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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 recite “the plate”. Examiner recommends amending to –the intraoral plate—
-Claims 1, 6, 11, 19, 25, 27 recite “one or more detection element”. Examiner recommends amending to –one or more detection elements—
-Claim 1 recites “within a mouth of the user” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –within the mouth of the user—
-Claim 12 recites “detect speech sounds” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –detect the speech sounds—
-Claims 19, 20, 27 recite “the device”. Examiner recommends amending to –the intraoral speech device—
-Claim 26 recites “detect speech sounds” in lines 2 and 4. Examiner recommends amending to –detect the speech sounds—
-Claim 26 recites “one or more of the detection elements” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –one or more of the plurality of detection elements—
-Claim 27 recites “recording of speech” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –recording speech—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “one or more detection element” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to detect one or more of a pressure applied by a tongue of the user, a position of the tongue within a mouth of the user, or speech sounds produced by the user. According to the specification the detection element includes ultrasonic sensors, force sensor, strain gauge, ultrasonic element, transmitter, receiver [Pg. 7] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 5, 14, 22 recite “mobile device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to operate a mobile application in communication with the electronic circuit. According to the specification the mobile device includes a remote computer, external electronic device, smartphone, or handheld electronic device [Pg. 11, lines 15-18] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 9, 15, 24 recite “wireless communication components” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to communicate with the electronic circuit via wireless communication components. According to the specification the wireless communication components includes a Bluetooth components, Wifi components [Pg. 11, lines 18-21] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 15 recites “mobile application” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to communicate with the electronic circuit via wireless communication components. According to the specification the mobile application includes mobile application game, a mobile application, a game operating on a cloud server, or any other suitable computer or mobile application [Pg. 12] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 2 recites “or another material” in line 2. The specification does not provide support for any other material known to man or not even contemplated. There is no mention of another material within the specification. While it is conveniently understood that any other material would satisfy the limitation set forth by the claim, the specification does not provide written description or sufficiently describe the use of another material as contained in the claim language.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no mention of a computer program product, algorithm or program other than “the subject matter disclosed herein relates to…computer implemented programs and products” and “augmented by a computer or mobile application or program”. ” Further description on the program product are not provided. While it is conventionally understood that an algorithm or program is stored in a computer medium, the specification does not provide written description or sufficiently describe how this function is performed or how the result is achieved for “configured to implement a method comprising: using the sensors to detect tongue data that comprises one or more of tongue pressure data or tongue position data; recording of speech sounds made; and providing feedback from the device to the user based on the tongue and speech sound data.”
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 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.
-Claim 3 recites “the desired speech” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 6 recites “the readings” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “the acrylic or polypropylene or other suitable material of the plate” in lines 3-4 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 11 recites “one or more detection element comprise a plurality of detection elements configured as an array of sensors or individual sensors” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this limitation is stating that the detection elements are configured in an array or comprise an array of sensors. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 12 recites “one or more detection elements” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the one or more detection element originally introduced in claim 1, lines 3-4.
-Claim 12 recites “the plurality of detection elements” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 16 recites “display data” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from data originally introduced in claim 1, line 8.
-Claim 18 recites “transmit data” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from data originally introduced in claim 1, line 8.
-Claim 18 recites “one or more other computing systems” in lines 2-3. It’s unclear what other computing systems are referenced when no computing systems were previously recited. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 20 recites “thicker dimension in one or more portions of the palate” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what the thicker dimension is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify what this dimension is thicker than.
-Claim 24 recites “speech device comprises transmitting the tongue data” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how a device comprises a step of transmitting the tongue data. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 25 recites “the plate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 25 recites “one or more detection element comprise a plurality of detection elements configured as an array of sensors or individual sensors” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether this limitation is stating that the detection elements are configured in an array or comprise an array of sensors. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 26 recites “one or more detection elements” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the one or more detection element originally introduced in claim 19, lines 2-3.
-Claim 26 recites “the position of the tongue” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 27 recites “the tongue and speech sound data” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 27 recites “the sensors” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 8 recites “the plate is retained on teeth of the user” in line 2 which is directed towards human subject matter. Examiner recommends amending to –the plate is configured to be retained on teeth of the user—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 19, 20, 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gribb (U.S. 20150045698).
Regarding Claim 1, Gribb teaches an intraoral speech training system comprising: an intraoral plate [Fig. 2, elements 5 (frame) and 10 (linear central portion)] configured to fit a palate in a mouth of a user [0012; “a top surface of the frame that, when formed to a subject's mouth reside, make contact with the tissue of the hard palate”]; and an electronic circuit within the plate and comprising one or more detection element configured to detect one or more of a pressure applied by a tongue of the user [0072]—reference to electronic components including sensors and wires held in place to the frame and [0012; “the pressure sensors are actuated by pressure applied by the tongue to the lower surface of the frame.”], a position of the tongue within a mouth of the user [0057]—reference to detecting position of tongue, or speech sounds produced by the user [0057]—reference to sensors detecting sound which is interpreted to be capable of detecting speech sounds; wherein the electronic circuit is configured to wirelessly provide feedback to the user based on data from the one or more detection element to indicate tongue position, placement or pressure on the one or more detection element [0013], [0058], and [0084]—describes display showing information toa user related to pressure with feedback in the form of a bar, textual or step-by-step instructions, goals met, and images.
Regarding Claim 2, Gribb teaches wherein the plate is made from acrylic or polypropylene material, or another material [0072]—with reference to rubber, plastic or other desired materials.
Regarding Claim 3, Gribb teaches wherein the plate comprises contours and surface modifications that are configured to encourage the tongue to be positioned in a desired or correct position corresponding to the desired speech [0011]—reference to bending the device to contour to the subject’s hard palate, [0050]—describes frame features that allow for desired placement in the mouth, [0095]—reference to selection and optimization for the purpose of desired improved function such as tongue base retraction.
Regarding Claim 5, Gribb teaches wherein the provided feedback is audio-visual feedback displayed on a mobile device, screen, or monitor [0084]—reference to display of textual/graphical information displayed on a video monitor with audio information conveyed via speaker or headphones.
Regarding Claim 6, Gribb teaches comprising one or more microprocessor [0084]—reference to information processing components, configured to provide the feedback based on the readings or data from the one or more detection element [0084; “the display displays information to the user related to pressure readings in real-time.” and “the interface shows an image of the intraoral device and sensors, indicating which sensor is active or to be targeted.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Gribb teaches wherein the plate is retained on teeth of the user using clasps and engagement of tissue and dental undercuts [0067]—reference to clasps and the architecture of the device engaging with tissue and gums of the subject.
Regarding Claim 9, Gribb teaches wherein the plate further comprises a wireless communication component [0080].
Regarding Claim 10, Gribb teaches wherein the electronic circuit is encased in a stippled waterproof silicon or other suitable medical- grade material casing embedded into the acrylic or polypropylene or other suitable material of the plate [0072]—reference to silicone coating, sealing electronic components from fluid (waterproof) and providing a frictional surface for a movable registration component, surface texture (stippled).
Regarding Claim 11, Gribb teaches wherein the one or more detection element comprise a plurality of detection elements configured as an array of sensors or individual sensors positioned on or in the plate [Fig. 4, element 50 (plurality of pressure sensors)]—shown as an array of sensors, and [Fig. 2, elements 31, 32, 33 (sensor locations)].
Regarding Claim 12, Gribb teaches wherein the plurality of detection elements comprise one or more detection elements configured to detect the pressure applied by the tongue of the user [0057; “the sensors detect force or pressure applied by the tongue directly to a sensor or applied by the tongue to the frame.”], while one or more others of the plurality of detection elements is configured to detect the position of the tongue within the mouth of the user [0057; “sensors are used that detect one… position (e.g. of the tongue)…”] and/or to detect speech sounds produced by the user [0057; “sensors are used that detect one…sound…”].
Regarding Claim 19, Gribb teaches a speech training method [Fig. 5, element “training”] comprising: providing an intraoral speech device in a palate and upper dental arch of a user [Fig. 5, element “setup new mouthpiece”], [Fig. 2, elements 5 (frame) and 10 (linear central portion)], and [0012] the device comprising an electronic circuit and one or more detection element [0072]—reference to electronic components including sensors and wires held in place to the frame and [0012; “the pressure sensors are actuated by pressure applied by the tongue to the lower surface of the frame.”]; using the one or more detection element to detect speech sounds or tongue data [0057]—reference to sensors detecting sound which is interpreted to be capable of detecting speech sounds, the tongue data comprising one or more of tongue pressure data [0012; “the pressure sensors are actuated by pressure applied by the tongue to the lower surface of the frame.”] and tongue position data [0057]—reference to detecting position of tongue; and providing feedback from the device to the user based on the detected speech sounds or tongue data [0013], [0058], and [0084]—describes display showing information to a user related to pressure with feedback in the form of a bar, textual or step-by-step instructions, goals met, and images.
Regarding Claim 20, Gribb teaches wherein the device has a thicker dimension in one or more portions of the palate that are configured to encourage desired tongue positioning [0011]—reference to bending the device to contour to the subject’s hard palate, [0050]—describes frame features that allow for desired placement in the mouth, [0095]—reference to selection and optimization for the purpose of desired improved function sure as tongue base retraction and [0052]—reference to the thickness of the central linear portion with this linear branches being narrower than the central linear portion.
Regarding Claim 22, Gribb teaches wherein providing feedback comprises wirelessly providing audio-visual feedback displayed on a mobile device, screen, or display [0084]—reference to display of textual/graphical information displayed on a video monitor (screen) with audio information conveyed via speaker or headphones.
Regarding Claim 23, Gribb teaches comprising retaining the intraoral speech device on teeth of the user using clasps and engagement of tissue and dental undercuts [0067]—reference to clasps and the architecture of the device engaging with tissue and gums of the subject.
Regarding Claim 24, Gribb teaches wherein the intraoral speech device comprises transmitting the tongue data using wireless communication components [0080].
Regarding Claim 25, Gribb teaches wherein the one or more detection element comprise a plurality of detection elements configured as an array of sensors or individual sensors positioned in or on the plate [Fig. 4, element 50 (plurality of pressure sensors)]—shown as an array of sensors, and [Fig. 2, elements 31, 32, 33 (sensor locations)]; wherein using the one or more detection element comprises detecting speech sounds and/or tongue data using the array of sensors or individual sensors [0057; “the sensors detect force or pressure applied by the tongue directly to a sensor or applied by the tongue to the frame.”].
Regarding Claim 26, Gribb teaches comprising using one or more of the detection elements to detect speech sounds, and using one or more others of the detection elements to detect the position of the tongue within the mouth of the user [0057; “sensors are used that detect one… position (e.g. of the tongue)…”] and/or to detect speech sounds produced by the user [0057; “sensors are used that detect one … sound …”].
Regarding Claim 27, Gribb teaches a computer program product configured to operate on an intraoral speech therapy device placed in a palate of a user [0089] [Fig. 5, element “setup new mouthpiece”], [Fig. 2, elements 5 (frame) and 10 (linear central portion)], and [0012], the intraoral speech therapy device comprising an electronic circuit and one or more detection element [0072]—reference to electronic components including sensors and wires held in place to the frame and [0012; “the pressure sensors are actuated by pressure applied by the tongue to the lower surface of the frame.”], the computer program product configured to implement a method comprising: using the sensors to detect tongue data that comprises one or more of tongue pressure data [0012; “the pressure sensors are actuated by pressure applied by the tongue to the lower surface of the frame.”] or tongue position data [0057]—reference to detecting position of tongue; recording of speech sounds made [0057]—reference to sound sensing and [0058]—collecting data in real-time or at desired timepoints; and providing feedback from the device to the user based on the tongue and speech sound data [0013], [0058], and [0084]—describes display showing information to a user related to pressure with feedback in the form of a bar, textual or step-by-step instructions, goals met, and images.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 13, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribb (U.S. 20150045698) in view of Tingey (U.S. 20090048647).
Regarding Claim 4, Gribb is silent on wherein the feedback comprises one or more of haptic or tactile feedback. Tingey teaches wherein the feedback comprises one or more of haptic or tactile feedback [0020]—reference to vibration or other tactile cues.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ tactile or haptic cues as taught by Tingey as a form of feedback as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses the use of tactile and vibration sensors in the device [0057] with Tingey because Tingey teaches the electronic components attached to pillows, clothing, wrist straps, or furniture [0020].
Regarding Claim 13, Gribb is silent on wherein the feedback comprises vibrations, electric shocks, or pulses. Tingey teaches wherein the feedback comprises vibrations, electric shocks, or pulses [0020]—refers to feedback provided as vibrations, and [0012]—feedback in the form of electric shock.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ vibrations or other tactile cues as taught by Tingey as a form of feedback as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses the use of tactile and vibration sensors in the device [0057] with Tingey because Tingey teaches these stimuli provided to wake a person up [0024].
Regarding Claim 21, Gribb is silent on wherein providing feedback comprises providing one or more of haptic or tactile feedback. Tingey teaches wherein providing feedback comprises providing one or more of haptic or tactile feedback [0020]—reference to vibration or other tactile cues.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ tactile or haptic cues as part of providing feedback as taught by Tingey as a form of feedback as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses the use of tactile and vibration sensors in the device [0057] with Tingey because Tingey teaches the electronic components attached to pillows, clothing, wrist straps, or furniture [0020].
Claim(s) 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribb (U.S. 20150045698) in view of Salamini (U.S. 9990859).
Regarding Claim 7, Gribb is silent on wherein the plate further comprises a rechargeable battery within the plate and configured to provide power to the electronic circuit. Salamini teaches wherein the plate further comprises a rechargeable battery within the plate and configured to provide power to the electronic circuit [Col 13, lines 48-50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rechargeable battery as taught by Salamini to provide power via power source as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses the use of batteries to power any electrical components of the device [0066] with Salamini because Salamini teaches connecting power to and from the internal battery of the device [Col 13, lines 46-50].
Regarding Claim 14, Gribb is silent on comprising a mobile device configured to operate a mobile application in communication with the electronic circuit. Salamini teaches comprising a mobile device configured to operate a mobile application in communication with the electronic circuit [Col 9, lines 12-14]—reference to a mobile application and user access executing process 200 shown in Fig. 2 which includes control of the device and electronic components, and [Col 8, lines 37-39]—with reference to the computing device operating under control of the operating system that relies on software applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control of the electronic components of the device by mobile application as taught by Salamini to provide control for the protocol of the device as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses software managing the diagnostic and therapeutic use of the systems and methods [0089] with Salamini because Salamini teaches the use of computing devices to individually or jointly execute instruction to perform the methods disclosed [Col 7, lines 30-32].
Regarding Claim 15, Gribb is silent on wherein the mobile application is configured to communicate with the electronic circuit via wireless communication components [Col 9, lines 12-14], [Col 8, lines 37-39], and [Col 7, lines 47-52]—referencing communications transmitted wirelessly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control of the electronic components of the device by mobile application through wireless communication as taught by Salamini to provide control for the protocol of the device as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses the use of wireless, solid-state sensors [0012] with Salamini because Salamini teaches communicating data collected wirelessly to devices such as mobile devices [Col 12, lines 31-33].
Regarding Claim 16, Gribb is silent on wherein the mobile application is configured to wirelessly record and display data to the user, including: correct tongue positioning and pressure; speech sounds as the speech sounds are being made; and daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly progress graphs, indicating a progression the user is making. Salamini teaches wherein the mobile application is configured to wirelessly record and display data to the user [Col 24, lines 24-27] and [Col 27, lines 30-27], including: correct tongue positioning [Col 27, lines 22-23] and pressure [Col 29, lines 56-61]; speech sounds as the speech sounds are being made [Col 24, lines 24-27]; and daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly progress graphs, indicating a progression the user is making [Fig. 28, “12/29/2009 2:30pm 85% Correct!”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to record and display data to the user including tongue positioning and pressure, speech sounds, and progression the user is making as taught by Salamini to view patient progress as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses allowing caregivers the ability to view patient progress and respond to issues via a portal [0107] with Salamini because Salamini teaches indicating accuracy of patient parameters via graphical representation [Col 24, lines 15-23].
Regarding Claim 17, Gribb is silent on wherein the mobile application is a gaming application. Salamini teaches wherein the mobile application is a gaming application [Col 12, lines 34-36]—reference to the software application including gaming software applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gaming application as taught by Salamini to identify and work towards goals as suggested by Gribb, as Gribb discusses determining baselines, therapeutic goals and therapy targets [0097] with Salamini because Salamini teaches supporting collaborative therapy-focused social networking [Col 12, lines 44-47].
Regarding Claim 18, Gribb teaches wherein the mobile application is configured to transmit data remotely to one or more other computing systems [0107]—discusses use of an at-home system that data is stored, sent and received via a CMSS portal to the offsite location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-VanRavenhorst-Bell (U.S. 12508112)—includes an intraoral apparatus with dental engagement elements and sensors
-Searl (U.S. 10869630)-device for measuring pressure applied between tongue and palate
-Dau (U.S. 20190105842)-references acrylic materials in making intraoral appliances
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791