I:I Other:
`a emen (s)(
`Isc osure
`n orma Ion
`)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 4/11/2013.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 05-13)
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20130730
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Amendment filed on 5/30/2013 is acknowledged.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`o
`
`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 —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in
`the United States.
`
`.
`
`Claims 1, 5, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Bergersen (US 6,626,664).
`
`.
`
`Bergersen teaches an orthodontic appliance for aligning teeth (col. 2, lines 13-
`
`27), comprising a dental mouthpiece (Fig.
`
`1 for instance) mountable on the teeth on
`
`which braces, which include a plurality of brackets and orthodontic wire (col. 2, lines 13-
`
`34), are mounted in such a manner as to align the tooth to be aligned (col. 2, lines 13-
`
`34), the dental mouthpiece having an inner surface shape that conforms to an outer
`
`shape of the teeth having the braces (col. 2, lines 28-34) mounted thereon (the soft
`
`material of Bergersen would drape over the bracket and not cover all edges of the
`
`bracket, or alternatively, material is removed to fit the brackets and wire better in col. 4,
`
`lines 27-36), and a portion of the inner surface shape of the dental mouthpiece that
`
`surrounds the braces precisely conforms to an overall shape corresponding to a
`
`representation of an outer surface of the braces when gaps between the plurality of
`
`brackets and orthodontic wire are filled so as to eliminate unevenness in the braces (it is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`noted that the braces and wire have not been positively recited nor have had their
`
`structure described with or without filling, therefore this limitation is very broad and
`
`would appear to be covered by the general teaching of Bergersen's trimming of the
`
`interior of the mouthpiece to better fit the brackets and arch wires, which is what this
`
`limitation likewise appears to be doing), and wherein the dental mouthpiece is
`
`configured to maintain the conforming inner surface shape when the dental mouthpiece
`
`is separated from the teeth (particularly in col. 4, lines 27-36 where material is removed
`
`to better fit and in cases where the soft material is not flexed much). With respect to
`
`claim 4, the braces include a plurality of brackets and orthodontic wire (col. 2, lines 13-
`
`34). With respect to claim 5, the mouthpiece envelopes the outer shape of the braces
`
`and avoids interference of the unevenness of the braces (col. 2, lines 28-34). With
`
`respect to claims 14, the dental mouthpiece is mountable on the entire teeth (Fig. 4, 5
`
`show the sockets that accept entire teeth). With respect to claim 15, the dental
`
`mouthpiece is so shaped as to be mountable on a part of the teeth (at 20, 21 in Fig. 4-5
`
`for instance, only part of the teeth would be mounted). With respect to claim 16, “the
`
`inner surface shape of the dental mouthpiece that surrounds the braces is suction
`
`molded, thereby providing the precise conformance to the overall shape” is product-by-
`
`process language where only the resulting structure is at issue, which would be an inner
`
`surface that fits the bracket/wire. Bergersen teaches trimming the inner surface to fit
`
`the bracket/wire, and thus meets the end structure achieved by this process.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`o
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`.
`
`Claims 2, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Bergersen in view of Kurz (US 4,348,178).
`
`.
`
`Bergersen discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to show
`
`a vibrating element to generate mechanical vibration to the tooth to be aligned, the
`
`vibrating element encapsulated therein and mountable on the teeth.
`
`.
`
`Kurz teaches a vibrational orthodontic appliance having a mouthpiece with a
`
`vibrating element (1 O, 22, 24) to generate mechanical vibration to the tooth to be
`
`aligned (col. 2, lines 33-42), the vibrating element encapsulated therein and mountable
`
`on the teeth (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 33-42). With respect to claim 6, the vibrating element is
`
`a motor (1 0). With respect to claims 10 and 11, further comprising a battery as a direct-
`
`current power source stored with (self-contained) the motor being DC driven in electrical
`
`connection (col. 2, lines 43-47). With respect to claim 12, the motor provides vibration
`
`normal to the teeth (vibration provides force in all directions and therefore some would
`
`be normal to the teeth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bergersen’s mouthpiece by including the
`
`vibration means of Kurz in order to further reduce treatment time (col. 2, lines 57-65 for
`
`instance). However, Kurz fails to show the details of the motor.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify Kurz’s motor by selecting a rotary or linear motor since these types
`
`of motors are well known in the art for producing vibrations.
`
`.
`
`Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Bergersen in view of Kurz as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Smiley et
`
`al. (US 4,511,330).
`
`0
`
`Bergersen/Kurz discloses the device as previously described above, but fails to
`
`show the vibrating element is a permanent magnet for generating mechanical vibration
`
`in response to a magnetic field generated outside the dental mouthpiece.
`
`.
`
`Smiley teaches a mouthpiece with permanent magnet acting as the vibrating
`
`element (21, 23) for generating mechanical vibration in response to a magnetic field
`
`generated outside the dental mouthpiece (col. 1, lines 33-44). Therefore, it would have
`
`been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify
`
`Bergersen/Kurz's mouthpiece by substituting the magnet of Smiley in order to take
`
`advantage of alternative means for producing vibrations aiding orthodontic or
`
`periodontal therapy, and reduce mouthpiece bulk by having an external power supply.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`o
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2013 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`0
`
`While the 112 rejection has been overcome, the claims remain very broad in
`
`regards to the shape of the inner surface of the mouthpiece due to no description of the
`
`shape of the brackets/archwire. There are many different shapes and sizes of brackets
`
`in the prior art, some without any gaps at all. Bergersen’s teaching is generally to trim
`
`the inner surface to fit that of the bracket/wire, which would be done dependent on the
`
`bracket/wire. More importantly, the bracket/wire have not been positively recited.
`
`.
`
`Applicant also argues that Bergersen does not show wherein upon removing the
`
`mouthpiece the conforming shape is maintained. This has been addressed in the
`
`above rejection and specifically, Bergersen teaches in col. 4, lines 27-36 for instance
`
`that the appliance is adjusted (by trimming the interior of the sockets) to allow the
`
`brackets and arch wires to fit better, which trimming is a permanent form of deformation
`
`that would exist when removed from the teeth. Trimming has explicitly been done for
`
`the purpose of conforming to the brackets/wire and therefore inherency is not at issue.
`
`It is also noted that even in the previously recited portions of Bergersen referring to the
`
`soft portion, at least the occlusal surface, and possible buccal surfaces if the braces are
`
`thin would conform on and off the teeth since no deformation would be present.
`
`0
`
`Applicant argues with respect to the new product-by-process claim in that the
`
`different method would result in a different end structure. However, this does not
`
`appear to be the case, as Bergeresen teaches trimming the inner surface to fit the
`
`bracket/wire and Applicant recites suction molding to fit the bracket/wire. Both
`
`processes result in a mouthpiece that fits the bracket/wire.
`
`It is not clear what the
`
`resulting structural difference would be.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`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:OOpm EDT.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact
`
`the examiner’s supervisor, Todd Manahan, at (571) 272-4713. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -
`
`273-8300.
`
`If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting
`
`the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to
`
`TC37GO___,\IV0rkgroup___D___Inquiries @ uspto. gov.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/404,352
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3776
`
`/Robyn Doan/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3776
`
`/MMN/
`
`