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 .
Election/Restrictions
The previous Restrictions Requirement has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s view and remarks.
The following Election of Species is presented below based on applicant’s suggestion.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct
Species A, Figures 1-3 illustrate mandibular advancement having upper/lower dentures
Species B, Figure 4 illustrate mandibular advancement having upper/lower dentures with implant pins
Species C, Figures 6 and 12-16, mandibular advancement in combination with strap subassembly
Species D, Figure 17B, stand-alone breathing assist device
The species are independent or distinct because each species fully functional by itself and does not rely on the other. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 appears to be generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C of Figure 6 and 12-16 in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected of Species D of Figure 17B because independent claim 11 has not positively defined/incorporate mandibular advancement system in the claim, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/6/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, removable partial denture (claim 8) and clasp (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, and 17 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 claim 1 reciting “adjustable means” in line 1, claim 4 reciting “means to link” in line 1, and claims 5-6 reciting “means to line” in line 2,
which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s originally-filed specification has not properly provided a corresponding structure for claimed limitation a first plurality of coupling members and a second plurality of coupling members. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper jaw" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the denture" in lines 3-4 and 6-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the casings" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said casings" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 9 reciting “namely” in lines 1 and 2, respectively, such recitation deems indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by namely.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the casing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9 reciting mandibular/maxillary denture set is provided as any one of implant support dentures, namely single tooth dental implant, or multiple-tooth on implant-supported bridge, or multiple-tooth on implant-retained denture, such further defining deems indefinite as it is unclear how mandibular/mandibular dentures are provided as implant-supported dentures and what structures in the denture champions as being implant supported dentures.
Regarding claim 17 reciting effective strap in “adjust” step, it is unclear what structure/measurement is intended for length of strap to be effective.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the screw" in “tighten” step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the stopper" in “tighten” step (occurs twice in “tighten” step). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the gross length of strap" in “tighten” step. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17 reciting by snapping into a notch, such recitation deems indefinite as snapping appears to be a function of securing the strap around the mandibular advancement device instead of “encircling” step.
Regarding claim 17 reciting relief from snoring or obstructive sleep apnea in “adjust” step, such recitation deems confusing because it is inconsistent with preamble of claimed invention which is to use of adjustable strap assembly in conjunction with a mandibular advancement device.
Dependent claim 10 are rejected insofar as they depend from a rejected claim and thereby incorporate the deficiency due to their dependency.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dyal (U.S. Patent No. 4,059,899).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 1-3 in Dyal discloses applicant’s claimed system for preventing or assisting in reducing condition of snoring or obstructive sleep apnea comprising of
a mandibular part (Figure 1 illustrates lower/mandibular part);
a maxillary part (Figure 1 illustrates upper/maxillary part);
and adjustable means to link together the mandibular and maxillary parts for enabling lower jaw to advance relative to the upper jaw facilitating mandibular advancement (pins 30,32 and strap 25 are interpreted as adjustable means).
Regarding claim 2, Dyal reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system for preventing or assisting in reducing condition of snoring or obstructive sleep apnea, comprising all features as recited in these claims, wherein said mandibular part is a lower member splint structured to engage with one or more natural teeth on user's mandible, and said maxillary part is an upper member splint or tray structured to engage with one or more natural teeth on user's maxilla (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Dyal presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system. With respect to claim 6 requiring at least one or more of the mandibular part, the maxillary part, and means to link them together is/are made by additive manufacturing process, such recitation sets forth is a product-by-process limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyal (U.S. Patent No. 4,059,899) in view of Korean Application (KR 20150025184A),
Regarding claim 3, Dyal reference, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system for preventing or assisting in reducing condition of snoring or obstructive sleep apnea, discloses all features as recited in these claims, wherein said mandibular part is a mandibular denture adapted to be worn on lower jaw of a user, and said maxillary part is a maxillary denture adapted to be worn on upper jaw of the user (see Figure 1-3 in Dyal).
Dyal does not disclose wherein retention of the denture on user's jaw is enhanced by use of glue between the denture and gum wherein retention of the denture on user's jaw is enhanced by use of glue between the denture and gum.
However, Korean Application (KR 20150025184A) teaches non-toxic gel so that denture can be fixed to gum, the gel is an adhesive holding power which weakens with time (see Background-Art section of document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to modify Dyal invention such that use of non-toxic adhesive gel is applied between denture and gum, taught by Korean Application (KR 20150025184A), as such gel maintains the denture in place, to avoid irritations during chewing.
Regarding claim 8, Dyal reference/Korean Application combination, presented above, discloses applicant’s claimed system for preventing or assisting in reducing condition of snoring or obstructive sleep apnea, wherein said mandibular and maxillary dentures constitute a denture set that is provided as removable full dentures (see Figure 2 in Dyal).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dyal (U.S. Patent No. 4,059,899) in view of Rago (U.S. Patent Application No. US 2019/0209363).
The Dyal, presented above, does not disclose means to link them togteher is made of bio-compatible Nylon.
However, Figure 3a-3b in Rago teaches bands/straps (322) connecting upper/lower dental trays (314, 316), paragraph 0082 discloses bands (322) is formed from nylon-based material, e.g. PA 2200 nylon, polyamide 12 nylon, Rago oral appliance is to be utilized within the user’s mouth, hence bands 322 deems biocompatible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to applicant’s effective filing date to construct Dyal’s straps (25), modified by Korean Reference, using Rago’s nylon-based material, as such material is known for being durable.
Conclusion
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