DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of embodiment 1, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 17, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in part “one or more tooth clamps coupled with said clamp support arm for clamping onto teeth inside a patient’s mouth;” in lines 5-6 should be “one or more tooth clamps coupled with said clamp support arm configured for clamping onto teeth inside a patient’s mouth; “
Claim 10 recites in part “The dental anchoring system of claim 1,” in line 1 should be “The dental anchoring assembly of claim 1, “
Claim 17 recites in part “The dental anchoring assembly of claim 10,” in line 1 should be “The dental anchoring assembly of claim 1,”
Claim 18 recites in part “The dental anchoring assembly of claim 10,” in line 1 should be “The dental anchoring assembly of claim 17,”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mushabac U.S Pat 5,562,448.
Claim 1: Mushabac discloses
a dental anchoring assembly as best seen in figure 16 comprising: a clamp support arm 258, a tongue protector arm 264, and a connector member 262 coupled between said clamp support arm 258 and said tongue protector arm 264; one or more tooth clamps 256 coupled with said clamp support arm for clamping onto teeth inside a patient's mouth; a tongue protector 210 (fig. 13 which has a similar structure as in fig.16) associated with said tongue protector arm and adapted for insertion into the patient's mouth adjacent to said one or more tooth clamps.
Claims 2, 11: Mushabac discloses wherein the connector member is a base plate (it is noted that a bridge member 262 is equivalent as an attachment base).
Claims 3, 12: Mushabac discloses further comprising a medical device (drill 38/260) mounted to the base plate.
Claims 4, 13: Mushabac discloses
wherein said one or more tooth clamps 256 are adapted to be clamped to teeth of the lower mandible and wherein said medical device 38/260 to adapted for use in the patient's mouth on the teeth of the lower mandible opposite of said one or more tooth clamps.
Claims 5, 14: Mushabac discloses further comprising a chin engaging element (it is noted that a support bracket 258 is attached to a patient’s jaw in fig, 16) adapted to engage an underside of the patient’s chin.
Claims 6, 15: Mushabac discloses wherein the tongue protector arm 264 is adapted to abut teeth of the lower mandible.
Claims 7, 16: Mushabac discloses further comprising a vertical support arm 258 extending from the tongue protector arm 264, the chin engaging element being associated with the vertical support arm (see fig. 16).
Claims 8, 17: Mushabac discloses wherein the clamp support arm and the tongue protector arm form a U-shape with the connector member (see fig. 16).
Claims 9, 18: Mushabac discloses the clamp support arm 258 is linearly extendable (see fig. 16).
Claim 10: Mushabac discloses the tongue protector 210 associated with the protector arm 264 and adapted for insertion into the patient’s mouth is adapted to be located between the patient’s tongue and a medical device 38/260 to be used in the patient’s mouth on teeth of a second side of a patient’s mouth opposite the first side of a patient’s mouth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19: the prior arts fail to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed including a base plate upon a medical device be mounted; a clamp support arm extending from the plate in a first plane, a vertical support arm extending from the plate in a second plane, generally perpendicular to the first plane, wherein the protector arm from the vertical support arm is in a third plane, generally coplanar or parallel to the first plane, the tongue protector associated with the protector arm and adapted for insertion into the patient’s mouth engages the patient’s tongue on a side opposite the one or more tooth clamps.
Claims 20-23 are also allowed by virtual of their dependency from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (6:30-4:30).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at 571-272-4695. 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.
/VI X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771