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 1-4, 12-15, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4: “maxillary edentulous arch” should apparently read --a maxillary edentulous arch--.
In claim 1, line 10: “elongate rod” should apparently read --an elongate rod--.
In claim 2, line 2: “form” should apparently read --formed--.
In claim 3, line 2: “the ball exterior surface” should apparently read --the exterior surface-- (or --the exterior surface of the ball--).
In claim 4, lines 2-3: “the ball exterior surface” should apparently read --the exterior surface-- (or --the exterior surface of the ball--).
In claim 12, line 2: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 12, line 4: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 12, line 4: “result” should apparently read --results--.
In claim 12, line 7: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 12, line 7: “the trays” should apparently read --the upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 12, line 9: “the ball aperture” should apparently read --the aperture-- (or --the aperture of the ball--).
In claim 13, lines 3-4: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 14, line 3: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 15, lines 2-3: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 18, line 2: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 18, line 6: “upper and lower arch trays” should apparently read --upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 18, lines 10-11: “the opposed interior threaded portions” should apparently read --the interior threaded portions-- (for consistency throughout the claim).
In claim 18, line 14: “the ball aperture” should apparently read --the aperture-- (or --the aperture of the ball--).
In claim 19, line 2 (two instances): “the arch trays” should apparently read --the upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 19, line 3: “the arch trays” should apparently read --the upper and lower dental arch trays--.
In claim 20, line 16: “the fitting” should apparently read --the compressible fitting--.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitations "the maxillary teeth" in line 3, “the mandibular teeth” in line 5, and “the mouth” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a patient” in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same patient recited in line 1 or to a separate patient. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the patient--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “compliance (squishiness)” in line 2. The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear; is it either compliance or squishiness, both of them, or is squishiness merely a definition of compliance? How squishy is this?
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a main slot” in line 1. It is not clear if this is intended to be one of the “slots” recited in claim 2 or to be a separate slot.
Claim 5 also recites the limitation “an exterior” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same exterior recited in claim 2 or to a separate exterior. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the exterior--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “substantially planar” in line 2. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how non-planar the portion may be while still meeting the claim language.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the paddle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This would be obviated by amending claim 8 to depend upon claim 7 (instead of claim 6).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “push-pull paddle” in line 2. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; is this a physical feature of the paddle or merely an intended use of the paddle (i.e., it can be pushed and pulled)?
Claim 12 recites the limitation “substantially spherical” in line 4 and again in lines 7-8. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how non-spherical the depression may be while still meeting the claim language.
Claim 12 also recites the limitation "the rotation movement" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 also recites the limitation “and rod within the ball aperture” in lines 8-9. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; is this intended to recite that compressing the depression against the ball also locks the rod within the aperture?
Claim 15 recites the limitation “approximately 90 degrees” in line 2. The term “approximately” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does 89 degrees meet the claim language? How about 85 degrees, or 80 degrees? The metes and bounds are not clear.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the tapered nut" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should apparently read --the taper nut--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the dental arches" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation "the first and second pressions surfaces" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should apparently read --the first and second compression surfaces--.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation “substantially spherical” in lines 8-9 and again in lines 12-13. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how non-spherical the depression may be while still meeting the claim language.
Claim 18 also recites the limitations "the received ball" in line 13 and “the rotation movement” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation “and rod within the ball aperture” in line 14. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; is this intended to recite that contracting the depression about the ball also locks the rod within the aperture?
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the tongue" and “the oral cavity” in line 1 and “the mouth” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “a compressible fitting between the oral arches” in lines 10-11. It is not clear if this is meant to recite that the compressible fitting is between the oral arches of the patient, or rather that the compressible fitting is between the upper and lower dental arch members.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “a tongue” in line 15. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same tongue recited previously in the claim or to a separate tongue. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the tongue--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Polliack (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0316401 A1) is taken to be the closest prior art of record. This reference teaches a similar intra-oral device including upper and lower dental arch trays, a ball forming a rotatable ball joint, the ball having an aperture, and a protective element including a head and elongate rod that can be received in the aperture, wherein the head can extend into the mouth of a patient and rotated against a tongue of the patient. Polliack further teaches the use of a locking mechanism, which may be a compression fitting, to fix in place any of the rods/protective elements. Polliack also teaches that the ball joint may have a threaded rod extending from it, which contains slots that allow the rod to compress when fitted within a gimbal. However, Polliack fails to teach that the compression fitting is disposed between the upper and lower dental arch trays and that the ball is disposed within the compression fitting so that the head is lockable in place via the compression fitting about the ball. None of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a compression fitting disposed between such dental arch trays, with a ball disposed therein and forming a rotatable ball joint within the compression fitting, so that a protective element is lockable in place via the compression fitting about the ball; nor such a method of using such a device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johnson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0131427 A1) also teaches a similar intra-oral device including upper and lower dental arch trays, a ball forming a rotatable ball joint, the ball having an aperture, and a protective element including a head and elongate rod that can be received in the aperture, wherein the head can extend into the mouth of a patient and rotated against a tongue of the patient, and broadly teaches the use of compression fittings (but not such fittings that receive the ball).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 M. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights