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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Nos. 224, 552, 554. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: No. 420. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 30, Line 11: The word “complied” should read –complied--.
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, and 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 7 recites the limitation "the presence sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the predetermined elapsed times" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elliott [U.S. 6,417,761].
For claim 1, the apparatus taught by Elliott includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed case is met by the case (No. 10) configured to contain a wearable appliance (see Fig. 2), 2) the claimed cover of the case is met by the cover (No. 12) to cover and protect the appliance (No. 20), 3) the claimed timer is met by the timer (No. 16) attached to the case, the timer having an interface (Nos. 17 and 17’) configured to receive a start command and stop command to start and stop the timer (Col. 2, Lns. 33-35: depressing the switch actuator 17’ and turning switch 17 “on” which, in turn actuates the timer 16; Col. 2, Lns. 53-54: When switch 17 is placed in the “off” position, the timer resets the clock for counting delay time), and 4) the claimed transducer is met by the audible signal generator (No. 14) to provide an alarm when the timer expires (Col. 2, Lns 46-47: When the delay period T1 has elapsed, a pulsed audible signal is generated).
For claim 3, the apparatus of Elliott includes a button (switch No. 17) to receive the start command and stop command.
For claim 4, the transducer of Elliott is a piezoelectric beeper (Col. 3, Ln. 39: a piezoelectric transducer).
For claim 6, the switch and switch actuator (Nos. 17 and 17’) of Elliott determines the presence of the appliance in the case (see Figs. 1 and 2) and connected to the timer to alternately prevent or enable operation of the timer based on the sensed presence of the appliance in the case (see explanation in claim 1 above regarding start and stop commands).
For claim 7, the switch actuator (No. 17’) seen in Figures 1-3 of Elliott can certainly be pressed by a user’s finger.
For claim 8, the switch actuator (No. 17’) of Elliott is operated by contacting the retainer (No. 20) in the case (see Fig. 2).
For claim 11, the method taught by Elliott includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) the claimed receiving an orthodontic appliance in a case is achieved using the case (No. 10) for receiving an orthodontic appliance (No. 20), 2) the claimed receiving a start command at a timer is achieved using the switch (No. 17) attached to the case (Col. 2, Lns. 33-34: depressing the switch actuator 17’ and turning switch 17 “on”), which 3) starts the timer in response to receiving the start command (Col. 2, Lns. 34-35: which, in turn, actuates the timer 16), 4) the claimed generating user-perceivable alarm is achieved using the audible signal generator (No. 14) upon expiration of the timer (Col. 2, Lns 46-47: When the delay period T1 has elapsed, a pulsed audible signal is generated), 5) the claimed receiving a stop command is achieved using said switch (Col. 2, Lns. 53-54: When the switch 17 is placed in the “off” position), and 6) stopping the timer in response to receiving the stop command (Col. 2, Ln. 54: the timer resets the clock for counting delay time).
For claim 12, the switch actuator (No. 17’) of Elliott detects the presence of the appliance (No. 20) in the case to start the timer in response (Col. 2, Lns. 33-34: depressing the switch actuator 17’ and turning switch 17 “on”).
For claim 13, the switch actuator of Elliott also is placed in the “off” position when the appliance is removed from the case thereby stopping the timer (Col. 2, Lns. 53-54: When switch 17 is placed in the “off” position, the timer resets the clock for counting delay time).
For claims 14 and 15, the cover (No. 11) of Elliott can be opened or closed thereby enabling or disabling the timer under the pressure of the appliance (No. 20) from a foam pad (No. 13).
For claim 16, the timer of Elliott may be restarted upon insertion of the appliance (No. 20) in the case. The timer is reset (Col. 2, Ln. 54) when the switch is placed in the “off” position.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Wilson [U.S. 9,980,799].
For claim 2, the Elliott reference does include a timer; however, this time is not attached to the cover of the case.
The location of the timer is not limited to that found in the Elliott reference. The dental appliance case taught by Wilson also teaches a case (No. 100) for retaining a dental appliance (No. 200) that uses sensor emitter (No. 33) and sensor receiver (No. 34) in order to detect the presence of the appliance (see Fig. 1). These elements are attached to an apparatus, or “floor” (No. 18), onto which different electronic elements are attached (see Fig. 4). Furthermore, the Wilson device also includes a clock or timer program (No. 28) for detecting the length of time a dental appliance is in said case. Moreover, the Wilson reference also operates a sound device (No. 35) to produce an audible sound after the appliance is within the case for a period of time (Col. 12, Lns. 34-39).
Additionally, the location of the floor (No. 18) does not have to be in the base (No. 12) of the case in Wilson. The Wilson reference also introduces the possibility that the floor and its accompanying electronics (No. 19) may be attached to the lid (Col. 5, Lns. 49-55) or both the lid and the bottom of the case. The important takeaway from the Wilson reference is that the electronics to perform the timer and presence detection need not be in one and only one location in order to function properly. The presence detector and timer found in Elliott may be located in the lid with similar results. As long as the retainer or appliance is detected, the location of the electronics is not a limiting element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the timer and other electronics of Elliott in the lid of its case for the purpose of using one possible location that has been thought of in the prior art.
For claim 5, the case (No. 100) of Wilson may also comprise a communications array (No. 23) that is operable to both send and receive wireless or wired communications over many different types of methodologies (Col. 8, Ln. 56 – Col. 9, Ln. 3). Furthermore, this communication may be performed using different external access client devices such as cell phones, smart phones (No. 300A), and laptop computers (No. 300B). And these devices are equipped with touchscreens in order to initiate communication therebetween.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Wilson et al [US 2021/0236052].
For claim 9, the apparatus of Elliott does not mention a controller to log events of the appliance being removed from the case and a memory to store the log.
The tracking device taught by Wilson includes a case (No. 100) that stores a dental appliance (No. 200) that is used to measure adherence to an aspect of a treatment plan. The case includes an emitter (No. 33) and receiver (No. 34) that can detect the presence of the retainer inside the case. Furthermore, these elements are attached to a “floor” (No. 18) onto which electronic elements (see Fig. 3) are attached in order to detect the presence of the appliance. The device further includes a processing unit (No. 21) that may be used to determine various aspects of the dental appliance. For instance, the processing unit may be configured to calculate the time that the dental appliance was within the cavity (No. 13) of the case based on data collected by the sensor (Paragraph 51). Also, the processing unit may access a timing element, for instance an internal clock, to determine the time that the dental appliance is located in the case. Start times and end times where the appliance is located and removed from the case are recorded. This time duration can then be recorded to compute a cumulative duration over a period of time, and/or cumulative duration of time of all timers over a period of time; for example, one day or one month.
Additionally, this compliance determination may be stored (Paragraph 45) in a memory (No. 25) of the case every hour, day, or other time. Further compliance determinations may be made based on previously stored compliance determinations. A weekly compliance may be based on daily compliance for that week. The Wilson reference plainly shows that the time an appliance is stored in a case may be used in order to log the times in which the appliance may be stored in said case. And this information may be stored in order to determine whether a dental patient has adhered to a recommended compliance plan. And the Elliott reference also includes a timer that can measure the amount of time an appliance is located with a case. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the timer of Elliott to measure cumulative time duration of the appliance in the case for the purpose of producing useful information pertaining to proper adherence to a medical regimen.
For claim 10, the Wilson reference also includes a communication array (No. 23) that can communicate with a server (No. 400) having a server memory (No. 410) that can store the logged events (Paragraph 45: The compliance determination may be stored in…an external storage device, such as the server memory 410).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott in view of Wilson et al [US 2021/0236052] and Wilson [U.S. 9,980,799].
For claim 17, the method of Elliott detects a presence of the appliance (No. 20) in the case. However, there is no mention of generating a log of the detected presence or sending the log to a remote device through a radio transceiver.
The generating a log of the presence of the appliance and transmitting the data to an external memory is similar to the subject matter addressed in the rejections of claims 9 and 10 above as the remote device is met by the server (No. 400) with its server memory (No. 410) or the smart phone (No. 300A) with its client memory (No. 325) found in the Wilson ‘052 reference. However, there is no mention of a timestamp.
Timestamps and time periods have been used in the art of dental cases for some time. The Wilson ‘799 reference by the same applicant may comprise a clock or timer program (No. 28) that may record the time of a sensor event and the time between sensor events (Col. 11, Lns. 54-57). Furthermore, the processing unit may detect how much time and at what times a dental appliance is in or out of its case (Col. 13, Lns. 13-15). Also, the timer program of Wilson may be configured to track input and to correlate the input with a time stamp or time period (Col. 10, Lns. 55-56), which the end user typically uses to control the functions of the components of its case.
The Wilson ‘799 reference shows that timestamps can and have been used in dental appliance cases in order to control the functions of said case. And the Wilson ‘052 reference also includes memory (Nos. 25, 410) that also store times needed in order to track compliance of a dental plan. And timestamps can only aid in keeping track of compliance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include timestamps in the Wilson ‘052 reference for the purpose of aiding in tracking a compliance plan using the electronics found in its case.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al [US 2021/0236052] in view of Wilson [U.S. 9,980,799].
For claim 18, the method taught by Wilson ‘052 includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) the claimed recording appliance in case events at a wearable appliance case is achieved using the processing unit (No. 21) that compares a start time the appliance is located in the case (Paragraph 51) and the end time the appliance in located its case, 2) the claimed recording appliance out of case events is read on the specification (Paragraph 51) that states that the time duration that the dental appliance is located within the case may be based on a cumulative duration of time over a period of time, for instance one day or one month, and/or cumulative duration of time of all timers over a period of time, the cumulative duration requiring the times that the appliance is not located in its case, 3) the claimed determining whether a reporting period has elapsed is read on the specification (Paragraph 45) that states a compliance determination may be performed and/or stored every hour, day, or other time as well as 4) transmitting the data through a wireless transceiver (communication array No. 23) if a reporting period has elapsed by sending a weekly aggregate of compliance determinations instead of daily compliance determinations (Paragraph 62) if battery management of the case is desired. However, there is no mention of recording the in-case events and out of case events with timestamps.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 17 above.
For claim 19, the cumulative duration of time over a period of time mentioned in the Wilson ‘052 reference (Paragraph 51) is the amount of time the appliance has been in the case over a period of time, for example, over one day or one month. The compliance determination may be stored in the local memory (No. 25) of the case (Paragraph 45) or the server memory (No. 410) or client memory (No. 325).
For claim 20, the cumulative duration of time over a period of time mentioned in the Wilson ‘052 reference (Paragraph 51) is the total time the appliance is located within the case. Therefore, this will also reveal when the appliance is out of the case and, ostensibly, worn.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilson [U.S. 10,588,728] provides an intraoral device holder that detects an intraoral device within a cavity.
Bloch et al [U.S. 11,141,603] emits electromagnetic radiation onto surfaces of a user’s teeth.
Wilson et al [US 2024/0423534] stores a medical device and one or more sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Curtis A Kuntz can be reached at 571-272-7499. 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.
JAT
6/16/2025
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687
Prosecution Insights