DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/11/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant has amended their claims, filed 02/11/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, and 17-18 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radmand (US 20200060611 – cited by Applicant) and Lee (US 20200093436 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Radmand discloses a dental sensor system adapted to be positioned within a mouth of a user for sensing data related to the user, the dental sensor system comprising:
a dental appliance for positioning within the mouth of the user (Fig. 2, oral appliance 10 with mouthpiece 20);
at least one cavity within the dental appliance (Figs 2-4, the embedded components 30/32/34/35/36/40/50/60/70; Examiner notes that Radmand reads on the broad definition of “cavity” described by the instant application’s specification paragraph 0027. Radmand discloses that the sensors are positioned in dry/protected zones in the mouthpiece 20 (Paragraph 0042).
a battery mounted in the at least one cavity and operably connected to the system (Figs. 2-4, battery 70; Paragraph 0062); and
a sensor system mounted in the at least one cavity and operably connected to the battery, the sensor system having at least one sensor for sensing the data related to the user (Figs 2-4, the embedded components 30/32/34/35/36/40/50/60/70; Examiner notes that Radmand reads on the broad definition of “cavity” described by the instant application’s specification paragraph 0027. Radmand discloses that the sensors are positioned in dry/protected zones in the mouthpiece 20 (Paragraph 0042); thus, in a “cavity”.
With regards to the limitations of claims 1 and 2, Radmand discloses a rechargeable battery (Paragraph 0062), Radmand fails to disclose a power generation system that generates power from movement of the user’s mouth via motion of two components moving relative to each other. Radmand also fails to disclose a temperature sensor.
However, Lee teaches a tooth-attach wearable device intended to indicate an amount of time an orthodontic device is worn. The device includes a piezoelectric charging element, wherein the piezoelectric element is provided to a sensor head (Fig. 5, piezoelectric element 11c on sensor head 11), the sensor head senses temperature of the patient (Paragraph 0067) to generate electricity when the temperature reaches human temperature levels(Paragraph 0074). The piezoelectric element generates electric energy with chewing pressure to be stored in the battery and drive the sensor device 10 (Paragraph 0100). The invention of Radmand is directed towards treating sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea, wherein treatment can be dictated by changes in temperature measured by the oral appliance (Paragraph 0006). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention would have been motivated to have incorporated the piezoelectric element/sensor with the time-sensitive temperature sensors for placement on a tooth attachment of Lee into the orthodontic device of Radmand. This is because the user would want to ensure they are wearing the device for periods long enough to have the opportunity to treat the disorder, such as the obstructive sleep apnea. Examiner notes that movement between the piezoelectric element relative to the oral appliance to generate power reads on the claim limitation of two components moving relative to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Radmand as modified further discloses wherein the sensor system includes an electrical sensor (Figs. 2-4, pressure sensors 32; Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 4, Radmand as modified further discloses wherein the sensor system includes a pulse oximeter (Figs. 2-4, oxygen sensor 30; Paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the power generation system connected to a battery as described above. Radmand further discloses a rechargeable battery (Paragraph 0005).
Claims 5 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radmand and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Demarest (US 10874855 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Radmand as modified by Lee fails to disclose a pH sensor.
However, Demarest teaches an oral device wherein the device includes a sensor system with a pH sensor which is useful for indicating conditions of the mouth that are conducive to bacterial growth (Col 9, lines 14-17). 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 oral appliance of Radmand and Lee to incorporate the pH sensor of Demarest to monitor conditions conducive to bacterial growth in the mouth.
Regarding claim 13, Radmand as modified by Lee fails to disclose a drug dispenser mounted in the dental appliance and operatively connected with the electronics package that receives power from the battery.
However, Demarest teaches an oral device with a drug dispenser mounted in the dental appliance (Col 2, lines 13-18) and operatively connected with an electronics package that receives power from the battery (Col 9, lines 31-34; Col 8, line 65 – Col 9, line 11). Demarest discusses the therapeutic composition is released in response to sensing a condition such as pH or bacteria (Col 2, lines 59-65). 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 oral appliance of Radmand and Lee to incorporate the therapeutic element of Demarest in response to sensed bacterial or pH conditions of the mouth.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radmand and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keating (US 20160045160).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Radmand as modified by Lee fail to explicitly disclose wherein the dental appliance is in the form of a flipper tooth.
However, Keating teaches a dental appliance with a sensor assembly (Figs. 15-17), wherein the dental appliance may be a partial denture/denture tooth (Fig. 17; Paragraph 0038) and a crown (Fig. 7, dental appliance 10 with an upper molar abutment and crown; Paragraph 0034). The substitution of one known type of dental appliance structure of Radmand and Lee for the dental appliance structure of Keating yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, 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 oral appliance of Radmand and Lee to incorporate the alternate constructions of Keating and the results of monitoring conditions in the mouth would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radmand and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lucas (US 20200345534).
Regarding claim 7, Radmand as modified discloses a denture (Paragraph 0036) but fails to disclose wherein the denture is installed in the mouth of the user with posts and generates power based on the movement of the denture with respect to the post.
However, Lucas teaches a dental appliance wherein a microgenerator is installed in a negative space to generate electricity using kinetic energy/compressive force of the jaw (Figs. 8A-B, voids 825a/b; Paragraph 0070) with posts (Figs. 8A-B, retentive pieces 820a/b with implants 830a/b), wherein power is generated based on the movement of the retentive pieces relative to the dental appliance. This configuration is useful to attach an oral appliance to an implant (Paragraph 0083). 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 oral appliance of Radmand and Lee to incorporate the dental appliance retention pieces of Lucas to provide an alternate method of power generation and attach to an implant system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radmand and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mozes (US 20240225506).
Regarding claim 10, Radmand as modified fails to disclose wherein the power generation system is mounted in a simulated tooth.
However, Mozes teaches a dental prosthetic device in the shape of a tooth (Fig. 4), wherein the prosthetic includes a power source (Fig. 4, power source 500) configured to generate electrical power (Paragraph 0053, “the power source 500 can be arranged to generate electrical power in response to vibration or movement (e.g., while the patient is chewing)”). The substitution of a power generation system in one oral appliance for a dental prosthetic tooth yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, 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 oral appliance of Radmand and Lee to incorporate the simulated tooth of Mozes, and the results of generating power would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radmand and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Logan (US 20120172679 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 12, Radmand as modified by Lee fail to disclose the oral device including GPS.
However, Logan teaches a dental appliance for monitoring biometric data of a user (Fig. 1) wherein the device includes GPS (Paragraph 0080). Logan discusses incorporating GPS is useful to provide positional data of the user (Paragraph 0080). Therefore, 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 oral appliance of Radmand and Lee to incorporate the GPS of Logan to provide positional data of the user.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating and Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Keating discloses a dental sensor system adapted to be positioned within a mouth of a user for sensing data related to a user, the dental sensor system comprising:
a dental appliance in the form of a flipper tooth having a simulated tooth and shaped sidewalls for positioning the dental appliance within the mouth of the user (Fig. 17 and paragraph 0038; Paragraph 0027, wherein the dental appliance 10 may replace existing teeth).
at least one cavity within the dental appliance (Figs. 1-3, sensor support assembly 24 within the dental appliance 10; Paragraph 0023, wherein the sensing device is enclosed in a sensor chamber).
a sensor system mounted in the at least one cavity, the sensor system having at least one sensor for sensing the data related to the user (Figs. 1-3, sensor support assembly 24; Paragraph 0023, “For example, the sensing device may include, but is not limited to including, pH sensors, pressure sensors, force sensors, movement sensors, RFID, accelerometers, chemical sensors, and/or any suitable sensing device that may be positioned within an oral cavity of a human and/or animal.”).
While Keating discloses a dental appliance with a sensor system, Keating fails to explicitly disclose a battery for powering the sensor system. Additionally, Keating fails to disclose a power generation system.
However, Lee teaches a tooth-attach wearable device with a piezoelectric charging element, wherein the piezoelectric element is provided to a sensor head (Fig. 5, piezoelectric element 11c on sensor head 11) and charges a battery (Paragraph 0031). The piezoelectric element generates electric energy with chewing pressure to be stored in the battery and drive the sensor device 10 (Paragraph 0100). 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 dental appliance of Keating to incorporate the piezoelectric element of Lee to generate electricity to power the sensor device and battery. Examiner notes that movement between the piezoelectric element relative to the oral appliance to generate power reads on the claim limitation of two components moving relative to each other.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating and Lee as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Logan.
Regarding claim 17, Keating as modified fails to disclose the dental appliance including GPS.
However, Logan teaches a dental appliance for monitoring biometric data of a user (Fig. 1) wherein the device includes GPS (Paragraph 0080). Logan discusses incorporating GPS is useful to provide positional data of the user (Paragraph 0080). Therefore, 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 dental appliance of Keating and Lee to incorporate the GPS of Logan to provide positional data of the user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating and Lee as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Demarest.
Regarding claim 18, Keating as modified by Lee fails to disclose a drug dispenser mounted in the dental appliance and operatively connected with the electronics package that receives power from the battery.
However, Demarest teaches an oral device with a drug dispenser mounted in the dental appliance (Col 2, lines 13-18) and operatively connected with an electronics package that receives power from the battery (Col 9, lines 31-34; Col 8, line 65 – Col 9, line 11). Demarest discusses the therapeutic composition is released in response to sensing a condition such as pH or bacteria (Col 2, lines 59-65). 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 dental appliance of Keating and Lee to incorporate the therapeutic element of Demarest in response to sensed bacterial or pH conditions of the mouth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the drawings objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has corrected the specification and drawings. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims per the suggestion of the Examiner. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 02/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of Radmand in view of Lee and Keating in view of Lee has been applied. See above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791