DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of claims 18 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Currently claims 1-15, 18-22, 24-25, 27 and 42-48 are pending in the application, with claims 1-15 and 27 being withdrawn from consideration being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 which argue that the prior art combination does not disclose arced first and second wings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Trainor et al. (US 2018/0085247 A1) in view of Lee (US 2,614,560 A) and Kinkade (US 5,203,324 A).
Applicant's arguments filed 05/14/2026 with respect to the combination of Trainor in view of Lee failing to disclose “wherein the first handle portion is configured to be urged away from the second handle portion to transition the curved frame from the first configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are the first distance apart to a third configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance" have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. These limitations are similar to previously presented claim 19 where it was discussed that the combination of Trainor in view of Lee was capable of performing the claimed use of the device. Applicant has not presented arguments against the capability and thus, these arguments are non-persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation “a third configuration”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the third configuration recited in claim 19 is the same third configuration recited in claim 18, or is a new configuration. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same configuration.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a third distance”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the third distance recited in claim 19 is the same third distance recited in claim 18, or is a new distance. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same distance.
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 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.
Claim(s) 18-22, 25, and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor et al. (US 2018/0085247 A1) (hereinafter Trainor) in view of Lee (US 2,614,560 A) and Kinkade (US 5,203,324 A).
In regards to claim 18, Trainor discloses an oral device (10; see [0057]; see figure 1), comprising:
a curved frame (14; see [0065]; see figure 1) having a first end (22) and a second end (24; see [0065]; see figure 1);
a first bite block (48; see [0065]; see figure 1) coupled to the first end (22) of the curved frame (14; see figure 1);
a second bite block (46; see [0065]; see figure 1) coupled to the second end (24) of the curved frame (14);
a first wing (inner wall of 48; see figure 1) coupled to the first bite block (see figure 1);
a second wing (inner wall of 46; see figure 1) coupled to the second bite block (see figure 1); and
a handle (12, 18, and 20; see [0061], and [0065]; see figure 1; structures 12, 18, and 20 are capable of being utilized as a handle to manipulate and position the device and thus are considered as such) coupled to and extending distally from the curved frame (14; see figure 1), the handle (12, 18, and 20) having a first handle portion (left portion of 12 and 20; see figure 5) and a second handle portion (right portion of 12 and 18; see figure 5);
wherein the first bite block (48) and the second bite block (46) each include a plurality of pockets (50; see [0065] in reference to 50 being “recesses”; see figure 1; Merriam-Webster defines the term pocket as “receptacle or container” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pocket); the plurality of 50 are cavities which are capable of receiving an object (tips of a user’s teeth) or other substances (i.e. medicaments) and thus, are pockets by definition) oriented perpendicularly to a length of the first bite block (48) and the second bite block (46; see figures 4-5 that the 50 of 46 and 48 are formed down into the thickness (i.e. the Y-axis) of 46 and 48, and thus, are perpendicular to the length (i.e. the X-axis) of the 46 and 48).
Trainor does not disclose wherein the first handle portion configured to be urged toward the second handle portion to transition the curved frame from a first configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a first distance apart to a second configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a second distance apart greater than the first distance;
wherein the first handle portion is configured to be urged away from the second handle portion to transition the curved frame from the first configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are the first distance apart to a third configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance;
wherein the first wing and the second wing are arced and configured to corral a tongue of a subject.
However, Lee teaches an analogous device (device; see [col 2 ln 10-15]; see figure 1) formed of a material which is capable of adopting multiple configurations (see [col 1 ln 35-40]) and is intended to be positioned within a user’s mouth (see [col 2 ln 10-15]) to maintain a space between a user’s teeth to provide an airway for the user (see [col 1 ln 18-35]); the device comprising a curved frame (20; see [col 2 ln 10-15]; see figure 1) and handle (10; see [col 2 ln 10-15]; see figure 1) the handle comprising a first handle portion (12; see [col 2 ln 10-15]; see figure 1) and a second handle portion (13; see [col 2 ln 10-15]; see figure 1); wherein the first handle portion (12) configured to be urged toward the second handle portion (13) to transition the curved frame (20) from a first configuration (configuration of 20 seen in figure 1) in which the first end (25) and the second end (26) of the curved frame (20) are a first distance apart (see figure 1) to a second configuration (configuration of 20 seen in figure 3) in which the first end (25) and the second end (26) of the curved frame (26) are a second distance apart greater than the first distance (see figures 1 and 3; see [col 2 ln 45-55]) for the purpose of deforming the device to fit a user with a wider dentition (see [col 2 ln 45-50]).
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 device and the first and second handle portions of the handle as disclosed by Trainor by forming the oral device and handle from the semi-resilient material capable of adopting first and second configurations, and to have formed the first and second handle portions with the arcuate portion between the first and second handle portions which allow the first and second handle portions to be urged towards each other as taught by Lee in order to have provided an improved oral device which adds the benefits of including first and second handle portions which deform the device to fit a user with a wider dentition (see [col 2 ln 45-50]) and which is made of a material capable of adopting multiple configurations to fit multiple dentition sizes.
Trainor as now modified by Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the first handle portion is configured to be urged away from the second handle portion to transition the curved frame from the first configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are the first distance apart to a third configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance.
Though intended use does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Trainor as now modified by Lee, for full clarity it is obvious that Trainor as now modified by Lee’s oral device is formed from a material capable of adopting multiple configurations and the first handle portion of the oral device may be used and urged away from the second handle portion to transition the curved frame from the first configuration to a third configuration (i.e. a narrow configuration) in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance.
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 known that the intended use of urging the first handle portion away from the second handle portion to transition the curved frame to a third configuration (i.e. a narrow configuration) in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Trainor as now modified by Lee and Trainor as now modified by Lee’s oral device is fully capable of being used to urge the first handle portion away from the second handle portion to transition the curved frame to a third configuration (i.e. a narrow configuration) in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance.
Trainor as now modified by Lee does not disclose wherein the first wing and the second wing are arced and configured to corral a tongue of a subject.
However, Kinkade teaches an analogous oral device (100; see [col 2 ln 60-65]; see figure 2) comprising an analogous curved frame (140/142; see [col 2 ln 66]; see figure 3), a first bite block (150; see [col 2 ln 65-68]; see figure 3) coupled to the first end of the curved frame (see figure 3), and a second bite block (170; see [col 2 ln 65-68]; see figure 3) coupled to the second end of the curved frame (see figure 3), wherein the first bite block comprises a first wing (164; see [col 3 ln 45]; see figure 3) coupled to the first bite block (see figures 1 and 3), and the second bite block comprises a second wing (184; see [col 3 ln 45]; see figure 3 coupled to the second bite block (see figures 1 and 3); wherein the first wing and the second wing are arced (164 and 184 comprise approximately 45 degrees of curvature; see [col 3 ln 50-52]; see figure 1) and configured to corral a tongue of a subject (164 and 184 are curved and are thus configured to (i.e. capable of) corral a tongue of a subject) for the purpose of conforming to and gripping the lateral surfaces of the cuspids (see [col 3 ln 50-52]).
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 first and second wing as disclosed by Trainor as now modified by Lee and to have formed the first and second wing as arced structures as taught by Kinkade in order to have provided an improved first and second wing that would add the benefit of conforming to and gripping the lateral surfaces of the cuspids (see [col 3 ln 50-52]) as well as providing a structure which can corral and guide a user’s tongue into the tongue receiving portion as disclosed by Trainor ([0067]).
In regards to claim 19, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not explicitly disclose wherein a proximal portion of the first handle portion is configured to be urged toward the second handle portion to transition the curved frame to a third configuration in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance. Though intended use does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade, for full clarity it is obvious that Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade’s oral device is formed from a material capable of adopting multiple configurations and the handle of the oral device may be used to urge a proximal portion of the first handle portion toward the second handle portion to transition the curved frame to a third configuration (i.e. a narrow configuration) in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance.
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 known that the intended use of urging a proximal portion of the first handle portion toward the second handle portion to transition the curved frame to a third configuration (i.e. a narrow configuration) in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade’s oral device is fully capable of being used to urge a proximal portion of the first handle portion toward the second handle portion to transition the curved frame to a third configuration (i.e. a narrow configuration) in which the first end and the second end of the curved frame are a third distance apart less than the first distance.
In regards to claim 20, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor further discloses wherein the curved frame (14) defines a distal opening (34; see [0059]; see figure 1) configured to provide access to a mouth of a user through the distal opening (34) when the oral device (10) is disposed in the mouth of the user (34, being an opening is capable of providing access to a user’s mouth as claimed), the first handle portion (left portion of 12 and 20; see figure 5) disposed on a first side of the distal opening (34) and the second handle portion (right portion of 12 and 18; see figure 5) disposed on a second side of the distal opening (34; see figure 1 that the indicated first and second portions of the handle are on respective left and right sides of 34).
In regards to claim 21, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified by Lee further discloses wherein the handle (12, 18, and 20 of Trainor) defines a first recess (16 of Lee included into the upper portion of the handle of 12, 18, and 20 of Trainor) disposed above the distal opening (34 of Trainor) and a second recess (16 of Lee included into the lower portion of the handle of 12, 18, and 20 of Trainor) defined below the distal opening (34), the first recess (upper 16 of Lee included into the handle of 12, 18, and 20 of Trainor) and the second recess (lower 16 of Lee included into the handle of 12, 18, and 20 of Trainor) defined between the first handle portion (left portion of 12 and 20 of Trainor) and the second handle portion (right portion of 12 and 18 of Trainor; see figure 1 of Lee that 16 is formed between 12 and 13; see figure 2 of Trainor that 12 is formed with aperture 54 which defines an upper portion and lower portion of 12; thus to include 16 of Lee into 12 of Trainor, would form respective first (upper) and second (lower) recesses in the upper and lower portions of 12 of Trainor to facilitate the urging of the handle as discussed above).
In regards to claim 22, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor further discloses wherein the distal opening (34) is configured to allow for airflow (34 being an opening is configured to allow for airflow).
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not explicitly disclose the opening is configured to receive a portion of a catheter such that fluid can be transferred relative to the mouth of the user via the catheter. Though intended use does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade, for full clarity it is obvious that Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade’s opening of the oral device may be used to receive a portion of a catheter such that fluid can be transferred relative to the mouth of the user via the catheter.
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 known that the intended use of the opening being configured to receive a portion of a catheter such that fluid can be transferred relative to the mouth of the user via the catheter does not inhibit the structure, design or disclosure of Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade’s oral device opening is fully capable of being used to receive a portion of a catheter such that fluid can be transferred relative to the mouth of the user via the catheter.
In regards to claim 25, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified by Lee further discloses wherein the curved frame (14 of Trainor) is biased toward the first configuration (10 of Trainor is formed from the semi-resilient material as taught by Lee, semi-resilient materials are biased towards their original configuration).
In regards to claim 42, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor further discloses wherein the oral device (10) does not include any portion contacting a non-lip surface of a face of a user when the oral device is disposed in a mouth of the user (10 does not include a surface that contacts the user’s face).
In regards to claim 43, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor further discloses wherein:
the first bite block (48) includes a first tooth engaging surface (upper surface of 48) configured to contact a plurality of upper teeth of a user and a second tooth engaging surface (bottom surface of 48) configured to contact a plurality of bottom teeth of the user (the upper surface and lower surface of 48 contact respective upper and lower teeth of the user), the first tooth engaging surface (upper surface of 48) of the first bite block (48) being parallel to the second tooth engaging (bottom surface of 48) surface of the first bite block (48; see figure 1), and
the second bite block (46) includes a first tooth engaging surface (upper surface of 46) configured to contact a plurality of upper teeth of the user and a second tooth engaging surface (lower surface of 46) configured to contact a plurality of bottom teeth of the user (the upper surface and lower surface of 46 contact respective upper and lower teeth of the user), the first tooth engaging surface (upper surface of 46) of the second bite block (46) being parallel to the second tooth engaging surface (upper surface of 46) of the second bite block (46; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 44, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor further discloses wherein when the oral device (10) is disposed in a mouth of the user, the oral device (10) is configured to prevent the user from simultaneously applying a biting force to a tongue of the user with an upper front tooth and a lower front tooth to damage the tongue (see [0059]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor in view of Lee and Kinkade as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Magnuson (US 5,582,560 A).
In regards to claim 24, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not disclose wherein the curved frame defines a first notch and a second notch, the first notch and the second notch disposed on opposite edges of the curved frame in a center portion of the curved frame.
However, Magnuson teaches an analogous oral device (10; see [col 2 ln 54-60]; see figure 2) comprising an analogous curved frame (18; see [col 2 ln 50-55]; see figure 2); wherein the curved frame (18) defines a first notch and a second notch (32 and 34; see [col 2 ln 60-65]; see figure 2) , the first notch (32) and the second notch (34) disposed on opposite edges of the curved frame (18) in a center portion of the curved frame (18; see [col 2 ln 60-65]) for the purpose of receiving the user’s upper and lower labial frenulum (see [col 2 ln 60-65]).
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 curved frame as disclosed by Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and to have included the first and second notch in the center portion of the curved frame as taught by Magnuson in order to have provided an improved curved frame that would add the benefit of providing a notch for receiving the user’s upper and lower labial frenulum (see [col 2 ln 60-65]) thereby increasing a user’s comfort when using the device.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor in view of Lee and Kinkade as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hawkins (US 2013/0087157 A1).
In regards to claim 45, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not disclose wherein the plurality of pockets are operable to receive a medicament, wherein the plurality of pockets are configured to release the medicament in response to a user applying a biting force to the first bite block and/or the second bite block.
However, Hawkins teaches an analogous oral device (400; see [0030]; see figure 4) comprising an analogous curved frame (see figure 4), first bite block (left end portion of 400; see figure 4), and second bite block (right end portion of 400; see figure 4), the first and second bite blocks (left and right end portions of 400) comprising a plurality of pockets (402; see [0030]; see figure 4; see [0031] that there may be many supplement cavities within 400); wherein the plurality of pockets (402) are operable to receive a medicament (416; see [0031]; see figure 4; supplement tablets can be nutrition, electrolytes, and/or vitamins (see [0020]) are each capable of treating conditions of a user; thus, 416 are medicaments), wherein the plurality of pockets (402) are configured to release the medicament (416) in response to a user applying a biting force to the first bite block and/or the second bite block (see [0030] a user squeezing the bite blocks while in the mouth of the user is accomplished by applying a biting force) for the purpose of allowing a user to receive beneficial supplements while utilizing the oral device without occupying the user's hands to ingest the supplement (see [0021]).
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 plurality of pockets as disclosed by Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and to have configured them to be operable to receive a medicament and release the medicament in response to a user applying a biting force to the first and second bite blocks as taught by Hawkins in order to have provided an improved oral device that would add the benefit of allowing a user to receive beneficial supplements while utilizing the oral device without occupying the user's hands to ingest the supplement (see [0021]) thereby providing a means for providing a supplement which is capable of preventing dehydration and dry mouth when the oral device of Trainor increases airflow to the user’s oral cavity as intended (See [0066]).
Claim(s) 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trainor in view of Lee and Kinkade as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Forrest Jr. (US 2018/0243635 A1).
In regards to claim 46, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not disclose further comprising a receptacle configured to contain a medicament, the handle defining a through-hole within which the receptacle can be transitioned between a closed configuration and an open configuration, the receptacle defining an opening via which the medicament can exit the receptacle when the receptacle is in the open configuration relative to the handle.
However, Forrest Jr. teaches an analogous oral device (10; see [0015]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous curved frame (28; see [0015]; see figure 1) and an analogous handle (left and right 24; see [0015]; see figure 1; left and right 24 are protrusions from the surface of 28 and thus are capable of being grasped to manipulate 10 in a user’s mouth); further comprising a receptacle (18; see [0019]; see figure 5) configured to contain a medicament (water or water mixed with other body replenishing elements; see [0019]; water or other water mixed with other body replenishing elements is utilized for treating dehydration of the user, and thus is considered a medicament), the handle (24) defining a through-hole (14; see [0017]; see figure 6) within which the receptacle (18) can be transitioned between a closed configuration (sealed configuration) and an open configuration (open configuration; see [0019]), the receptacle (18) defining an opening (opening; see [0019]) via which the medicament (water or other water mixed with other body replenishing elements) can exit the receptacle (18) when the receptacle (18) is in the open configuration (open configuration) relative to the handle (24) for the purpose of providing a means for providing the user with water when the user wishes to hydrate themselves (see [0020]).
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 handle (specifically portions 18 and 20 of Trainor) of the oral device as disclosed by Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and to have included the through hole of the handle for receiving a receptacle which comprises and dispenses a medicament as taught by Forrest JR. in order to have provided an improved oral device that would add the benefit of providing a means for providing the user with water when the user wishes to hydrate themselves (see [0020]) thereby providing a means which is capable of preventing dehydration and dry mouth when the oral device of Trainor increases airflow to the user’s oral cavity as intended (See [0066]).
In regards to claim 47, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not disclose further comprising a canister coupled to the curved frame and configured to dispense a medicament through an opening in the curved frame.
However, Forrest Jr. teaches an analogous oral device (10; see [0015]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous curved frame (28; see [0015]; see figure 1) and an analogous handle (left and right 24; see [0015]; see figure 1; left and right 24 are protrusions from the surface of 28 and thus are capable of being grasped to manipulate 10 in a user’s mouth); further comprising a canister (18; see [0019]; see figure 5; canister is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “an often cylindrical container for holding a usually specified object or substance” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canister) therefore, because 18 holds a specified substance, 18 is considered a canister) coupled to the curved frame (28; 18 is coupled to 28 through 24) and configured to dispense a medicament (water or water mixed with other body replenishing elements; see [0019]; water or other water mixed with other body replenishing elements is utilized for treating dehydration of the user, and thus is considered a medicament) through an opening (20; see [0015]; see figure 1) in the curved frame (28; see figure 1 that 20 is in the curved frame) for the purpose of providing a means for providing the user with water when the user wishes to hydrate themselves (see [0020]).
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 curved frame of the oral device as disclosed by Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and to have included the opening in the curved frame and the canister coupled to the curved frame configured to dispense medicament through the opening in the curved frame as taught by Forrest JR. in order to have provided an improved oral device that would add the benefit of providing a means for providing the user with water when the user wishes to hydrate themselves (see [0020]) thereby providing a means which is capable of preventing dehydration and dry mouth when the oral device of Trainor increases airflow to the user’s oral cavity as intended (See [0066]).
In regards to claim 48, Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade discloses the invention as discussed above.
Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade does not disclose wherein the handle defines a reservoir within which a medicament can be disposed, the handle configured to urge the medicament from the reservoir through an opening in the curved frame in response to the handle being squeezed.
However, Forrest Jr. teaches an analogous oral device (10; see [0015]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous curved frame (28; see [0015]; see figure 1) and an analogous handle (left and right 24; see [0015]; see figure 1; left and right 24 are protrusions from the surface of 28 and thus are capable of being grasped to manipulate 10 in a user’s mouth); wherein the handle (left and right 24) defines a reservoir (reservoir for receiving 18; see figure 5) within which a medicament (water or water mixed with other body replenishing elements housed within 18; see [0019]; water or other water mixed with other body replenishing elements is utilized for treating dehydration of the user, and thus is considered a medicament) can be disposed, the handle (left and right 24) configured to urge the medicament (water or other water mixed with other body replenishing elements) from the reservoir (reservoir for receiving 18; see figure 5) through an opening (20; see [0015]; see figure 1) in the curved frame (28; see figure 1 that 20 is in the curved frame) in response to the handle (24) being squeezed (see [0020]) for the purpose of providing a means for providing the user with water when the user wishes to hydrate themselves (see [0020]).
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 handle (specifically portions 18 and 20 of Trainor) of the oral device as disclosed by Trainor as now modified Lee and Kinkade and to have included the reservoir defined by the handle to contain a medicament, and the capability to dispense medicament through an opening in the curved frame via squeezing the handle as taught by Forrest JR. in order to have provided an improved oral device that would add the benefit of providing a means for providing the user with water when the user wishes to hydrate themselves (see [0020]) thereby providing a means which is capable of preventing dehydration and dry mouth when the oral device of Trainor increases airflow to the user’s oral cavity as intended (See [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights