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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responding to applicant’s amendment filed on 4/13/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 13-15, and 18 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 10-12, and 16-17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections and the 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The claims, as amended, have been carefully considered and deemed not allowable in view of the following interpretation which necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 18 requiring a (primary) denture set suitable for chewing, such recitation deems new matter because the originally-filed specification does not provide disclosure support for such scope, see last paragraph on page 29 and see also bottom of page 15 to top of page 16.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 18, as amended, now requiring the method for providing a multifunctional denture system, such recitation (with emphasis added) deems new matter because the originally-filed specification does not provide such scope.
Regarding claim 2 requiring claimed (primary) denture meant for chewing, such recitation deems new matter because the originally-filed specification does not provide disclosure support for such scope, see last paragraph on page 29 and see also bottom of page 15 to top of page 16.
Dependent claims 4, 6-8, and 13-15 are rejected insofar as they depend from a rejected claim and thereby incorporate the deficiency due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 13-15, and 18 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 18 reciting two (primary & secondary) denture sets, such recitation deems indefinite as it is unclear how these two dentures relate to each other, thereby rendering the denture sets as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the secondary denture" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the primary denture" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2 requiring the primary denture set adequate or more suitable for cosmetic or anti-snoring or both, such reciting (with emphasis added) indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by adequate and what is meant by more suitable, such terms render indefinite as claim 2 has not provided what structure necessary to fulfill the intended cosmetic or anti-snoring outcome.
Regarding claim 4 requiring the secondary denture set having “a different price” as an attribute to characteristic compared to that of the primary denture set, such attribute deems indefinite as price is a non-structural feature, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that price of a product in the market is unpredictable and therefore rendering such recitation indefinite.
Regarding claim 6 introducing a set of multiple pairs of straps, such recitation appears to be straps in addition to straps recited in claim 1, if it is the case, applicant might consider reciting “further” to imply that straps in claim 6 are further limiting scope of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9 reciting namely in last paragraph thereof, such reciting indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by namely, applicant invited to review the context of such recitation and provide clarification therefore.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the strap" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "straps" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 7-8 and 15 are rejected insofar as they depend from a rejected claim and thereby incorporate the deficiency due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMTU TRAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4799. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAMTU T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights