DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on January 30, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1-9 and 11-13 were amended. Claim 10 was cancelled. The current action is FINAL. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nabavi et al. (Oral Cavity Pressure Measurement-based Respiratory Monitoring System with Reduced Susceptibility to Motion Artifacts, 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering Medicine, Biology Society, July 2020) (hereinafter “Nabavi”).
Nabavi was applied in the previous office action.
With respect to claim 1, Nabavi teaches a flexible dental prosthesis comprising a wearable ventilatory monitoring system, said system comprising: an electronic circuit (pg. 5903, right column, last paragraph “CMOS”); said electronic circuit comprises a pressure sensor (pg. 5901, left column “sensing unit measures the oral cavity pressure”) and a battery (pg. 5901, left column “powered by a small rechargeable battery”); wherein said electronic circuit is hermetically insulated from an oral cavity environment (pg. 5901, left column “The sensing unit placed inside the oral cavity is a waterproof element… fully coated by a biocompatible polyvinylidene chloride film to protect it from saliva”) and secured on said flexible dental prosthesis toward a posterior end of said flexible dental prosthesis, at a first end of a hard palate (pg. 5901, left column “The sensing unit… is placed between the inner sides of the upper jaw such that the top surface of the pressure sensor (sensing unit) faces the upper hard palate”; pg. 5903, last paragraph “hybrid-flexible technologies to offer a tiny wireless respiratory platform… high level of portability and wearability… can be placed inside the mouth to monitor respiration for long-term”; see also Fig. 1, which depicts sensing unit at a first end of a hard palate).
With respect to claim 3, Nabavi teaches wherein said electronic circuit comprises a temperature sensor (pg. 5901, left column, 1st full paragraph).
With respect to claim 4, Nabavi teaches wherein said electronic circuit is able to communicate with a computer or a mobile phone that acts as a central device of control receiving data measured by said pressure sensor (pg. 5901, left column, 2nd full paragraph).
With respect to claim 5, Nabavi teaches wherein said computer or said mobile phone calculates a respiratory rate of a patient by the data measured by said pressure sensor (pg. 5903, right column,1st full paragraph).
With respect to claim 8, Nabavi teaches wherein said battery is rechargeable (pg. 5901, left column, 2nd full paragraph).
With respect to claim 13, Nabavi teaches a method for measuring a respiratory rate of a patient by means of the wearable ventilatory monitoring system according to claim 1 (pg. 5900).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0172679 A1) (hereinafter “Logan”).
With respect to claim 1, Logan teaches a flexible dental prosthesis comprising a wearable ventilatory monitoring system, said system comprising: an electronic circuit (processor 140 and PCB 144 equates to an electronic circuit; see Fig. 2); said electronic circuit comprises a pressure sensor (par.0066 “Dental appliance 110 may also include… air pressure sensors… that can then be transposed into a respiration rate for the user”)
Although Logan’s Figs. 1-2 do not explicitly show a battery, further modification to incorporate a battery would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) when the invention was filed for the following reasons. First, Logan expressly teaches electrical components (processor 140 and PCB 144 in Fig. 2), which impliedly would utilize a power source (e.g. battery). Moreover, other embodiments further disclose that dental appliance “can be recharged using an inductive energy (power) transfer” (see par.0045; Fig. 11), which expressly teachings the use of a power source. Therefore, PHOSITA would have had predictable success modifying Logan’s embodiment, as depicted in Figs. 1-2, to further incorporate a battery, a widely known power source, as doing so would allow for providing power to the electronic components of dental appliance 110.
With respect to claim 3, Logan teaches wherein said electronic circuit comprises a temperature sensor (par.0047).
With respect to claim 4, Logan teaches wherein said electronic circuit is able to communicate with a computer or a mobile phone that acts as a central device of control receiving data measured by said pressure sensor (par.0060).
With respect to claim 5, Logan teaches wherein said computer or said mobile phone calculates a respiratory rate of a patient by the data measured by said pressure sensor (abstract; par.0066).
With respect to claim 7, Logan teaches wherein said flexible dental prosthesis is made with a biocompatible plastic (par.0036).
With respect to claim 8, Logan teaches wherein said battery is rechargeable (par.0028).
With respect to claim 13, Logan teaches a method for measuring a respiratory rate of a patient by means of the wearable ventilatory monitoring system according to claim 1 (par.0028).
Claims 2, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabavi in view of Shanjani et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0093571 A1) (hereinafter “Shanjani”).
Shanjani was applied in the previous office action.
With respect to claims 2, 9, 11, and 12, Nabavi teaches a wearable ventilatory monitoring system, as established above.
However, Nabavi does not teach the limitations further recited in claims 2, 9, 11, and 12.
Regarding claim 2, Shanjani teaches said pressure sensor is of the type piezo-resistive (par.0126, 0141).
With respect to claim 7, Shanjani teaches said flexible dental prosthesis is done with a biocompatible plastic (par.0015).
With respect to claim 9, Shanjani teaches said pressure sensor is protected by a gel and stainless antimagnetic steel cap (par.0129).
With respect to claim 11, Shanjani teaches said electronic circuit is embedded in a plastic sheet (par.0015, 0226-0227, 0229-0230, 0237).
With respect to claim 12, Shanjani teaches said electronic circuit is attached said flexible dental prosthesis using dental tape (par.0149).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) when the invention was filed to modify Nabavi in the manner recited in claims 2, 7, 9, 11, and 12 in order to provide intraoral appliances comprising embedded intraoral sensors, allowing autonomous monitoring of physiological characteristics of patients, thereby providing data useful in the diagnosis of sleep disorders and other oral- and airway-related disorders, as evidence by Shanjani (par.0006).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabavi in view of Fortun et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0242675 A1) (hereinafter “Fortun”).
Fortun was applied in the previous office action.
With respect to claim 6, Nabavi teaches a wearable ventilatory monitoring system, as established above.
However, Nabavi does not teach the limitations further recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, Fortun teaches said a computer or a mobile phone calculate the respiratory rate of a patient removing values, of the measure received from said pressure sensor, higher than a pre-determined threshold (par.0048-49).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to PHOSITA when the invention was filed to modify Nabavi to incorporate the use of a pre-determine threshold in the manner recited for the purpose of eliminating variations exhibited in the monitored pressure values that are not caused by respiration of the patient, as evidence by Fortun (par.0048-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the claim objections and the 35 USC 112B rejections raised in the previous office action were persuasive in view of amendment. Therefore, these objections and rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the current prior art rejections that were necessitated by amendment. Examiner provides an updated anticipation rejection using a previously applied reference with updated citations (Nabavi). For interests of compact prosecution, Examiner also introduces new obviousness rejections using a newly applied reference (Logan). Please see prior art section above for more detail, updated citations, and updated obviousness rationales.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791