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, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “the upper dental arch or the lower dental arch” in line 2 should be recited as “an upper dental arch or a lower dental arch”.
Regarding claim 1, “the left posterior teeth” in lines 4-5 should be recited as “left posterior teeth”.
Regarding claim 1, “the right posterior teeth” in line 5 should be recited as “right posterior teeth”.
Regarding claim 1, “the occlusal pads” in line 7 should be recited as “the pair of occlusal pads”.
Regarding claim 1, “the occlusal pads” in line 8 and lines 8-9 should be recited as “the pair of occlusal pads”.
Regarding claim 5, “the springs” in line 3 should be recited as “the pair of springs”.
Regarding claim 7, “the adjustable spring mechanisms” in lines 1-2 should be recited as “the pair of adjustable spring mechanisms”.
Regarding claim 7, “the anterior end” in line 2 should be recited as “an anterior end”.
Regarding claim 8, “the activated position” in lines 2-3 should be recited as “an activated position”.
Regarding claim 8, “the angle” in line 2 should be recited as “an angle”.
Regarding claim 8, “the range” in line 2 should be recited as “a range”.
Regarding claim 10, “the form” in lines 1-2 should be recited as “a form”.
Regarding claim 10, “the anterior teeth” in line 2 should be recited as “anterior teeth”.
Regarding claim 10, “the lingual sides of posterior teeth, the buccal sides of posterior teeth” in lines 3-4 should be recited as “lingual sides of posterior teeth, buccal sides of the posterior teeth”.
Regarding claim 11, “the occlusal pads” in line 1 should be recited as “the pair of occlusal pads”.
Regarding claim 12, “the range” in line 2 should be recited as “a range”.
Regarding claim 12, “an individual’s mouth” in line 2 should be recited as “the individual’s mouth”.
Regarding claim 14, “the upper dental arch, the lower dental arch” in line 2 should be recited as “an upper dental arch, lower dental arch”.
Regarding claim 14, “the clenching force” in line 5 should be recited as “a clenching force”.
Regarding claim 16, “the range” in line 2 should be recited as “a range”.
Regarding claim 17, “the range” in line 2 should be recited as “a range”.
Regarding claim 18, “the range” in line 2 should be recited as “a range”.
Regarding claim 19, “the lower dental arch, (ii) the upper dental arch” in line 2 should be recited as “a lower dental arch, (ii) an upper dental arch”.
Regarding claim 20, “the lower dental arch, (ii) the upper dental arch” in line 2 should be recited as “a lower dental arch, (ii) an upper dental arch”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-8 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 7 recites the limitation "the fulcrum" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected for depending on a previously rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carrillo Gonzalez et al. (referred to as “Carrillo Gonzalez”) (US 11,458,035 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses a dynamic dental appliance (1) (see Figs. 1-8) for bruxism treatment (see Figs. 1-8; dental appliance 1 is a dynamic dental appliance capable of treating bruxism) comprising:
a base (20) configured to fit on either the upper dental arch or the lower dental arch of an individual (see Figs. 1-8; second bite plate 20 is a base as it is fitted on the lower/bottom dental arch of an individual);
a pair of occlusal pads, one of the occlusal pads configured to overlie the left posterior teeth and the other of the occlusal pads configured to overlie the right posterior teeth (see Figs. 1-8 and Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez; the first bite plate 10 has an occlusal side 13, and has a pair of occlusal pads that are labeled in Annotated Fig. 4, in which one is labeled ‘left occlusal pad’ and is configured to overlie left posterior teeth and one is labeled ‘right occlusal pad’ and is configured to overlie right posterior teeth); and
a biasing mechanism (53) acting between the base (20) and the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-8 and Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez and Col. 10 lines 16-21 and Col. 10 lines 25-30; spring mechanism 53 is a biasing mechanism that acts between the second bite plate 20 and the occlusal pads, labeled in Annotated Fig. 4), the biasing mechanism (53) configured to exert an adjustable force against the occlusal pads when the occlusal pads are moved from a flat orientation towards a generally angled activated position (see Figs. 1-8 and Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez, and Col. 10 lines 16-21 and Col. 10 lines 25-30; the spring mechanism 53 is configured to exert an adjustable force against the occlusal pads when the occlusal pads are moved from a flat orientation, when a user has the mouth closed or is biting down, towards a generally angled activated position, when the user opens their mouth, also see Col. 10 lines 44-48, Col. 11 lines 3-21).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 2, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (53) comprises a pair of adjustable spring mechanisms, each adjustable spring mechanism acting between the base (20) and a respective one of the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-8, Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez, and Col. 10 lines 16-21, and Col. 10 lines 25-30; there are two spring mechanisms 53 as best seen in Fig. 2, and thus is a pair of adjustable spring mechanisms, each spring mechanism 53 acts between the second bite plate 20 and a respective one of the occlusal pads).
Regarding claim 3, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses wherein each adjustable spring mechanism (53) comprises at least one spring acting between the base (20) and the respective one of the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-8, Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez, and Col. 10 lines 16-21, Col. 10 lines 25-30; each adjustable spring mechanism 53 comprises at least one spring acting between the second bite plate 20 and the respective one of the occlusal pads).
Regarding claim 4, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses wherein each spring is a coil spring (see Figs. 1-2, 7-8, and 16, and Col. 10 lines 25-30; the spring mechanism 53 may include one or more helical loops, and thus is considered a coil spring).
Regarding claim 9, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses wherein the base (20) is configured to fit passively on either the upper dental arch or the lower dental arch (see Figs. 1-8; the second bite plate 20 is configured to fit passively on the lower dental arch prior to the connector 50/spring mechanism 53 being applied to the dental appliance 1).
Regarding claim 10, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 9. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses wherein the base (20) is in the form of a tray comprising an anterior portion configured to overlie the anterior teeth (see Annotated Fig. 5 of Carrillo Gonzalez which has an anterior portion of the second bite plate 20 labeled as this portion is configured to overlie anterior teeth) and posterior portions configured to run along the lingual sides of posterior teeth, the buccal sides of posterior teeth or both the lingual and buccal sides of the posterior teeth (the second bite plate 20 further comprises posterior portions configured to run along both the lingual and buccal sides of posterior teeth, as the second bite plate 20 comprises lingual side 22 and facial end 24).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Carrillo Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 11, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses wherein the occlusal pads are flat and smooth to allow the individuals teeth to skate freely thereacross (see Annotated Fig. 4 of Carrillo Gonzalez which has the occlusal pads labeled, and the occlusal pads are flat and smooth, meaning the surface is free of any bumps or ridges or uneven parts, allowing an individual’s teeth to skate freely thereacross).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (referred to as “Kondo”) (US 2012/0227749 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses a dynamic dental appliance (1) for bruxism treatment (see Figs. 1-4; mouthpiece 1 is a dynamic dental appliance capable of treating bruxism) comprising:
a base (3) configured to fit on either the upper dental arch or the lower dental arch of an individual (see Figs. 1-4; lower piece 3 is a base as it is fitted on the lower/bottom dental arch of an individual);
a pair of occlusal pads, one of the occlusal pads configured to overlie the left posterior teeth and the other of the occlusal pads configured to overlie the right posterior teeth (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo; the upper piece 2 has a pair of occlusal pads that are labeled in Annotated Fig. 3, in which one is labeled ‘left occlusal pad’ and is configured to overlie left posterior teeth, and one is labeled ‘right occlusal pad’ and is configured to overlie right posterior teeth); and
a biasing mechanism (4) acting between the base (3) and the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo, and [0024] and [0029]; the connecting members 4 is a biasing mechanism as the connecting members 4 is configured from a spring, and the connecting members 4 acts between the lower piece 3 and the occlusal pads), the biasing mechanism (4) configured to exert an adjustable force against the occlusal pads when the occlusal pads are moved from a flat orientation towards a generally activated position (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo; the connecting members 4 is configured to exert an adjustable force against the occlusal pads when the occlusal pads are moved from a flat orientation, when a user has the mouth closed or is biting down, towards a generally angled activated position, when the user opens their mouth, see [0037], [0038]).
PNG
media_image3.png
577
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo.
Regarding claim 2, Kondo discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kondo further discloses wherein the biasing mechanism (4) comprise a pair of adjustable spring mechanisms, each adjustable spring mechanism acting between the base (3) and a respective on of the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo; the connecting members 4 comprises a pair of adjustable spring mechanisms as the connecting members 4 is configured from a spring, see [0024] and Fig. 3, each of the adjustable spring mechanisms acting between the lower piece 3 and a respective one of the occlusal pads).
Regarding claim 3, Kondo discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2. Kondo further discloses wherein each adjustable spring mechanism comprises at least one spring acting between the base (3) and the respective one of the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo and [0024]; each of the adjustable spring mechanisms comprises one spring acting between the lower piece 3 and the respective one of the occlusal pads, as the connecting members 4 is configured from a spring and comprises coil part 5).
Regarding claim 5, Kondo discloses the invention as discussed in claim 3. Kondo further discloses wherein each adjustable spring mechanism comprises a pair of springs acting between the base (3) and the respective one of the occlusal pads (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo and [0024]; each of the adjustable spring mechanisms comprises one spring acting between the lower piece 3 and the respective one of the occlusal pads, as the connecting members 4 is configured from a spring and comprises coil part 5), the springs being positioned on respective buccal and lingual sides of the dynamic dental appliance (1) (see Figs. 3-4; the springs are positioned on respective buccal and lingual sides of the mouthpiece 1, as the spring comprises a first end 6 that is positioned on a respective lingual side of the mouthpiece 1 as the first end 6 is placed on the lateral surface of upper piece 2, see [0026], and the spring comprises a second end 7 that is positioned on a respective buccal side of the mouthpiece 1, as the second end 7 is placed on an internal surface of lower piece 3, see [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Kondo discloses the invention as discussed in claim 2. Kondo further discloses wherein the fulcrum (5) of the adjustable spring mechanisms (4) is located at the anterior end of each occlusal pad (see Figs. 1-4 and Annotated Fig. 3 of Kondo; the coil part 5 is the fulcrum, as coil part 5 is the point at which the upper piece 2 and lower piece 3 are balanced/supported on, and a portion of the coil part 5 is located at an anterior or front end of each of the occlusal pads, as the claim does not say that the fulcrum is located at a terminal anterior end or anterior edge).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanna (US 2011/0030704 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hanna discloses a bruxism treatment method comprising using at least one dynamic dental appliance (30) fitted on either the upper dental arch, the lower dental arch or both the upper and lower dental arches of an individual (see Figs. 3-8 and 11-12; the mouth protector 30 is a dynamic dental appliance that is fitted on both the upper and lower dental arches of an individual) that exerts an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching to resist the clenching such that the at least one dynamic dental appliance (30) absorbs and dissipates the clenching force (see Figs. 3-8 and 11-12; the mouth protector 30 exerts an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching via the spring assemblies 36 and mesh layer + gel layer 66 during clenching to resist the clenching such that the mouth protector 30 absorbs and dissipates the clenching force, see [0054], [0055], [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 15, Hanna discloses a bruxism treatment method comprising using at least one dynamic dental appliance (30) fitted on a dental arch of an individual that exerts an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching to resist the clenching and counter brain-drive clench stimulus during sleep (see Figs. 3-8 and 11-12; the mouth protector 30 is a dynamic dental appliance that is fitted on a dental arch of an individual that exerts an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching via the spring assemblies 36 to resist the clenching and counter brain-drive clench stimulus during sleep, see [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Hanna discloses the method as discussed in claim 15. Hanna further discloses fitting the dynamic dental appliance (30) on either (i) the lower dental arch, (ii) the upper dental arch, or (iii) both the upper and lower dental arches (see Figs. 3-8 and 10; the mouth protector 30 is fitted on both the upper and lower dental arches).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrillo Gonzalez, as evidenced by Hanna.
Regarding claim 12, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
Although Carrillo Gonzalez does not explicitly disclose wherein the exerted adjustable force is in the range of from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, it is noted that the applicant does not indicate that the claimed dimension is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem, or is otherwise critical (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, and thus 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 exerted adjustable force of Carrillo Gonzalez to be in the range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, as US 2011/0030704 A1 Hanna also discloses that children have an average occlusal force between 126.15 and 239 Newtons, and adults can have an occlusal force of 380-728 Newtons, see [0017] of Hanna, and thus modifying the exerted adjustable force to be in this range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons allows the dental appliance to properly protect various user’s teeth and jaw more effectively while discouraging clenching.
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrillo Gonzalez in view of Hanna.
Regarding claim 13, Carrillo Gonzalez discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Carrillo Gonzalez further discloses a bruxism treatment method comprising using at least one dynamic dental appliance according to claim 1 (see claim 1) installed in an individuals mouth and fitting on either the upper dental arch, the lower dental arch, or both the upper and lower dental arches to exert an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws (see Fig. 1 showing the dental appliance 1 installed in an individuals mouth on both the upper and lower dental arches and spring mechanism 53 is there to exert an adjustable force between the individuals jaws).
Carrillo Gonzalez is silent on to exert an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching to resist the clenching and counter brain-drive clench stimulus.
However, Hanna teaches an analogous dynamic dental appliance (30) installed in an individual’s mouth and fitted on both the upper and lower dental arches (see Figs. 3-8) to exert an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching to resist the clenching and counter brain-drive clench stimulus (see Figs. 3-8 and 11-12; spring assemblies 36 are an analogous biasing mechanism that is configured to exert an adjustable force between the individual’s jaws during clenching to resist the clenching and counter brain-drive clench stimulus, see [0066]-[0067]), providing to prevent bruxism while providing an open airway during sleep (see [0067]).
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 method of Carrillo Gonzalez during clenching to resist the clenching and counter brain-drive clench stimulus as taught by Hanna to have provided an improved bruxism treatment method that prevents bruxism while providing an open airway during sleep (see [0067]).
Regarding claim 16, Carrillo Gonzalez in view of Hanna discloses the method as discussed in claim 13.
Although Carrillo Gonzalez in view of Hanna does not explicitly disclose wherein the exerted adjustable force is in the range of from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, it is noted that the applicant does not indicate that the claimed dimension is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem, or is otherwise critical (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, and thus 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 exerted adjustable force of Carrillo Gonzalez in view of Hanna to be in the range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, as Hanna also discloses that children have an average occlusal force between 126.15 and 239 Newtons, and adults can have an occlusal force of 380-728 Newtons, see [0017] of Hanna, and thus modifying the exerted adjustable force to be in this range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons allows the dental appliance to properly protect various user’s teeth and jaw more effectively while discouraging clenching.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo.
Regarding claim 8, Kondo discloses the invention as discussed in claim 7.
Although Kondo does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the activated position, the angle of the occlusal pads is in the range of from about 5 degrees to about 4 degrees, it is noted that the applicant does not indicate that the claimed dimension is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem, or is otherwise critical (see paragraph [0058] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, and thus 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 in the activated position, the angle of the occlusal pads of Kondo to be in the range of from about 5 degrees to about 45 degrees to better protect a user’s teeth and jaws.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanna.
Regarding claim 17, Hanna discloses the method as discussed in claim 14.
Although Hanna does not explicitly disclose wherein the exerted adjustable force is in the range of from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, it is noted that the applicant does not indicate that the claimed dimension is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem, or is otherwise critical (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, and thus 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 exerted adjustable force of Hanna to be in the range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, as Hanna also discloses that children have an average occlusal force between 126.15 and 239 Newtons, and adults can have an occlusal force of 380-728 Newtons, see [0017] of Hanna, and thus modifying the exerted adjustable force to be in this range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons allows the dental appliance to properly protect various user’s teeth and jaw more effectively while discouraging clenching.
Regarding claim 18, Hanna discloses the method as discussed in claim 15.
Although Hanna does not explicitly disclose wherein the exerted adjustable force is in the range of from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, it is noted that the applicant does not indicate that the claimed dimension is used for a particular purpose, solves a stated problem, or is otherwise critical (see paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification). Therefore, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, and thus 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 exerted adjustable force of Hanna to be in the range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons, as Hanna also discloses that children have an average occlusal force between 126.15 and 239 Newtons, and adults can have an occlusal force of 380-728 Newtons, see [0017] of Hanna, and thus modifying the exerted adjustable force to be in this range from about 0.1 Newton to about 400 Newtons allows the dental appliance to properly protect various user’s teeth and jaw more effectively while discouraging clenching.
Regarding claim 19, Hanna discloses the method as discussed in claim 18. Hanna further discloses fitting the dynamic dental appliance (30) on either (i) the lower dental arch, (ii) the upper dental arch, or (iii) both the upper and lower dental arches (see Figs. 3-8 and 10; the mouth protector 30 is fitted on both the upper and lower dental arches).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBIN HAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9-5 PM 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, 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.
/ROBIN HAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786