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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 4/7/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-12, and 19 have been amended.
Claim 2, 6, 8, and 13-15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The specification objections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 are objected to because line 1 recites at least one clasp, applicant might have intended to recite the at least one clasp. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, mandibular/maxillary partial denture (claims 5 19) and clasps (claims 16-19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. 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. 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 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.
Claims 7, 12, and 16-19 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 7 defining the mandibular/maxillary dentures in wherein clause in last paragraph of the claim, specifically, mandibular/maxillary dentures are provided as any one of implant support dentures, namely single tooth dental implant, or multiple-tooth on implant-supported bridge, or multiple-tooth on implant-retained denture, such further defining deems indefinite as it is unclear how mandibular/mandibular dentures are provided as implant-supported dentures and what structures in the denture champions as being implant supported dentures.
Regarding claim 7 reciting “namely” in line next to last line, such recitation deems indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by namely.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the straps" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16-18 further limiting removable partial dentures, such dependency deems indefinite as claim 5 was rejected on removable full dentures. Applicant might consider deleting “removable full dentures” in claim 5 for reasonable dependency of claim 16-18 thereto.
Regarding independent claim 19 reciting “a means for holding the mandibular and maxillary partial dentures” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s originally-filed specification has not properly provided a corresponding structure for claimed limitation a first plurality of coupling members and a second plurality of coupling members. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyal (U.S. Patent No. 4,059,899) in view of Korean Application (KR 20150025184A), and further in view of Rago (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2019/0209363).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 1-3 in Dyal discloses applicant’s claimed system for assisting in reducing condition of snoring or obstructive sleep apnea comprising of
a mandibular denture (Figure 1 illustrates lower/mandibular denture) adapted to be worn on lower jaw of a user wherein glue is used to retain retention of the mandibular denture on the user's lower jaw;
a maxillary denture (Figure 1 illustrates upper/maxillary denture) adapted to be worn on upper jaw of the user;
a first pair of pins (30, 32), one of said first pair of pins being located on a right-
side wall of the mandibular denture and the other of said first pair of pins being located on a right-side wall of the maxillary denture (see Figure 1), and a second set of pins (30, 32 on opposing side), one of said second pair of pins being located on a left -side wall of the mandibular denture and the other of said second pair of pins being located on a left-side wall of the maxillary denture (see Figure 1);
a first strap (25) configured to connect the first pair of pins (30, 32), and a second strap (opposing strap 25) configured to connect the second pair of pins (opposing pair of pins 30, 32) for enabling the mandibular denture worn on the lower jaw to advance relative to the maxillary denture worn on the upper jaw, thereby facilitating mandibular advancement;
Dyal does not disclose wherein glue is used to retain retention of the maxillary denture on the user's upper jaw.
However, Korean Application (KR 20150025184A) teaches non-toxic gel so that denture can be fixed to gum, the gel is an adhesive holding power which weakens with time (see Background-Art section of document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to modify Dyal invention such that use of non-toxic adhesive gel is applied between denture and gum, taught by Korean Application (KR 20150025184A), as such gel maintains the denture in place, to avoid irritations during chewing.
The Dyal/Korean Reference, presented above, does not disclose wherein each of the first and second straps are is made of bio-compatible Nylon.
However, Figure 3a-3b in Rago teaches bands/straps (322) connecting upper/lower dental trays (314, 316), paragraph 0082 discloses bands (322) is formed from nylon-based material, e.g. PA 2200 nylon, polyamide 12 nylon, Rago oral appliance is to be utilized within the user’s mouth, hence bands 322 deems biocompatible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to construct Dyal’s straps (25), modified by Korean Reference, using Rago’s nylon-based material, as such material is known for being durable.
Regarding claim 4, Dyal/Korean Application, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system, wherein each of the strap or first and second straps (opposing straps 25) has a slot recess to allow relative movement between the mandibular and maxillary dentures. (Figure 2 in Dyal illustrate strap 25 has a gap/recess).
Regarding claim 5, Dyal/Korean Application/Rago, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system, wherein said mandibular and maxillary dentures constitute a denture set that is provided as removable partial dentures or removable full dentures (see Figure 2 in Dyal).
Regarding claim 9, Dyal/Korean Application/Rago, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system. With respect to claim 9 reciting wherein at least one or more of the mandibular denture, the maxillary denture, the first and second straps and the first and second pairs of pins are made by additive manufacturing process, such recitation sets forth is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Regarding claim 10, Dyal/Korean Application, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system. With respect to claim 10 reciting wherein the mandibular denture, the maxillary denture, and the straps are made by additive manufacturing process, such recitation sets forth is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Regarding claim 11, Dyal/Korean Application, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system. With respect to claim 11 reciting wherein the straps are made from a blanking process using a punch and die set, such recitation sets forth is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyal (U.S. Patent No. 4,059,899)/Korean Application (KR 20150025184A), in view of Frantz (U.S. patent No. 6,109,265).
Regarding claim 3, the Dyal/Korean Application, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system for preventing or assisting in reducing condition of snoring or obstructive sleep apnea.
The combination does not disclose a set of multiple pairs of straps wherein each pair of straps is of different length deployed to vary the amount of mandibular advancement.
However, Frantz teaches a set of multiple pairs of straps wherein each pair of straps is of different length deployed to vary the amount of mandibular advancement (column 4 lines 24-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to modify Dyal/Korean Application combination such a set of multiple of straps with each having different length, taught by Frantz, as variation provides different bias which renders variance in advancement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMTU TRAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4799. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAMTU T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights