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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/4/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1,6, and 11 have been considered are persuasive but are moot new grounds of rejection applied.
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) 1, 2, 5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd et al. (US8827696) herein after Todd in view of O’Leary et al (US 20190152152) herein after O’Leary.
Regarding claim 1, Todd teaches an orthodontic device (10, Figures 1-7) composed of a metal (Abstract, lines 6-9), comprising a main body (20, Figure 7) having an abutting edge (24, the edge of the device 10), tooth recesses (22, the edge that is fitted around teeth), interdental extensions (the recesses on edge 22, as shown in Figure 2 below) and wire apertures (as shown in labeled figure 7 below, the wires that goes through the body consisting apertures). However, Todd does not explicitly teach that the abutting edge is thicker than the main body.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
570
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
O’Leary teaches a dental device which consist of thicker edges near the gingival regions compared to the other regions (page 3, para. [0027]) which corresponds to the abutting edges being thicker than the main body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to implement thicker abutting areas/edges (lower edge of element 2) in the device of Todd as taught by O’Leary, so that the abutting edges have increased rigidity and structure support where it abuts adjacent oral surfaces, while allowing the remaining main body to remain thinner to reduce the bulk and improve patient comfort.
Regarding claim 2, Todd teaches the palatal splint of claim 1, wherein said main body is horseshoe-shaped (figures 1-7, shows the device is horseshoe shape).
Regarding claim 5, Todd teaches the palatal splint of claim 1, further comprising fixation apertures disposed in the main body (figure 7, wires 38 which are fixation wires connected to the body via apertures as seen).
Claim(s) 6-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd et al. (US8827696) herein after Todd in view of O’Leary et al (US20190152152) herein after O’Leary as in claim 1, and further in view of Pocket Dentistry.
Regarding claim 6, Todd teaches an orthodontic device (10, Figures 1-7) composed of a metal (Abstract, lines 6-9), comprising a main body (20, Figure 7) having an abutting edge (24, the edge of the device 10), tooth recesses (22, the edge that is fitted around teeth), interdental extensions (the recesses on edge 22, as shown in Figure 2) and wire apertures (as shown in labeled figure 7, the wires that goes through the body consisting apertures), the palatal splint affixed to the dental arch and palate which can be either upper or lower dental arch (as in figures 1-7). However, Todd does not explicitly teach that the abutting edge is thicker than the main body.
However, Todd does not explicitly teach that the abutting edge is thicker than the main body, nor the device does not contact the lingual bases of the teeth.
O’Leary teaches a dental device which consist of thicker edges near the gingival regions compared to the other regions (page 3, para. [0027]) which corresponds to the abutting edges being thicker than the main body. However, both Todd and O’Leary do not teach the device does not contact the lingual bases of the teeth.
Pocket dentistry teaches placement of horseshoe shaped palatal splints, which includes placement in such a way where the device does not contact the lingual base of the teeth (lines 46-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to implement thicker abutting areas/edges (lower edge of element 2) in the device of Todd as taught by O’Leary, so that the abutting edges have increased rigidity and structure support where it abuts adjacent oral surfaces, while allowing the remaining main body to remain thinner to reduce the bulk and improve patient comfort.
It is further obvious to place the device of Todd (which includes the abutting edge, the tooth recesses and the interdental recesses) as taught by Pocket dentistry so that the device does not touch the lingual base of the teeth, in order to reduce any unwanted pressure or irritation at the tooth base and to improve patient comfort.
Regarding claim 7, Todd teaches the palatal splint of claim 6, wherein said main body is horseshoe-shaped (figures 1-7, shows the device is horseshoe shape).
Regarding claim 10, Todd teaches the palatal splint of claim 6, further comprising fixation apertures disposed in the main body (figure 7, wires 38 which are fixation wires connected to the body via apertures as seen).
Claim(s) 11-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd et al. (US8827696) herein after Todd in view of O’Leary et al (US20190152152) herein after O’Leary as in claim 1, and further in view of Pocket Dentistry and further view of Scommegna (WO2023175642) herein after Scommegna.
Regarding claim 11, Todd teaches an orthodontic device (10, Figures 1-7) composed of a metal (Abstract, lines 6-9), comprising a main body (20, Figure 7) having an abutting edge (24, the edge of the device 10), tooth recesses (22, the edge that is fitted around teeth), interdental extensions (the recesses on edge 22, as shown in Figure 2) and wire apertures (as shown in labeled figure 7, the wires that goes through the body consisting apertures), the palatal splint affixed to the dental arch and palate either upper or lower arch (as in figures 1-7). However, Todd does not explicitly teach that the abutting edge is thicker than the main body.
However, Todd does not explicitly teach that the abutting edge is thicker than the main body, nor the device does not contact the lingual bases of the teeth nor the Palatal splint is manufactured using Computer aided design.
O’Leary teaches a dental device which consist of thicker edges near the gingival regions compared to the other regions (page 3, para. [0027]) which corresponds to the abutting edges being thicker than the main body. However, both Todd and O’Leary do not teach the device does not contact the lingual bases of the teeth and device manufactured with CAD.
Pocket dentistry teaches placement of horseshoe shaped palatal splints, which includes placement in such a way where the device does not contact the lingual base of the teeth (lines 46-48).
Further, Scommegna teaches wherein the palatal splint is manufactured using computer aided design based on a virtual model of the upper dental arch and palate of a patient (page 1, lines 21-26, page 3, lines 17-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to implement thicker abutting areas/edges (lower edge of element 2) in the device of Todd as taught by O’Leary, so that the abutting edges have increased rigidity and structure support where it abuts adjacent oral surfaces, while allowing the remaining main body to remain thinner to reduce the bulk and improve patient comfort.
It is further obvious to place the device of Todd (which includes the abutting edge, the tooth recesses and the interdental recesses) as taught by Pocket dentistry so that the device does not touch the lingual base of the teeth, in order to reduce any unwanted pressure or irritation at the tooth base and to improve patient comfort.
It is further obvious to manufacture the device of Todd using computer aided design based on a virtual model of the upper dental arch as taught by Scommegna, in order to allow the device geometry to be customized to the patient’s dentition with greater accuracy thereby improving the fit.
Regarding claim 12, Todd teaches the palatal splint of claim 11, wherein said main body is horseshoe-shaped (figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, Todd teaches the palatal splint of claim 11, further comprising fixation apertures disposed in the main body (figure 7, wires 38 which are fixation wires connected to the body via apertures as seen).
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 18, Todd teaches a palatal splint made of metal, however does not teach titanium as a metal used in manufacture. Scommegna teaches wherein the palatal splint is composed of titanium (page 3, lines 10-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the application to manufacture the palatal device of Todd with titanium as taught by Scommegna, because Titanium is a biocompatible material suitable for dental appliances for prolong wear within oral cavity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA N. SAMARASEKARA whose telephone number is (571)272-9653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/SARA N SAMARASEKARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights