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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 05-11-2026. As directed, claims 1-4, 9-11, and 14 have been amended, and new claims 15-17 have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 are currently pending examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05-11-2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended each of claims 1-4, 9-11, and 14 to address minor informalities therein. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependencies have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejected are presented herein to address the newly recited subject matter of claim 1 and its dependencies.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 14, line 2, the “I” in “identifying” should be amended to be lower case.
At claim 17, line 1, it is suggested that “the vibration” be replaced with “the vibratory force” for consistency in the claims.
At claim 17, line 2, it is suggested that “the maxilla and mandible” be replaced with “a maxilla and a mandible” as the terms have not yet been introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498).
Regarding claim 1, Teixeira discloses a method for increasing craniofacial bone density (abstract, lines 1-6; paragraph 64, lines 1-8; Figs. 3A-B), comprising:
obtaining an intraoral vibration device (100) by a user (paragraph 62, lines 8-11; Figs. 3A-B);
wherein the intraoral vibration device (100) includes a mouthpiece (118) for contacting a dentition (paragraph 11, lines 1-11; paragraph 62, lines 1-14; Figs. 3A-B);
placing the mouthpiece (100) over occlusal surfaces of the dentition (paragraph 11, lines 1-11; paragraph 62, lines 1-14; Figs. 3A-B); and
applying a vibratory force to the dentition during a predetermined number of sessions throughout a predetermined treatment period (paragraph 64, lines 1-9; paragraph 62, lines 8-11, see daily/weekly or during dental visits for predetermined number of sessions, and note that the daily/weekly use or use in the dental office is understood to be an indefinite treatment period), wherein the vibratory force applied to the dentition is transmitted through at least one of skeletal tissue or soft tissue to at least one facial anatomical location remote from the mouthpiece (118) (paragraph 11, lines 1-11, note the imparted strain to the jaw), the at least one facial anatomical location comprising a jawline (paragraph 11, lines 1-11, note the imparted strain to the jaw).
Teixeira fails to disclose wherein the method is for treating facial skin laxity, wherein the user is one having at least one symptom of facial skin laxity, and wherein the at least one symptom of facial skin laxity is improved compared to without intraoral vibratory treatment.
However, Richter teaches a method for treating facial laxity (paragraph 11, lines 1-6, where activation of the muscles around the mouth to reduce wrinkles is interpreted as treating laxity; see also paragraph 40, lines 1-4), by providing to a user having at least one symptom of facial skin laxity (paragraph 11, lines 1-6, where activation of the muscles around the mouth to reduce wrinkles is interpreted as treating laxity; see also paragraph 40, lines 1-4, where the device is used to treat wrinkles), an intraoral vibration device (10) having a mouthpiece (12) for contacting the dentition (paragraph 37, lines 1-6; paragraph 39, lines 1-2; see Fig. 4 for the provision of the device to the user, and for the contacting of the dentition; Fig. 1), and applying a vibratory force (paragraph 38, lines 1-3), wherein the vibration provided activates muscles in the face and reduces wrinkles by tightening the skin, such that the at least one symptom of facial skin laxity is improved compared to without intraoral vibratory treatment (paragraph 11, lines 3-6).
Therefore, given that each of Teixeira and Richter disclose/teach overlapping ranges of vibration frequency (Teixeira: see paragraph 11, 10-1000 Hz; Richter: paragraph 17, see the range of 5-250 Hz) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the vibration provided by the Teixeira device could reasonably be used to treat a user with at least one symptom of facial skin laxity and improve the symptom, as taught by Richter, for the purpose of applying a vibratory force to the muscles of the face to reduce wrinkles by tightening the skin.
Regarding claim 2, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Teixeira further discloses wherein a frequency of the vibratory force ranges from 10-1000 Hz (see paragraph 11, 10-1000 Hz to induce micro-strain).
In the case where the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps or encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the range disclosed by Teixeira of 10-1000 Hz overlaps the claimed range of about 90 to about 140 Hz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the range of about 90 to about 140 Hz from the broader Teixeira range, given that the claimed range lies inside of Teixeira’s disclosed range.
Regarding claim 3, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Teixeira further discloses wherein a session time of the vibratory force ranges from 5 to 20 minutes (paragraph 62, lines 8-11, see MPEP 2131.01, where when examples within the prior art lie within a claimed range, the range is anticipated, and each of 5-, 10-, and 20-minutes lie within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Teixeira further discloses wherein an acceleration of the mouthpiece (118) ranges from 0.1-2 G (paragraph 11, lines 9-10).
In the case where the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps or encompasses the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the range disclosed by Teixeira of 0.1-2 G overlaps the claimed range of 0.010-.35 G.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the range of 0.010-.35 G from the broader Teixeira range, given that the claimed range lies inside of Teixeira’s disclosed range.
Regarding claim 5, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently modified Teixeira fails to disclose wherein a vibration motor is placed in the mouthpiece.
However, Richter further teaches wherein a vibration motor (18) is placed in the mouthpiece (12) for affecting treatment of facial laxity (paragraph 38, lines 1-6; paragraph 40, lines 4-5; Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the vibration motor of Richter, which creates the vibratory force, in the mouthpiece of Teixeira, as taught by Richter, as a known construction of a mouthpiece device including a vibratory motor for affecting treatment of facial laxity symptoms.
Regarding claim 6, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Teixeira further discloses wherein a vibration motor is placed in a housing (112) that connects to the mouthpiece (118) through a connector (see the portion of 116 that connects between 112 and 118 in Fig. 3A) (paragraph 59, lines 1-8, paragraph 62, lines 1-5, and paragraph 64, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Teixeira further discloses wherein the predetermined number of sessions are repeated at least once per day (paragraph 62, lines 8-11, see “daily”).
Regarding claim 11, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira further discloses wherein anatomical locations of the facial skin laxity includes the jawline (paragraph 11, lines 1-11 of Teixeira, see “jaw” and note that as modified, Richter has been used to teach treatment by vibration of facial skin laxity).
Regarding claim 12, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira further discloses wherein the at least one symptom of facial skin laxity is perioral lines (Richter: paragraph 11, lines 1-6; paragraph 40, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 17, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Teixeira further discloses wherein the vibratory force applied to the dentition is transmitted through at least one of a maxilla and a mandible (paragraph 11, lines 1-11, see jaw, where the maxilla and mandible are the bones comprising the jaw).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Crunick (US 2016/0151238), and in the alternative in still further view of DiMino (US 2019/0374427).
Regarding claim 8, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Presently, Teixeira discloses wherein the sessions can be repeated once per day for a first time period (paragraph 62, lines 8-11).
Currently modified Teixeira fails to disclose wherein the repetitions can be done multiple times per day, and are then reduced from multiple times per day to once per day following the first time period.
However, Crunick teaches a cosmetic device which includes the use of vibration (see paragraphs 24 and 168) for treating symptoms of skin laxity (paragraph 84, lines 1-16), where the device tracks various symptoms of skin laxity (paragraph 83, lines 1-22; see paragraph 97, lines 1-10, condition of facial tissues), assesses whether or not the treatment has been effective at treating the symptoms of skin laxity (paragraph 83, lines 1-22; paragraph 97, lines 1-10), and informs subsequent treatment based on the assessed efficacy of the previously applied treatment protocols (paragraph 83, lines 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of modified Richter could be further modified to include the steps of tracking treatment efficacy, as taught by Crunick, in order to inform subsequent treatment parameters based on the changes in skin laxity symptoms. Based on Crunick’s teachings, one having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably have chosen to reduce the number of applications of vibration treatment applied by the modified Richter device and method in the case that skin laxity symptoms were reduced.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the reduction of treatment frequency from multiple times per day to once per day, merely using these metrics as exemplary values (see instant specification at paragraph 36, lines 13-16). Applicant provides the particular example alongside a list of several additional alternatives, where the device may be used 1-9 times daily or more, and that the treatment duration could be set as 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 1 month, or 2-12 months or more (see paragraph 36 of the instant specification). Thus, given the number of possibilities for treatment frequency and duration asserted by Applicant, one of ordinary skill could reasonably have incorporated the teachings of Teixeira (paragraph 62, lines 8-11) and Crunick (paragraph 83, lines 1-22, where the skin laxity, i.e. wrinkle depth, is assessed over time to determine a treatment efficacy and inform further protocols), and through routine experimentation and optimization as well as assessment of the treatment efficacy, reduced the usage of the device of modified Richter from more than once daily to once daily following a first time period in the case where symptoms were improving (see for example, MPEP 2144.05.I.A).
In the alternative, if the device and method as further modified by Crunick is deemed to be deficient with respect to the particular limitations that refer to reduction of the number of sessions from more than once daily to once daily, then:
DiMino teaches a method of treating tinnitus, and explicitly states that a number of treatments can be reduced from multiple times per day to once per day, as a reduction in symptoms is experienced (paragraph 35, lines 7-12).
Therefore, given that the method of modified Teixeira includes the capability of monitoring changes in facial laxity symptoms by virtue of Crunick’s teachings, and that modified Teixeira additionally discloses that the assessment of symptom changes can affect future treatment per Crunick, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Teixeira to reduce the number of predetermined sessions from more than once per day to once per day, as taught by DiMino, as symptoms decrease, in order to provide a continuously personalized treatment to the user experiencing symptoms of skin laxity which are tailored to their particular severity of symptoms over time.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498), Crunick (US 2016/0151238), and alternatively in further view of DiMino (US 2019/0374427), as applied to claim 8, and in further view of Xie (US 2022/0331585).
Regarding claim 9, Teixeira in view of Richter, Crunick, and DiMino disclose the method of claim 8, as discussed above.
Currently modified Richter fails to disclose wherein first time period is 30 days or 60 days.
As noted with respect to claim 8, Crunick teaches a cosmetic device which includes the use of vibration (see paragraphs 24 and 168) for treating symptoms of skin laxity (paragraph 84, lines 1-16), where the device tracks various symptoms of skin laxity (paragraph 83, lines 1-22; see paragraph 97, lines 1-10, condition of facial tissues), assess whether or not the treatment has been effective at treating the symptoms of skin laxity (paragraph 83, lines 1-22; paragraph 97, lines 1-10), and informing subsequent treatment based on the assessed efficacy of the previously applied treatment protocols (paragraph 83, lines 11-14). Thus, as was previously contended, based on Crunick’s teachings, one having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably have chosen to reduce the number of applications of vibration treatment applied by the modified Richter device and method in the case that skin laxity symptoms were reduced.
Xie further teaches a method of rejuvenating the skin via vibration (see paragraph 48, where the vibration motor 350 is included as part of the method to treat wrinkles) wherein due to use of the device, symptoms were shown to improve after 4 weeks of treatment (paragraph 66, lines 5-11).
Given that Xie teaches that it is known in the art of vibratory cosmetic products concerned with treating wrinkles that symptoms of wrinkle reduction can reduce after 4 weeks (i.e. around 30 days), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Teixeira, such that the first time period is around 30 days, because Xie teaches that symptoms of skin laxity, i.e. wrinkle reduction, can occur around the 30-day mark. Based on the employed teachings of Crunick, i.e. protocol/regimen of treatment can be changed when symptoms change, the skilled artisan could reasonably employ the method step of reducing the frequency of treatment per day around the 30-day mark since it is known and reasonably expected that symptoms of skin laxity would change after treatment over that period of time.
Further, Applicant places no criticality on the reduction of treatment frequency from multiple times per day to once per day specifically at 30 days or 60 days, merely using these metrics as exemplary values (see instant specification at paragraph 36, lines 13-16). Applicant provides the particular example alongside a list of several additional alternatives, where the device may be used 1-9 times daily or more, and that the treatment duration could be set as 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 1 month, or 2-12 months or more (see paragraph 36 of the instant specification). Thus, given the number of possibilities for treatment frequency and duration asserted by Applicant, one of ordinary skill could reasonably have incorporated the teachings of Teixeira (paragraph 62, lines 8-11), Crunick (paragraph 83, lines 1-22, where the skin laxity, i.e. wrinkle depth, is assessed over time to determine a treatment efficacy and inform further protocols), and Xie (US 2022/0331585), and through routine experimentation and optimization as well as assessment of the treatment efficacy, reduced the usage of the device of modified Teixeira from more than once daily to once daily following a first time period in the case where symptoms were improving around the 30-day mark (see for example, MPEP 2144.05.I.A).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Xie (US 2022/0331585).
Regarding claim 10, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira fails to disclose wherein the treatment period is from 1 day to 5 years.
However, Xie teaches a method of rejuvenating the skin via vibration (see paragraph 48, where the vibration motor 350 is included as part of the method to treat wrinkles) wherein the treatment period is from one day to three weeks in order to stimulate blood flow to the skin and reduce facial symptoms (paragraph 49, lines 5 and 9-12).
In the case where the range of values disclosed by the prior art lies within the claimed range, the range is anticipated (see MPEP 2131.03).
Therefore, given that both modified Texeira and Xie are concerned with treating wrinkles on the face, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Teixeira such that the treatment period is from one day to three weeks, according to the range taught by Xie, in order to stimulate blood flow to the skin and reduce facial symptoms.
Regarding claim 13, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira fails to disclose wherein treatment includes improving the skin cream or skin care product penetration on facial area.
However, Xie teaches a method of rejuvenating the skin via vibration (see paragraph 48, where the vibration motor 350 is included as part of the method to treat wrinkles) wherein the vibratory treatment includes improving the skin cream or skin care product penetration on facial area (paragraph 36, lines 17-19).
Therefore, given that both modified Teixeira and Xie are concerned with treating wrinkles on the face with vibration, and that Xie teaches that it is known for vibration to increase absorption of eye cream, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of modified Teixeira includes the capability of improving absorption of skin cream or product given that modified Teixeira delivers vibration to the user, and Xie teaches the ordinarily skilled artisan that vibration can improve absorption of such products on the skin.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Goldstein (US 2018/0008512).
Regarding claim 14, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira further discloses identifying locations on the user’s face which require treatment for (Richter: paragraph 11, lines 1-6 and paragraph 40, lines 1-4, where locations that include wrinkles are identified for treatment).
Presently modified Teixeira fails to disclose wherein the dosage is adjusted or parameters of the vibratory force based upon the facial anatomical locations.
However, Goldstein teaches a massage wand (10) for treatment of skin laxity (paragraph 56, lines 1-10; note paragraph 85 which discusses that the application of vibration treats wrinkles), wherein the vibration intensity of the device is adjusted in its dosage based on the portion of the face targeted for treatment (paragraph 100, lines 30-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Teixeira such that, depending on the location of the face to be targeted for treatment, dosage or parameters of the vibratory force are adjusted, as taught by Goldstein, in order to appropriately treat the desired location.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Zanti (WO 2009/150685).
Regarding claim 15, Teixeira in view of Richter disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira fails to disclose measuring, using a vibration sensor, accelerations in three orthogonal directions at the at least one facial anatomical location while applying the vibratory force to the dentition.
However, Zanti teaches a vibration device for the temporomandibular joint (abstract, lines 1-11) which includes the capability of measuring, using a vibration sensor, accelerations in three orthogonal directions at the at least one facial anatomical location while applying the vibratory force in order to regulate the provided vibrations (page 11, line 34-page 12, line 6).
Given that Teixeira is concerned with producing particular frequency and acceleration values in the user’s anatomy (see paragraph 11, lines 8-11), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Teixeira to further include the steps of measuring, using a vibration sensor, accelerations in three orthogonal directions at the at least one facial anatomical location while applying the vibratory force to the dentition, as taught by Zanti, in order to regulate the provided vibrations.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teixeira (US 2010/0092916) in view of Richter (US 2014/0100498) in further view of Zanti (WO 2009/150685), as applied to claim 15 above, in still further view of Johnson (US 2018/0140383).
Regarding claim 16, Teixeira in view of Richter and Zanti disclose the method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Teixeira fails to disclose wherein measuring accelerations comprises measuring a three-dimensional peak acceleration at the at least one facial anatomical location.
However, Johnson teaches a vibratory dental appliance (abstract, lines 4-6) wherein measuring accelerations comprises measuring a three-dimensional peak acceleration at the at least one facial anatomical location in order to determine the average peak acceleration along each Cartesian axis (paragraph 49, lines 10-15 and paragraph 54, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device and method of modified Teixeira to further include the capability of measuring accelerations comprises measuring a three-dimensional peak acceleration at the at least one facial anatomical location, as taught by Johnson, in order to determine the average peak acceleration along each Cartesian axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Streetman (US 2002/0099311) is cited for its disclosure that vibration waves can propagate through each of the maxilla and mandible when applied between the teeth (see paragraphs 18, 33).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights