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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1, 6, 13, and 17 in the response filed 2/19/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 and 22 are pending in the application and are examined below.
NOTE: The error in claim numbering (the second instances of claims 6, 12, and 17 should be claims 7, 13, and 18, respectively, to result in the proper numerical order) has been clarified with the Attorney of Record via interview (please see interview summary attached). The second instances of claims 6, 12, and 17 are thus examined as claims 7, 13, and 18 to enable compact prosecution and avoid delay, and the changes are documented under the claim objections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-11 regarding Fallon, Kownacki, Going, and Ruth failing to disclose or teach the newly added limitations to the independent claims regarding the protrusions have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Orrico has been provided for this teaching. Applicant argues on p. 11 that Fallon, Kownacki, Going, and Ruth are directed to different structures for performing their respective functions, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been prompted to modify Fallon to achieve the claimed invention. However, all the references feature oral/dental trays and can thus be considered in the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have occurred to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked at varying features within the oral/dental tray field, despite differences in each individual device.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 12, and 17 are objected to because of the following:
The second instance of claim 6 should be corrected to be Claim 7
The second instance of claim 12 should be corrected to be Claim 13
The second instance of claim 17 should be corrected to be Claim 18
Examination is conducted below incorporating these changes in light of the interview conducted with Attorney of Record (please see interview summary attached) to enable compact prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “adjustment module” in claims 15 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. US 2012/0145166 A1 in view of Orrico US 6,170,485 B1 further in view of Going et al. US 4,063,552 and Ruth et al. US 2018/0206957 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Fallon discloses a mandibular advancement device 1 (fig. 8 and abstract, intraoral mandibular advancement device) with a support baffle (please see annotated fig. A below, where the support baffle is the lingual wall of lower chassis 10), the mandibular advancement device 1 comprising:
an upper tray assembly 7/9, configured to have an arcuate outer shape to conform to an upper dental arch curve of a patient (fig. 8 and [0023], upper chassis 9 and upper tray 7 form the upper tray assembly 7/9, which is shown having an arcuate shape that is capable of conforming to the upper dental arch curve of a patient);
a lower tray assembly 10/12, configured to have an arcuate outer shape to conform to a lower dental arch curve of the patient (fig. 8 and [0023], lower chassis 10 and lower tray 12 form the upper tray assembly 10/12, which is shown having an arcuate shape that is capable of conforming to the lower dental arch curve of a patient);
wherein the upper tray assembly 7/9 includes an upper moldable component 7 and an upper frame 9 ([0022], upper bite impression tray 7 is made from soft impressionable material, and upper chassis 9 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower tray assembly 10/12 includes a lower moldable component 12 and a lower frame 10 ([0023], lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower frame 10 includes the support baffle, configured to be positioned on the lower frame 10 near a tongue side during use (annotated fig. A, the support baffle being the lingual wall of lower chassis 10; [0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10, and thus the lingual wall of lower chassis 10 forms a support baffle against which the tray 12 rests);
wherein the support baffle has a top edge and a bottom edge (annotated fig. A, where the bottom edge of the support baffle is along the bottom edge of the frame where the support baffle meets the occlusal surface of the frame, the bottom direction being in the direction of the occlusal surface of the lower teeth), and a line connecting intersections of the top edge and the bottom edge with a same sagittal plane of the lower frame 10 forms an angle with a horizontal plane between 20 to 150 degrees (please see annotated fig. B below, which shows the top edge and bottom edge of the lingual wall (i.e. support baffle) of the lower chassis 10; this figure is a cross section taken along the sagittal plane of the device, as can be seen in fig. 5; therefore, any vertical line that extends through the top and bottom edges (such as the dashed line in the annotated figure) is a line that connects intersections of the top edge and bottom edge with the sagittal plane of the lower frame; the dashed line is vertical and thus forms a 90 degree angle with the horizontal plane), and
wherein the support baffle is configured to counteract a deforming force on the lower moldable component 12 and support the lower moldable component 12 ([0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10 (which forms the support baffle), and thus the lower chassis 10 supports the impression tray 12; further, as described in [0023], since lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material, lower chassis 10 is capable of counteracting a deforming force on the impression tray 12 by providing a supporting/bracing wall surrounding the outside of the tray 12).
Fallon is silent on the upper frame and the lower frame comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation.
However, Orrico teaches an analogous mandibular advancement device 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 5-9) with an upper frame 12 and lower frame 14 comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 respectively, and are configured to form a space 40 between the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 for airflow circulation (please see annotated fig. D below, which shows the respective protrusions relative to depressions 38, the protrusions extending from the bottom/occlusal walls of upper and lower frames 12/14 at their posterior ends, which form passageways 40 through which air can pass, as described in col. 4, line 54-col. 5, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the upper frame and the lower frame of Fallon with protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation, as taught by Orrico, to create a larger passageway for air, as creating depressions (and thus protrusions formed by the depressions) in each of the upper and lower frames would enlarge the air passageways 76 in Fallon; in other words, while passageways 76 in Fallon are created simply by a gap between the upper and lower frames, forming depressions in the upper and lower frames (such as depressions 38 taught by Orrico), which would in turn create protrusions relative to the depressions, would enable a greater volume of air to pass through.
Fallon in view of Orrico is silent on a thickness of the support baffle being between 0.3 mm to 10 mm.
However, Going teaches a mouthguard (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 3-6) comprising an analogous rigid outer tray/frame 1 (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 24-25; col. 6, lines 26-28) having a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm (col. 5, lines 27-30, 0.5 mm thick).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the thickness of the outer/lower frame comprising the support baffle of Fallon in view of Orrico to have a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm, as taught by Going, as a thin frame would provide the rigid support while not being too bulky or heavy in the mouth; please also note that the specification does not provide evidence as to the criticality of the claimed range.
Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going is silent on the upper moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame.
However, Ruth teaches an oral tray comprising a moldable component ([0001], impression tray for curing an impression material), wherein the moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the tray/frame (fig. 15 and [0094], impression material in impression tray 8 overflows to create overhanging portions 1118/1122/1124 as can be seen in the figure, which would cause the projected area of the impression material on the horizontal plane to be greater than the tray itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the upper moldable component and the lower moldable component of Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going such that the upper moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame, as taught by Ruth, to cushion the surrounding oral tissue from any harder edges of the frames; since Fallon’s upper and lower moldable trays 7/12 are formed by the user biting into impression material, the modification provided by Ruth would allow the impression material to overflow over the edges of the respective frames 9/10.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
403
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
443
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses arcuate shapes of the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12 including at least one of an ovoid arch shape (figs. 7 and 8, the upper and lower impression trays 7 and 12 form oval-shaped U’s), a conical arch shape, and a square arch shape.
Regarding claim 3, Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12 being configured to at least partially conform to the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient during use, respectively ([0029], the impression trays 7/12 are shaped when the patient bites into them).
Regarding claim 4, Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses a length of the bottom edge of the support baffle being greater than 10% of an overall curve length at a bottom edge of the lower frame 10 (annotated fig. A, the length of the support baffle extends about 1/3 the total inner bottom edge of the lower chassis 10, at least greater than 10%).
Regarding claim 5, Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12 including a flexible thermoplastic material ([0022]-[0023], EVA).
Regarding claim 6, Fallon in view of Orrico further in view of Going and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses a hardness of a material of the upper frame 9 and the lower frame 10 being at least partially greater than a hardness of a material of the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12 ([0022]-[0023], bite impression trays 7/12 are made from soft impressionable material, and chassis 9/10 are made from relatively hard and rigid material).
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. US 2012/0145166 A1 in view of Gottsch US 2015/0040917 A1 further in view of Orrico US 6,170,485 B1, Going et al. US 4,063,552, and Ruth et al. US 2018/0206957 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Fallon discloses a mandibular advancement device 1 (fig. 8 and abstract, intraoral mandibular advancement device) with a support baffle (please see annotated fig. A, where the support baffle is the lingual wall of lower chassis 10), the mandibular advancement device 1 comprising:
an upper tray assembly 7/9, configured to be positioned adjacent to an upper dental arch of a patient when located in the patient’s oral cavity (fig. 8 and [0023], upper chassis 9 and upper tray 7 form the upper tray assembly 7/9, which receives the teeth of the upper jaw, as described in [0022]);
a lower tray assembly 10/12, configured to positioned adjacent to a lower dental arch of the patient when located in the patient’s oral cavity (fig. 8 and [0023], lower chassis 10 and lower tray 12 form the upper tray assembly 10/12, which receives the teeth of the lower jaw);
wherein the upper tray assembly 7/9 includes an upper moldable component 7 and an upper frame 9 ([0022], upper bite impression tray 7 is made from soft impressionable material, and upper chassis 9 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower tray assembly 10/12 includes a lower moldable component 12 and a lower frame 10 ([0023], lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower frame 10 includes the support baffle, configured to be positioned on the lower frame 10 near a tongue side during use (annotated fig. A, the support baffle being the lingual wall of lower chassis 10; [0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10, and thus the lingual wall of lower chassis 10 forms a support baffle against which the tray 12 rests), and wherein a top edge of the support baffle slants from the lower frame 10 (annotated fig. A, the top edge of the support baffle begins on each side from the occlusal wall of the lower frame and then slants downwards to its greatest height in the center),
wherein the support baffle is configured to counteract a deforming force on the lower moldable component 12 and support the lower moldable component 12 ([0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10 (which forms the support baffle), and thus the lower chassis 10 supports the impression tray 12; further, as described in [0023], since lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material, lower chassis 10 is capable of counteracting a deforming force on the impression tray 12 by providing a supporting/bracing wall surrounding the outside of the tray 12).
Fallon is silent on wherein, in an orthogonal view from below, the support baffle has a shaded area, and a ratio of the shaded area to an area of the lower frame in the orthogonal view from below is less than or equal to 2:5.
However, Gottsch teaches an analogous lower oral tray 300 (fig. 3 and [0028], stabilizing mouthpiece 300 for use on lower teeth), wherein, in an orthogonal view from below, an analogous support baffle 342 has a shaded area 318 (fig. 3 and [0033], bottom ridge 342 being analogous to Fallon’s support baffle, as it is a ridge/orthogonally-extending lingual wall that extends along the inner edge of the lower tray 300 and protrudes downwards; the orthogonal view of the anterior surface 318 is shaded), and a ratio of the shaded area 318 to an area of the lower frame 300 in the orthogonal view from below is less than or equal to 2:5 (fig. 3, the shaded area is less than 40% of the overall area of the tray 300 in the orthogonal view shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the support baffle of Fallon such that in an orthogonal view from below, the support baffle has a shaded area, and a ratio of the shaded area to an area of the lower frame in the orthogonal view from below is less than or equal to 2:5, as taught by Gottsch, since a small cross sectional area of the support baffle would keep bulkiness of the oral appliance to a minimum.
Fallon in view of Gottsch is silent on the upper frame and the lower frame comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation.
However, Orrico teaches an analogous mandibular advancement device 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 5-9) with an upper frame 12 and lower frame 14 comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 respectively, and are configured to form a space 40 between the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 for airflow circulation (please see annotated fig. D, which shows the respective protrusions relative to depressions 38, the protrusions extending from the bottom/occlusal walls of upper and lower frames 12/14 at their posterior ends, which form passageways 40 through which air can pass, as described in col. 4, line 54-col. 5, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the upper frame and the lower frame of Fallon in view of Gottsch with protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation, as taught by Orrico, to create a larger passageway for air, as creating depressions (and thus protrusions formed by the depressions) in each of the upper and lower frames would enlarge the air passageways 76 in Fallon; in other words, while passageways 76 in Fallon are created simply by a gap between the upper and lower frames, forming depressions in the upper and lower frames (such as depressions 38 taught by Orrico), which would in turn create protrusions relative to the depressions, would enable a greater volume of air to pass through.
Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico is silent on a thickness of the support baffle being between 0.3 mm to 10 mm.
However, Going teaches a mouthguard (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 3-6) comprising an analogous rigid outer tray/frame 1 (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 24-25; col. 6, lines 26-28) having a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm (col. 5, lines 27-30, 0.5 mm thick).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the thickness of the outer/lower frame comprising the support baffle of Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico to have a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm, as taught by Going, as a thin frame would provide the rigid support while not being too bulky or heavy in the mouth; please also note that the specification does not provide evidence as to the criticality of the claimed range.
Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico and Going is silent on the upper moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame.
However, Ruth teaches an oral tray comprising a moldable component ([0001], impression tray for curing an impression material), wherein the moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the tray/frame (fig. 15 and [0094], impression material in impression tray 8 overflows to create overhanging portions 1118/1122/1124 as can be seen in the figure, which would cause the projected area of the impression material on the horizontal plane to be greater than the tray itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the upper moldable component and the lower moldable component of Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico and Going such that the upper moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame, as taught by Ruth, to cushion the surrounding oral tissue from any harder edges of the frames; since Fallon’s upper and lower moldable trays 7/12 are formed by the user biting into impression material, the modification provided by Ruth would allow the impression material to overflow over the edges of the respective frames 9/10.
Regarding claim 8, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico, Going, and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the support baffle being divided into multiple spaced-apart sections (please see annotated fig. C below, which shows the cross section of the lingual wall of the chassis 10 (the support baffle) being divided into two sections spaced apart by a gap).
PNG
media_image4.png
387
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico, Going, and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the lower moldable component 12 having a shape that engages and matches the support baffle (fig. 6, the lower impression tray 12 lines the inside of the lower chassis 10 such that it engages and matches the inner boundary of the lower chassis 10, including its lingual wall (support baffle)).
Regarding claim 10, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico, Going, and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12 being configured to soften when heated, to allow them to be adjusted and molded to respectively match the upper dental arch and the lower dental arch of the patient upon biting down ([0045], the appliance 1 is warmed in boiling water before the patient bites down into the soft impression trays 7/12 to form impressions).
Regarding claim 11, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico, Going, and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12 including a moldable material having a deformation temperature of less than 100 degrees Celsius ([0022]-[0023], the moldable material is EVA; as evidenced by Brett et al. US 6,584,978 B1 in col. 1, lines 49-53, EVA has a softening point at approximately the temp of boiling water, which is 100 degrees C; thus, EVA’s softening point can be considered 100 degrees C, and including slightly below and above).
Regarding claim 12, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Orrico, Going, and Ruth discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper frame 9 and the lower frame 10 including a high-temperature stable material having a deformation temperature greater than 100 degrees Celsius ([0045], the appliance 1 is warmed in boiling water so that the patient can bite into the moldable trays 7 and 9, which is compressed against the relatively hard upper and lower chassis 9 and 10, indicating that the chassis 9/10 have a deformation temperature greater than 100 degrees Celsius since they did not soften at the same temperature as the EVA (which has a softening temperature of approximately 100 C, as discussed above in claim 11)).
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. US 2012/0145166 A1 in view of Gottsch US 2015/0040917 A1 further in view of Going et al. US 4,063,552, Ruth et al. US 2018/0206957 A1, and Orrico US 6,170,485 B1.
Regarding claim 13, Fallon discloses a mandibular advancement device 1 (fig. 8 and abstract, intraoral mandibular advancement device) with a support baffle (please see annotated fig. A, where the support baffle is the lingual wall of lower chassis 10), the mandibular advancement device 1 comprising:
an upper tray assembly 7/9, configured to be positioned adjacent to an upper dental arch of a patient when located in the patient’s oral cavity (fig. 8 and [0023], upper chassis 9 and upper tray 7 form the upper tray assembly 7/9, which receives the teeth of the upper jaw, as described in [0022]);
a lower tray assembly 10/12, configured to positioned adjacent to a lower dental arch of the patient when located in the patient’s oral cavity (fig. 8 and [0023], lower chassis 10 and lower tray 12 form the upper tray assembly 10/12, which receives the teeth of the lower jaw);
wherein the upper tray assembly 7/9 includes an upper moldable component 7 and an upper frame 9 ([0022], upper bite impression tray 7 is made from soft impressionable material, and upper chassis 9 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower tray assembly 10/12 includes a lower moldable component 12 and a lower frame 10 ([0023], lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower frame 10 includes the support baffle, configured to be positioned on the lower frame 10 near a tongue side during use (annotated fig. A, the support baffle being the lingual wall of lower chassis 10; [0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10, and thus the lingual wall of lower chassis 10 forms a support baffle against which the tray 12 rests);
wherein the support baffle has a shape that is higher in a middle and lower on both sides (annotated fig. A shows the support baffle having a higher/greater height in the middle and lower/smaller height on the sides, since the baffle curves downward and increases in height towards the center; please note that Fallon’s support baffle is “higher” in the downward direction in the middle in the same way that Applicant’s support baffle is “higher” in the downward direction, as shown in fig. 3 of Applicant’s figures), and wherein a top edge of the support baffle slants from the lower frame 10 (annotated fig. A, the top edge of the support baffle begins on each side from the occlusal wall of the lower frame and then slants downwards to its greatest height in the center), and
wherein the support baffle is configured to counteract a deforming force on the lower moldable component 12 and support the lower moldable component 12 ([0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10 (which forms the support baffle), and thus the lower chassis 10 supports the impression tray 12; further, as described in [0023], since lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material, lower chassis 10 is capable of counteracting a deforming force on the impression tray 12 by providing a supporting/bracing wall surrounding the outside of the tray 12).
Fallon is silent on wherein, in an orthogonal view from below, the support baffle has a shaded area, and a ratio of the shaded area to an area of the lower frame in the orthogonal view from below is less than or equal to 2:5.
However, Gottsch teaches an analogous lower oral tray 300 (fig. 3 and [0028], stabilizing mouthpiece 300 for use on lower teeth), wherein, in an orthogonal view from below, an analogous support baffle 342 has a shaded area 318 (fig. 3 and [0033], bottom ridge 342 being analogous to Fallon’s support baffle, as it is a ridge/orthogonally-extending lingual wall that extends along the inner edge of the lower tray 300 and protrudes downwards; the orthogonal view of the anterior surface 318 is shaded), and a ratio of the shaded area 318 to an area of the lower frame 300 in the orthogonal view from below is less than or equal to 2:5 (fig. 3, the shaded area is less than 40% of the overall area of the tray 300 in the orthogonal view shown).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the support baffle of Fallon such that in an orthogonal view from below, the support baffle has a shaded area, and a ratio of the shaded area to an area of the lower frame in the orthogonal view from below is less than or equal to 2:5, as taught by Gottsch, since a small cross sectional area of the support baffle would keep bulkiness of the oral appliance to a minimum.
Fallon in view of Gottsch is silent on a thickness of the support baffle being between 0.3 mm to 10 mm.
However, Going teaches a mouthguard (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 3-6) comprising an analogous rigid outer tray/frame 1 (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 24-25; col. 6, lines 26-28) having a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm (col. 5, lines 27-30, 0.5 mm thick).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the thickness of the outer/lower frame comprising the support baffle of Fallon in view of Gottsch to have a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm, as taught by Going, as a thin frame would provide the rigid support while not being too bulky or heavy in the mouth; please also note that the specification does not provide evidence as to the criticality of the claimed range.
Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going is silent on the upper moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame.
However, Ruth teaches an oral tray comprising a moldable component ([0001], impression tray for curing an impression material), wherein the moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the tray/frame (fig. 15 and [0094], impression material in impression tray 8 overflows to create overhanging portions 1118/1122/1124 as can be seen in the figure, which would cause the projected area of the impression material on the horizontal plane to be greater than the tray itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the upper moldable component and the lower moldable component of Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going such that the upper moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame, as taught by Ruth, to cushion the surrounding oral tissue from any harder edges of the frames; since Fallon’s upper and lower moldable trays 7/12 are formed by the user biting into impression material, the modification provided by Ruth would allow the impression material to overflow over the edges of the respective frames 9/10.
Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going and Ruth is silent on the upper frame and the lower frame comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation.
However, Orrico teaches an analogous mandibular advancement device 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 5-9) with an upper frame 12 and lower frame 14 comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 respectively, and are configured to form a space 40 between the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 for airflow circulation (please see annotated fig. D, which shows the respective protrusions relative to depressions 38, the protrusions extending from the bottom/occlusal walls of upper and lower frames 12/14 at their posterior ends, which form passageways 40 through which air can pass, as described in col. 4, line 54-col. 5, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the upper frame and the lower frame of Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going and Ruth with protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation, as taught by Orrico, to create a larger passageway for air, as creating depressions (and thus protrusions formed by the depressions) in each of the upper and lower frames would enlarge the air passageways 76 in Fallon; in other words, while passageways 76 in Fallon are created simply by a gap between the upper and lower frames, forming depressions in the upper and lower frames (such as depressions 38 taught by Orrico), which would in turn create protrusions relative to the depressions, would enable a greater volume of air to pass through.
Regarding claim 14, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going, Ruth, and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper frame 9 and the lower frame 10 being configured to engage and support the upper moldable component 7 and the lower moldable component 12, respectively (fig. 6 and [0022]-[0023], upper chassis 9 receives, engages, and supports upper tray 7, while lower chassis 10 receives, engages, and supports lower tray 12).
Regarding claim 15, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going, Ruth, and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses a position adjustment module 30/48 being provided between the upper frame 9 and the lower frame 10 (figs. 8 and 9 and [0028], locking channels on the bottom of upper chassis 9 receive adjustment blocks 48 on the top of lower chassis 10 to create an adjustable interlocking arrangement).
Regarding claim 16, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going, Ruth, and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the position adjustment module 30/48 having two or more adjustment positions (figs. 8 and 9 and [0028], teeth on the side of channel 30 receive respective interlocking teeth of blocks 48; therefore, each tooth position would be a different adjustment position).
Regarding claim 17, Fallon in view of Gottsch further in view of Going, Ruth, and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses a maximum height of the support baffle being less than or equal to a maximum height of the lower moldable component 12 (fig. 6 shows the height of the lower tray 12 being greater than the height of chassis 10 at this cross section, which is taken in the center sagittal plane of the device, as shown in fig. 5, where the support baffle is located).
Claim(s) 18-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. US 2012/0145166 A1 in view of Going et al. US 4,063,552 further in view of Ruth et al. US 2018/0206957 A1 and Orrico US 6,170,485 B1.
Regarding claim 18, Fallon discloses a mandibular advancement device 1 (fig. 8 and abstract, intraoral mandibular advancement device) with a support baffle (please see annotated fig. A, where the support baffle is the lingual wall of lower chassis 10), the mandibular advancement device 1 comprising:
an upper tray assembly 7/9, configured to be positioned adjacent to an upper dental arch of a patient when located in the patient’s oral cavity (fig. 8 and [0023], upper chassis 9 and upper tray 7 form the upper tray assembly 7/9, which receives the teeth of the upper jaw, as described in [0022]);
a lower tray assembly 10/12, configured to positioned adjacent to a lower dental arch of the patient when located in the patient’s oral cavity (fig. 8 and [0023], lower chassis 10 and lower tray 12 form the upper tray assembly 10/12, which receives the teeth of the lower jaw);
wherein the upper tray assembly 7/9 includes an upper moldable component 7 and an upper frame 9 ([0022], upper bite impression tray 7 is made from soft impressionable material, and upper chassis 9 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower tray assembly 10/12 includes a lower moldable component 12 and a lower frame 10 ([0023], lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material);
wherein the lower frame 10 includes the support baffle, configured to be positioned on the lower frame 10 near a tongue side during use (annotated fig. A, the support baffle being the lingual wall of lower chassis 10; [0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10, and thus the lingual wall of lower chassis 10 forms a support baffle against which the tray 12 rests);
wherein the support baffle is configured to counteract a deforming force on the lower moldable component 12 and support the lower moldable component 12 ([0029], lower impression tray 12 lays below and against the lower chassis 10 (which forms the support baffle), and thus the lower chassis 10 supports the impression tray 12; further, as described in [0023], since lower bite impression tray 12 is made from soft impressionable material, and lower chassis 10 is made from relatively hard and rigid material, lower chassis 10 is capable of counteracting a deforming force on the impression tray 12 by providing a supporting/bracing wall surrounding the outside of the tray 12).
wherein the support baffle has one or more of the following characteristics:
A: having a top edge and a bottom edge, and a line connecting intersections of the top edge and the bottom edge with a same sagittal plane of the lower frame 10 forms an angle with a horizontal plane between 20 to 150 degrees (annotated fig. B, which shows the top edge and bottom edge of the lingual wall (i.e. support baffle) of the lower chassis 10; this figure is a cross section taken along the sagittal plane of the device, as can be seen in fig. 5; therefore, any vertical line that extends through the top and bottom edges (such as the dashed line in the annotated figure) is a line that connects intersections of the top edge and bottom edge with the sagittal plane of the lower frame; the dashed line is vertical and thus forms a 90 degree angle with the horizontal plane);
B. a length of the top edge of the support baffle being greater than or equal to 5 mm;
C. a vertical height of the support baffle being less than or equal to 15 mm.
Fallon is silent on a thickness of the support baffle being between 0.3 mm to 10 mm.
However, Going teaches a mouthguard (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 3-6) comprising an analogous rigid outer tray/frame 1 (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 24-25; col. 6, lines 26-28) having a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm (col. 5, lines 27-30, 0.5 mm thick).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the thickness of the outer/lower frame comprising the support baffle of Fallon to have a thickness between 0.3 mm to 10 mm, as taught by Going, as a thin frame would provide the rigid support while not being too bulky or heavy in the mouth; please also note that the specification does not provide evidence as to the criticality of the claimed range.
Fallon in view of Going is silent on the upper moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component having a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame.
However, Ruth teaches an oral tray comprising a moldable component ([0001], impression tray for curing an impression material), wherein the moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the tray/frame (fig. 15 and [0094], impression material in impression tray 8 overflows to create overhanging portions 1118/1122/1124 as can be seen in the figure, which would cause the projected area of the impression material on the horizontal plane to be greater than the tray itself).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the upper moldable component and the lower moldable component of Fallon in view of Going such that the upper moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the upper frame; the lower moldable component has a projected area greater than a projected area of the lower frame, as taught by Ruth, to cushion the surrounding oral tissue from any harder edges of the frames; since Fallon’s upper and lower moldable trays 7/12 are formed by the user biting into impression material, the modification provided by Ruth would allow the impression material to overflow over the edges of the respective frames 9/10.
Fallon in view of Going further in view of Ruth is silent on the upper frame and the lower frame comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation.
However, Orrico teaches an analogous mandibular advancement device 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 5-9) with an upper frame 12 and lower frame 14 comprising corresponding protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 respectively, and are configured to form a space 40 between the upper frame 12 and the lower frame 14 for airflow circulation (please see annotated fig. D, which shows the respective protrusions relative to depressions 38, the protrusions extending from the bottom/occlusal walls of upper and lower frames 12/14 at their posterior ends, which form passageways 40 through which air can pass, as described in col. 4, line 54-col. 5, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the upper frame and the lower frame of Fallon in view of Going further in view of Ruth with protrusions at a bottom wall of the upper frame and the lower frame respectively, and are configured to form a space between the upper frame and the lower frame for airflow circulation, as taught by Orrico, to create a larger passageway for air, as creating depressions (and thus protrusions formed by the depressions) in each of the upper and lower frames would enlarge the air passageways 76 in Fallon; in other words, while passageways 76 in Fallon are created simply by a gap between the upper and lower frames, forming depressions in the upper and lower frames (such as depressions 38 taught by Orrico), which would in turn create protrusions relative to the depressions, would enable a greater volume of air to pass through.
Regarding claim 19, Fallon in view of Going further in view of Ruth and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the top edge and the bottom edge of the support baffle having continuous curvature (annotated fig. A, the bottom edge of the support baffle and the top edge are both curved in the horizontal plane of the device due to the U-shaped nature of the chassis 10).
Regarding claim 20, Fallon in view of Going further in view of Ruth and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the upper tray assembly 7/9 and the lower tray assembly 10/12 including at least two different materials ([0022]-[0023], bite impression trays 7/12 are made from soft impressionable material, and chassis 9/10 are made from relatively hard and rigid material).
Regarding claim 22, Fallon in view of Going further in view of Ruth and Orrico discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Fallon further discloses the lower moldable component 12 having a shape that engages and matches the support baffle (fig. 6, the lower impression tray 12 lines the inside of the lower chassis 10 such that it engages and matches the inner boundary of the lower chassis 10, including its lingual wall (support baffle)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights