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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Fig. 1-2, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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, the Spine described in claims 8 and 10 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9 uses the term “a mouth” and “a patient”, wherein line 6 uses the term “a user’s mouth”. Even when the Office understands that both terms refer to the same mouth of the user that is the patient, it is suggested to change the term “a mouth” of line 6 to “the mouth” and change “a patient” to ‘the user”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1 uses the term “predetermined heights”, wherein claim 5 uses the term “predetermined distance between an upper and lower jaw”. The Office understands that both descriptions refer to the same limitation. It is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim uses the following terminology “two mouthpieces, “first and second mouthpieces” and “mouthpieces” across the claim. Even when the Office understands that all of them refer to the same limitation, it is suggested to maintain the same nomenclature across the claims.
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 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Congy et al. (WO 2016135526 A1) in view of Mallinckrodt (DE 19900643 A1).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Removal structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Removal structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Removal structure)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Posterior dental stop)][AltContent: textbox (One prop)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
320
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Spacer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Posterior dental stop)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Device)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Removal structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Posterior dental stop)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second biteplate)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First biteplate)][AltContent: textbox (Plurality of props)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Main body)]
PNG
media_image2.png
434
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Congy et al. discloses a device (100), including:
a main body (104);
a plurality of props, wherein each prop in the plurality of props includes a first biteplate and a second biteplate (see annotated Fig. 6c above – where the device includes more than one prop; where each prop is understood to extend through one side of the mouth of the patient), the first biteplate and the second biteplate of each prop being in an inverted configuration with respect to each other (see Fig. 6c above – where each bite plate is located opposing to each other in the lateral direction), each of the first biteplate and the second biteplate of each prop includes a posterior dental stop rising (122a and 123a) from each of the first biteplate and the second biteplate (see annotated Fig. 6b-6c above), and further includes a spacer between the first biteplate and the second biteplate, wherein the spacer has a predetermined length (see annotated Fig. 6c above – where the spacer is considered to be the horizontal portion between each portion extending backwards; where that horizontal portion has a length);
wherein each prop of the plurality of props extends from the main body in an arrangement wherein each prop is independent from the other props (see Fig. 6c above – where each prop is located opposed to each other).
However, Congy et al. does not disclose indicia on the main body indicating a dimension of at least one of the props.
[AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Indicia)]
PNG
media_image3.png
306
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mallinckrodt teaches a tool including a body and the wrench on opposing ends from the body, where the body of the tool includes a size label for each of the wrenches made of rubber or plastic rubber (see Fig. 1-2, and page 1, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of the device of Congy, with the indicia/label of Mallinckrodt, in order to be able to identify immediately and from a distance the correct size of the prop to use from the device.
Regarding claims 3-4, Congy/Mallinckrodt discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where Congy discloses that the main body further includes a removal structure on the opposing tapered holes (101a, 101b) of the body (for claim 3); and wherein the removal structure is a void through the main body, whereby the void is configured to receive a hook or a finger through the device (for claim 4) (see annotated Fig. 6c above – where the opposing tapered holes configured to hold the device attached and positioned to a CBCT; therefore, it is understood that the same structure is used for the removal from the CBCT by removing two shafts 33a and 33b from the two opposing tapered holes).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Congy et al. (WO 2016135526 A1) in view of Lowe et al. (US 20150173856 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Congy et al. discloses device, including:
a set of jaw props including two props, each jaw prop including a body of predetermined height related to a jaw opening, with a perpendicular top and bottom shaped to sit on the teeth (see 6b-6c above),
wherein, each jaw prop in the set of jaw props is connected to another jaw prop in the set of jaw props in an arrangement such that each jaw prop can be inserted into a user’s mouth independently (see Fig. 6c – where each prop is located opposing from each other and connected through structure 104), and
whereby, each jaw prop in the set of jaw props is configured to support the jaw opening of a mouth to a predetermined distance between an upper and lower jaw of a patient in a predetermined open position (see Fig. 6b – due to the body of the prop has a thickness, it is understood that it supports the opening of the mouth to the predetermined distance that is the thickness the jaw prop plate).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lowe et al. teaches a U-shaped bite plate to accommodate the teeth of a patient (see Fig. 3A above). Furthermore, it is taught that it is preferred a series of bite plates to accommodate different size and bite types, where each bite plate has different thickness (see Fig. 3B-3D above), where a predetermined height E of the edges of the bite plate contacting the molars can range from 1-10 mm height (see [0100] – where the range includes the lower range claimed of 10-55 mm). Furthermore, the thickness of the bite plate increases moving to the frontal teeth, having an open bite that ranges from E to D=E+0.5-10 or more preferably 1-3 mm (see [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the set of jaw props of Congy, with having different thickness of jaw props as in Lowe, in order for the props to be able to accommodate different patient’s bite types.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of Congy, Mallinckrodt and Lowe do not describe a device where the plurality of props sums three props; where a first distance between tops of the first biteplate of the first prop is in the range of 10 millimeters (mm) to 25 mm, a second distance between tops of the first biteplate of the second prop is in the range of 20 mm to 40 mm, and a third distance between tops of the first biteplate of the third prop is in the range of 35 mm to 55 mm.
Furthermore, it would not be obvious for a person skill in the art to increase the quantity of props in the device in order to have three props in total instead of the two props of Congy. This is because in Congy’s is needed a space for holding the device to a CBCT during scanning, that by adding an additional prop would change the logistics of using the device and might need to change the shafts needed in the CBCT to hold the device through the removal structures located on the two opposing ends of the main body of the device. If an additional prop is added to this device, it would need to change the engaging mechanism with the CBCT, so that the three props can be used properly.
Therefore, it is understood that the concept of changing the device by adding another prop in Congy would imply redesigning the coupling mechanism between the device and the CBCT. For that reason, it is understood that it would not be obvious to modify the device of Congy to a three props device with the dimensions claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of Congy, Mallinckrodt and Lowe do not describe that the device including a set of jaw props includes least three jaw props in the ranges of 10 mm to 25 mm, 20 mm to 40 mm, and 35 mm to 55 mm.
It is understood as also described above for claim 2, that it would not be obvious for a person skill in the art to increase the quantity of props in the device in order to have three props in total instead of the two props of Congy. This is because in Congy’s is needed a space for holding the device to a CBCT during scanning, that by adding an additional prop would change the logistics of using the device and might need to change the shafts needed in the CBCT to hold the device through the removal structures located on the two opposing ends of the main body of the device. If an additional prop is added to this device, it would need to change the engaging mechanism with the CBCT, so that the three props can be used properly.
Therefore, it is understood that the concept of changing the device by adding another prop in Congy would imply redesigning the coupling mechanism between the device and the CBCT. For that reason, it is understood that it would not be obvious to modify the device of Congy to a three props device with the dimensions claimed.
Claims 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, it is understood that Congy discloses a device including a flat main body (see Fig. 6b-6c above – where the device has a general fat configuration); a first mouth prop extending out from an edge of the main body; and a second mouth prop extending from the edge of the main body; wherein, the first mouth prop and the second mouth prop, each include a spine, and two mouthpieces, the first and second mouthpieces being in inverse position with respect to each other to form inverted mouthpieces and extending out from the spine (104) such that the mouthpieces create a mouth prop of a predetermined distance (see Fig. 6c above).
However, Congy does not disclose including a third mouth prop extending from the edge of the main body; wherein third mouth prop each include a spine and two mouthpieces.
It is understood as also described above for claims 2 and 6, that it would not be obvious for a person skill in the art to increase the quantity of props in the device in order to have three props in total instead of the two props of Congy. This is because in Congy’s is needed a space for holding the device to a CBCT during scanning, that by adding an additional prop would change the logistics of using the device and might need to change the shafts needed in the CBCT to hold the device through the removal structures located on the two opposing ends of the main body of the device. If an additional prop is added to this device, it would need to change the engaging mechanism with the CBCT, so that the three props can be used properly.
Therefore, it is understood that the concept of changing the device by adding another prop in Congy would imply redesigning the coupling mechanism between the device and the CBCT. For that reason, it is understood that it would not be obvious to modify the device of Congy to a three props device with the dimensions claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights