Patent Application 17744037 - MAGNET-BASED ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE - Rejection

Patent Application 17744037 - MAGNET-BASED ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE

Title: MAGNET-BASED ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE

Application Information

• Invention Title: MAGNET-BASED ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE
• Application Number: 17744037
• Submission Date: 2025-04-07T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-05-13T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 433
• National Sub-Class: 010000
• Examiner Employee Number: 96415
• Art Unit: 3772
• Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 3
• 103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0027743🔗
• US 2236953🔗

Office Action Text

     FYDETAILED 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 with traverse of Species H, Figs. 8A-8C, corresponding to claims 1-12, 16-22, 25, 31, 33, 45, 46, 50, and 52 in the reply filed on 28 February 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 13-15, 23-24, 26-30, 32, 34-44, 47-49, 51, and 53-65 are non-elected. 
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not established there would be a serious search and/or examination burden and that the Examiner merely asserts conclusory statements without a convincing justification for the restriction. Applicant also argues that claims 1-6, 31, and 50 are generic to all identified species. 
This is not found persuasive because the disclosed species require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) (See MPEP 808.02). Additionally, the reason for insisting upon election to one species, are the facts relied upon for the conclusion that there are claims restricted respectively to two or more patentably different species that are disclosed in the application.  The breadth of a single disclosed species does not necessitate the examination of the other disclosed species and their concomitant features.  The examination of other species would include a determination of the patentability of the species additional features in combination with the subcombination common to all species, which determination amounts to an examination of multiple inventions.  
Claims 1-6, 31, and 50 are not generic to all identified species as for example, Claims 1-6, 31, and 50 do not read on Species S, Figs. 19A-19B, which is directed toward a magnet with a locking dovetail or pin, or Species EE, Figs. 31A-31B, which is directed to a tooth attachment.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.

	
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 
865 in Figs. 8A-8C.  
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. 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.

Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11-12, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: 
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 2 to “[[the]]a lingual”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 11 line 4 to “exposed portion of the”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 12 line 4 to “exposed portion of the at least one”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 16 lines 1-2 to “
Examiner suggests amending claim 20 lines 1-2 to “the at least one target magnet”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 31 line 2 to “at least one of an orthodontic rod”.
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, 7, 12, 18, 25, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyberg (U.S. Patent No. 9,775,687 B1).

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    509
    559
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image2.png
    520
    455
    media_image2.png
    Greyscale

In regard to claim 1, Hoyberg discloses an orthodontic appliance system (Figs. 6-29) comprising: at least one first docking component (1st component in annotated Fig. 8) capable of being attached to a lingual side of at least one respective support tooth (support tooth in annotated Fig. 7, col. 11 lines 55-col. 12 line 5); at least one target magnet (target magnet in annotated Fig. 12), the at least one target magnet comprising at least one of a magnet or paramagnet (col. 14 lines 13-15), the at least one target magnet being capable of being attached to at least one of a distal or mesial surface of at least one respective target tooth (target tooth in annotated Fig. 12); a rigid support arch (34 and 38 in Fig. 7, col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4, col. 7 lines 2-12) having respective at least one second docking component (2nd component in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding to, and for securement to, the at least one first docking component (Fig. 7), the rigid support arch being capable of  supporting at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 12) at at least one respective therapeutic position adjacent a respective one of the at least one target magnet (Fig. 12); wherein the rigid support arch includes at least one stop (34 in Fig. 7) capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4).  
In regard to claim 7, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1 wherein at least one of the at least one target or at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet has a non-planar shape (Figs. 15-17, col. 11 line 55- col. 12 line 5 and Figs. 24-26, col. 13 lines 12-15).  
In regard to claim 12, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1 wherein the at least one stop (34 in Figs. 7 and 12) comprises a first stop and a second stop (aligner tray 34 and new aligner tray in col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4), the first stop being capable of making an initial contact during a therapeutic movement of a tooth, thereby limiting a first aspect of the therapeutic movement of the tooth, while the second stop has not yet made a contact, thereby allowing a second aspect of therapeutic movement of the tooth (col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4). 
In regard to claim 18, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the at least one therapeutic magnet supports at least a first stop and a second stop (aligner tray 34 in Fig. 12 and new aligner tray in col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4), the first stop being capable of contacting the at least one target magnet during a therapeutic time period before the second stop contacts the at least one target magnet, thereby providing a pivot point for achieving a desired movement of an associated target tooth (col. 12 line 57-col. 13 line 4).  
In regard to claim 25, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the at least one first and the at least one second docking components (1st and 2nd components in annotated Fig. 7) comprise respective at least one attachment (col. 11 lines 43-46) and at least one mounting magnet (col. 13 lines 30-32).  
In regard to claim 45, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the rigid support arch (34 and 38 in Fig. 7, col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4) comprises an arch shaped strip including isolated magnetized regions (Figs. 8-9, col. 13 lines 40-45 and col. 13 lines 62-64).  

In an alternate rejection, claims 1, 16, 25, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyberg.

    PNG
    media_image3.png
    522
    490
    media_image3.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image4.png
    507
    449
    media_image4.png
    Greyscale

In an alternate rejection, in regard to claim 1, Hoyberg discloses an orthodontic appliance system (Figs. 6-29) comprising: at least one first docking component (1st component in annotated Fig. 7) capable of being attached to a lingual side of at least one respective support tooth (support tooth in annotated Fig. 7, col. 11 lines 55-col. 12 line 5); at least one target magnet (target magnet in annotated Fig. 13), the at least one target magnet comprising at least one of a magnet or paramagnet (col. 14 lines 30-32), the at least one target magnet being capable of being attached to at least one of a distal or mesial surface of at least one respective target tooth (target tooth in annotated Fig. 13); a rigid support arch (38 in Fig. 7, col. 7 lines 2-12) having respective at least one second docking component (2nd component in annotated Fig. 7) corresponding to, and for securement to, the at least one first docking component (Fig. 7), the rigid support arch being capable of supporting at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 13) at at least one respective therapeutic position adjacent a respective one of the at least one target magnet (Fig. 13); wherein the at least one therapeutic magnet includes at least one stop (stop in annotated Fig. 13) capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4).  
In regard to claim 16, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one target magnet (target magnet in annotated Fig. 13) and at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 13) are capable of having opposite poles facing each (col. 14 lines 30-33) other while the at least one therapeutic magnet includes at least one stop (stop in annotated Fig. 13) capable of preventing movement of the target tooth toward the therapeutic magnet (col. 12 line 65-col. 13 line 4).   
In regard to claim 25, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1, wherein the at least one first and the at least one second docking components (1st and 2nd components in annotated Fig. 7) comprise respective at least one attachment (col. 11 lines 43-46) and at least one mounting magnet (col. 13 lines 30-32).  
In regard to claim 52, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 25 wherein the at least one mounting magnet comprise a stop (stop in annotated Fig. 7).  

Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 31, 33, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cinader et al (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0027743 A1, hereinafter “Cinader”)

    PNG
    media_image5.png
    430
    564
    media_image5.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image6.png
    431
    429
    media_image6.png
    Greyscale

In regard to claim 1, Cinader discloses an orthodontic appliance system (Figs. 1-9) comprising: at least one first docking component (1st docking in annotated Fig. 2) capable of being attached to a lingual side of at least one respective support tooth (Fig. 1, paras. 0030 and 0034); at least one target magnet (target magnet in Fig. 2), the at least one target magnet comprising at least one of a magnet or paramagnet (para. 0050, in combination with magnetic couplings), the at least one target magnet being capable of being attached to at least one of a lingual surface of at least one respective target tooth (Fig. 1); a rigid support arch (14 in Fig. 2, para. 0031) having respective at least one second docking component (2nd docking in annotated Fig. 2) corresponding to, and for securement to, the at least one first docking component (Fig. 1, para. 0034), the rigid support arch being capable of supporting at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0050, in combination with magnetic couplings) at at least one respective therapeutic position adjacent a respective one of the at least one target magnet (Figs. 1 and 2); wherein at least one of the at least one target magnet includes at least one stop (stop in annotated Fig. 5) capable of preventing or limiting an aspect of movement of a tooth (annotated Fig. 5, para. 0040).  
In regard to claims 2, 4-7, 10, 31, 33, and 50, Cinader discloses the invention of claim 1. Cinader further discloses wherein the rigid support arch comprises an orthodontic wire (18 in Fig. 2, para. 0033), 
wherein the rigid support arch comprises a thermoplastic appliance (para. 0060),  
wherein the rigid support arch comprises a resin-based appliance (para. 0060),
wherein the rigid support arch comprises a rigid thermoplastic or resin (para. 0060),
wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet has a non-planar shape (annotated Fig. 5, para. 0050 in combination with magnetic couplings), 
wherein the non- planar shape comprises a C-shape in cross section from an occlusal view (annotated Fig. 5),
wherein the rigid support arch comprises orthodontic wire (18 in Fig. 2, para. 0033),  
wherein the rigid support arch is capable of following the contour of a palate of a patient (para. 0032, cover the entire palatal region),
wherein the rigid support arch (14 in Fig. 2), at least one mounting magnet (2nd docking in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0050) and the at least one therapeutic magnet (therapeutic magnet in annotated Fig. 2) are a single unitary manufacture (Fig. 2, paras. 0060-0061).

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 Cinader in view of Blechman et al (U.S. 4,671,767 A, hereinafter “Blechman”).
In regard to claim 3, Cinader discloses the invention of claim 1. Cinader does not disclose wherein the rigid support arch comprises a metal band.  
Blechman teaches an apparatus (Figs. 21-24) wherein a rigid support (100 in Fig. 23) comprising a metal band (103 in Fig. 23, col. 8 lines 59-64).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rigid support arch of Cinader by adding the metal band as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to precisely fit certain teeth while being reinforced (Blechman col. 8 lines 59-64).

Claims 8, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Blechman.
In regard to claims 8 and 17, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 7. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape, wherein the L- Shaped magnet is configured to urge the target tooth occlusally, lingually and/or laterally.  
Blechman teaches a therapeutic magnet (110 in Fig. 24) having a non-planar shape wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape (Fig. 24, col. 9 lines 16-20), wherein the L- shaped magnet is capable of urging the target tooth laterally (col. 9 lines 20-22).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the therapeutic magnet of Hoyberg by specifying it is an L-shape capable of urging the target tooth laterally as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to produce a magnetic force to repositioning the maxilla or for Class II mechanics (Blechman col. 9 lines 20-22).
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 7. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape, wherein the L-shape comprises an obtuse angle between legs of the L-shape.
Blechman further discloses a therapeutic magnet (159 in Fig. 37) having a non-planar shape wherein the non-planar shape comprises an L-shape (Fig. 37), wherein the L-shape comprises an obtuse angle between legs of the L-shape (Fig. 37, col. 11 lines 14-21).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the therapeutic magnet of Hoyberg by specifying it is an L-shape which comprises an obtuse angle as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to produce a greater coercive magnetic force (Blechman col. 11 lines 17-21).
In regard to claim 11, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein at least one target magnet of the at least one target magnet comprises an extended target magnet that is larger in at least one dimension than a corresponding dimension of an exposed portion of the at least one associated target tooth.  
Blechman teaches at least one target magnet (129 in Fig. 26) which comprises an extended target magnet that is larger in at least one dimension than a corresponding dimension of an exposed portion of the at least one associated target tooth (Fig. 26, col. 10 lines 19-24 “as long as conveniently possible”).  
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one target magnet of the at least one target magnet of Hoyberg by specifying it is larger in at least one dimension than a corresponding dimension of an exposed portion of the at least one associated target tooth as taught by Blechman in order to allow for the device to obtain maximum magnetic force (Blechman col. 10 lines 19-24).

Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Clark (GB 2236953 A).
In regard to claim 19, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the at least one target magnet and the at least one therapeutic magnet comprise complementary triangular shapes whereby respective hypotenuses of the triangular shapes can be configured to face each other.  
Clark teaches an at least one target magnet (48 in Fig. 7) and an at least one therapeutic magnet (50 in Fig. 7) which comprise complementary triangular shapes (Fig. 7) whereby respective hypotenuses of the triangular shapes can be configured to face each other (Fig. 7, p. 17 lines 20-28)
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one target and therapeutic magnets of Hoyberg by specifying the magnets comprise complementary triangular shapes whereby respective hypotenuses of the triangular shapes can be configured to face each other as taught by Clark in order to allow for the device to exert a controlled mechanical force even when the mouth is relaxed (Clark p. 17 line 28- p. 18 line 4).

Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Patel (U.S. Patent No. 9,498,302 B1).
In regard to claim 20, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 1. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein the at least one target magnet comprises a first target magnet and a second target magnet configured to be attached to a lingual or palatal side of a same respective target tooth and wherein the rigid support arch is configured to support a first therapeutic magnet and a second therapeutic magnet adjacent the same respective target tooth, wherein the first target magnet and the first therapeutic magnet are configured to produce an attractive force therebetween and the second target magnet and the second therapeutic magnet are configured to produce a repulsive force therebetween.  
Patel teaches an apparatus (Figs. 9-12C, col. 12 lines 45-48) wherein an at least one target magnet comprises a first target magnet (1040 in Fig. 11B, paramagnets) and a second target magnet (1050 in Fig. 11B) capable of being attached to a lingual side of a same respective target tooth (Fig. 11B, col. 18 lines 54-65) and wherein the rigid support arch (1020 in Fig. 10) is capable of supporting a first therapeutic magnet and a second therapeutic magnet adjacent the same respective target tooth (col. 13 lines 59-62), wherein the first target magnet and the first therapeutic magnet are capable of producing an attractive force therebetween and the second target magnet and the second therapeutic magnet are capable of producing a repulsive force therebetween (col. 13 line 67-col. 14 line 26).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one target magnet and rigid support arch of Hoyberg by specifying the magnets comprises a first and a second target magnet capable of being attached to a lingual side of a same respective target tooth and that the rigid support arch is capable of support a first and second therapeutic magnet adjacent the same tooth, wherein the first target magnet and therapeutic magnet are capable of producing an attractive force and the second target magnet and therapeutic magnet are capable of producing a repulsive force as taught by Patel in order to allow for the device to apply different magnitude tooth movement forces to different individual teeth in accordance with a custom treatment regimen (Patel col. 14 lines 22-26).

37.	Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader in view of Vardimon (U.S. 4,869,667 A).
In regard to claims 21 and 22, Cinder discloses the invention of claim 1. Cinader does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet is configured to include a substantially horizontal lever arm longer than the width of an associated target tooth, wherein the substantially horizontal lever arm supports a magnetic attachment at a distal end thereof.  
Vardimon teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-5) wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet (18 in Fig. 1) is capable of including a substantially horizontal lever arm (28 in Fig. 1) longer than the width of an associated target tooth (Fig. 1), wherein the substantially horizontal lever arm supports a magnetic attachment (32 in Fig. 1) at a distal end thereof (Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 33-36).  
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnets of Cinader by specifying the magnet is capable of including a substantially horizontal lever arm longer than the width of an associated target tooth which supports a magnetic attachment at a distal end as taught by Vardimon in order to allow for the device to stimulate the eruption process of an impacted tooth and guide it into the dental arch (Vardimon col. 1 lines 48-51).

37.	Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyberg in view of Cinader.

    PNG
    media_image7.png
    386
    466
    media_image7.png
    Greyscale

In regard to claim 46, Hoyberg discloses the invention of claim 45. Hoyberg does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet comprises a therapeutic magnet extension configured to face a mesial side or a distal side of at least one of the at least one target magnet.  
Cinader teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-9) wherein at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnet (30a in Fig. 3, para. 0043) comprises a therapeutic magnet extension (extension in annotated Fig. 3) capable of facing a mesial side or a distal side of at least one of the at least one target magnet (50a in Fig. 3, para. 0043).  
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of magnetic orthodontic appliance systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one of the at least one therapeutic magnets of Hoyberg by specifying the magnet comprises a therapeutic magnet extension capable of facing a mesial side or a distal side of at least one of the at least one target magnet as taught by Cinader in order to allow for the device to be self-aligning and facilitate seating of the magnets (Cinader paras. 0043-0044).

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Cris Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 272-4964. 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.

/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772                                                                                                                                                                                                        



/Cris L. Rodriguez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772