Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/907,763

APPARATUS, METHOD, AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVING NASAL BREATHING BY REDUCING MOUTH BREATHING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 07, 2024
Examiner
FISHER, VICTORIA HICKS
Art Unit
3786
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
40%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 10m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 40% of resolved cases
40%
Career Allow Rate
273 granted / 676 resolved
-29.6% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 10m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
740
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 676 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed 10/7/2024. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending in the application. 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 . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “wherein, when the upper portion is coupled to the lower portion, a lower jaw of the user is maintained in a closed position with respect to an upper jaw of the user” should be amended to recite ---wherein, when the upper portion is coupled to the lower portion in use, a lower jaw of the user is maintained in a closed position with respect to an upper jaw of the user---. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to correct a grammatical error, “wherein the upper portion directly couplable to the upper teeth of the user” should be amended to recite ---wherein the upper portion is directly couplable to the upper teeth of the user---. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “when the upper portion is coupled to the lower portion, the lower jaw is advanced with respect to the lower jaw” should be amended to recite ---when the upper portion is coupled to the lower portion in use, the lower jaw is advanced with respect to the lower jaw---. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “structures configured to advance the lower jaw with respect to the upper jaw when the upper portion of the sealing arrangement is coupled to the lower portion of the sealing arrangement” should be amended to recite ---structures configured to advance the lower jaw with respect to the upper jaw when the upper portion of the sealing arrangement is coupled to the lower portion of the sealing arrangement in use---. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “structures configured to advance the lower jaw with respect to the upper jaw when the upper portion of the sealing arrangement is coupled to the lower portion of the sealing arrangement” should be amended to recite ---structures configured to advance the lower jaw with respect to the upper jaw when the upper portion of the sealing arrangement is coupled to the lower portion of the sealing arrangement in use---. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mouthpiece" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is 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. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mouthpiece" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the corresponding mouthpiece" (twice recited) in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is 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. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the corresponding mouthpiece" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the corresponding mouthpiece" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Diaz (US 8,839,793 B2). In regards to claim 1, Diaz teaches in Figures 1-5, column 3, lines 32-35, 42-44 and 57-59 and column 4, lines 63-66 a sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) having an upper portion (upper plate 102) attachable to upper teeth of a user (column 3, lines 32-33 teaches “an upper plate 102 which is configured to fit around a portion of the upper teeth of a user”) and a lower portion (lower plate 104) attachable to lower teeth of the user (column 3, lines 33-35 teaches “a lower plate 104 which is configured to fit around a portion of the lower teeth of the user”); wherein the upper portion (upper plate 102) is couplable to (as shown in Figures 1 and 5; column 3, lines 42-44 teaches “a magnetic closure mechanism is provided to operatively connect the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 into the closed configuration shown in FIGS. 1 and 5;” column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”) the lower portion (lower plate 104); and wherein, when the upper portion (upper plate 102) is coupled to (as shown in Figures 1 and 5; column 3, lines 42-44 teaches “a magnetic closure mechanism is provided to operatively connect the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 into the closed configuration shown in FIGS. 1 and 5;” column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”) the lower portion (lower plate 104), a lower jaw of the user is maintained in a closed position with respect to an upper jaw of the user (column 4, lines 63-66 teaches “the respective upper and lower magnets are adjacent to one another when the mandibular advancement device is being worn and the mouth is in a closed position”). In regards to claim 2, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Diaz teaches in Figures 1-3 and column 3, lines 46-48 and 54-57 that the upper portion (upper plate 102) includes (as shown in Figures 1 and 3; column 3, lines 46-47 teaches “an upper magnet 106 on each side of the upper plate 102”) a magnet (upper magnet 106) and the lower portion (lower plate 104) includes (as shown in Figures 1 and 2; column 3, lines 47-48 teaches “a lower magnet 108 on each side of the lower plate 104”) a complementary (column 3, lines 54-57 teaches “the magnets 106, 108 are located adjacent one another in the closed configuration and are provided with opposite polarities so that they are attracted to one another”) magnet (lower magnet 108). In regards to claim 3, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Diaz teaches in column 3, lines 32-35 the upper portion (upper plate 102) directly couplable to the upper teeth of the user (column 3, lines 32-33 teaches “an upper plate 102 which is configured to fit around a portion of the upper teeth of a user”), and the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) is directly couplable to the lower teeth of the user (column 3, lines 33-35 teaches “a lower plate 104 which is configured to fit around a portion of the lower teeth of the user”). In regards to claim 4, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Diaz teaches in column 4, lines 38-45 that the upper portion (upper plate 102) and the lower portion (lower plate 104) are arranged such that, when the upper portion (upper plate 102) is coupled to the lower portion (lower plate 104), the lower jaw is advanced with respect to the lower jaw (column 4, lines 38-45 teaches “the magnets 106, 108 are positioned so that when the upper plate and lower plate are in contact, the lower plate pulls the person's lower teeth and lower jaw forward” and “the magnetic closure mechanism provides a user with advancement of the lower jaw when the upper plate and lower plate are operatively connected”). In regards to claim 5, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Diaz teaches in Figures 1-3 and column 3, lines 32-35 that the upper portion (upper plate 102) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) is coupled (inasmuch as it includes) an upper mouthpiece (upper plate 102) that is configured to couple to the upper teeth of the user (column 3, lines 32-33 teaches “an upper plate 102 which is configured to fit around a portion of the upper teeth of a user”), and the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) is coupled to (inasmuch as it includes) a lower mouthpiece (lower plate 104) that is configured to couple to the lower teeth of the user (column 3, lines 33-35 teaches “a lower plate 104 which is configured to fit around a portion of the lower teeth of the user”). In regards to claim 8, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 5. Diaz teaches in Figure 1 and column 3, lines 64-66 that the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) is disposed interdentally (as shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 64-66 teaches “the magnets 106, 108 are also positioned in an occlusal space (also known as the occlusion) where the upper teeth meet the lower teeth”) . In regards to claim 9, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 5. Diaz teaches in Figure 1 and column 4, lines 5-8 structures (pillars 110, forward adjustment mechanism 112) configured to advance the lower jaw with respect to the upper jaw when (column 4, lines 5-8 teaches “the posterior vertical aspect of each pillar 110 is designed to engage with lateral adjustment devices or mechanisms 112 on the upper plate to keep the jaw in the forward position”) the upper portion (upper plate 102) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) is coupled to (as shown in Figure 1) the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108). In regards to claim 10, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 5 and 8. Diaz teaches in Figure 1 and column 4, lines 5-8 structures (pillars 110, forward adjustment mechanism 112) configured to advance the lower jaw with respect to the upper jaw when (column 4, lines 5-8 teaches “the posterior vertical aspect of each pillar 110 is designed to engage with lateral adjustment devices or mechanisms 112 on the upper plate to keep the jaw in the forward position”) the upper portion (upper plate 102) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) is coupled to (as shown in Figure 1) the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108). In regards to claim 11, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 5. Diaz teaches in Figure 1, column 3, lines 57-59 and column 4, lines 45-51 and 63-66 wherein: one or both of the upper portion (upper plate 102) and the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) are movable between an engaged position (shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”) and a disengaged position (column 4, lines 45-51 teaches “freedom of movement of the jaw by exerting a minimal force to overcome the magnetic force and operatively disconnect the upper plate and lower plate” and “a user is then free to open their mouth to speak, get a drink and otherwise move the jaw in any direction temporarily before closing the mouth again to operatively connect the upper and lower plates”) with respect to the upper mouthpiece (upper plate 102) and lower mouthpiece (lower plate 104), respectively; wherein, in the engaged position (shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”), the upper portion (upper plate 102) is coupled to the lower portion (lower plate 104) when the upper jaw and lower jaw are in the closed position (column 4, lines 63-66 teaches “the respective upper and lower magnets are adjacent to one another when the mandibular advancement device is being worn and the mouth is in a closed position”); and wherein, in the disengaged position (column 4, lines 45-51 teaches “freedom of movement of the jaw by exerting a minimal force to overcome the magnetic force and operatively disconnect the upper plate and lower plate” and “a user is then free to open their mouth to speak, get a drink and otherwise move the jaw in any direction temporarily before closing the mouth again to operatively connect the upper and lower plates”), the upper portion (upper plate 102) is not coupled to (as taught in column 4, lines 45-51) the lower portion (lower plate 104) when the upper jaw and lower jaw are in the closed position (as user’s upper and lower jaws can be closed while moving the jaw in any direction temporarily). In regards to claim 12, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 5 and 11. Diaz teaches in Figure 1, column 3, lines 57-59 and column 4, lines 45-51 that one or both of the upper portion (upper plate 102) and the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) are coupled to the corresponding mouthpiece in the engaged position (shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”) and uncoupled from the corresponding mouthpiece in the disengaged position (column 4, lines 45-51 teaches “freedom of movement of the jaw by exerting a minimal force to overcome the magnetic force and operatively disconnect the upper plate and lower plate” and “a user is then free to open their mouth to speak, get a drink and otherwise move the jaw in any direction temporarily before closing the mouth again to operatively connect the upper and lower plates”). In regards to claim 13, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 5 and 11. Diaz teaches in Figure 1, column 3, lines 57-59 and column 4, lines 45-51 that one or both of the upper portion (upper plate 102) and the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) are slidable between the engaged position (shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”) and the disengaged position (column 4, lines 45-51 teaches “freedom of movement of the jaw by exerting a minimal force to overcome the magnetic force and operatively disconnect the upper plate and lower plate” and “a user is then free to open their mouth to speak, get a drink and otherwise move the jaw in any direction temporarily before closing the mouth again to operatively connect the upper and lower plates”), in relation to the corresponding mouthpiece (the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 are capable of being slid out of engagement, as taught in column 4, lines 45-51). In regards to claim 14, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 5 and 11. Diaz teaches in Figure 1, column 3, lines 57-59 and column 4, lines 45-51 one or both of the upper portion (upper plate 102) and the lower portion (lower plate 104) of the sealing arrangement (upper plate 102, lower plate 104, upper magnet 106, lower magnet 108) are pivotable between the engaged position (shown in Figure 1; column 3, lines 57-59 teaches “the magnets pull the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 together so that they are operatively connected”) and the disengaged position (column 4, lines 45-51 teaches “freedom of movement of the jaw by exerting a minimal force to overcome the magnetic force and operatively disconnect the upper plate and lower plate” and “a user is then free to open their mouth to speak, get a drink and otherwise move the jaw in any direction temporarily before closing the mouth again to operatively connect the upper and lower plates”), in relation to the corresponding mouthpiece (the upper plate 102 and lower plate 104 are capable of being pivoted such that they disengage, as taught in column 4, lines 45-51). 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. Claim(s) 6 and 7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diaz (US 8,839,793 B2) in view of Blechman et al. (US 4,671,767 A). In regards to claim 6, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 5. Diaz does not teach that the sealing arrangement is disposed on a buccal side of the mouthpiece. However, Blechman et al. teaches in the abstract an analogous device wherein the sealing arrangement is disposed on a buccal side of (the abstract teaches “magnets are employed buccally”) the mouthpiece (base arch wires 10 and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the sealing arrangement of Diaz such that the sealing arrangement is disposed on a buccal side of the mouthpiece as taught by Blechman et al. because this element is known to “provide increased force, increased travel, or both, where desired,” as Blechman et al. teaches in column 6, lines 31-37. In regards to claim 7, Diaz teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 5. Diaz does not teach that the sealing arrangement is disposed on a lingual side of the mouthpiece. However, Blechman et al. teaches in the abstract an analogous device wherein the sealing arrangement is disposed on a lingual side of (the abstract teaches “magnets are employed buccally and/or lingually”) the mouthpiece (base arch wires 10 and 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the sealing arrangement of Diaz such that the sealing arrangement is disposed on a lingual side of the mouthpiece as taught by Blechman et al. because this element is known to “provide increased force, increased travel, or both, where desired,” as Blechman et al. teaches in column 6, lines 31-37. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM EST. 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 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. /VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 11/10/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 07, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594179
BRACE TO COVER ATROPHY IN THE SHOULDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12539200
DEVICES FOR TREATING TRISMUS AND METHODS OF USE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12508141
RESTING ORTHOSIS FOR A JOINT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12508149
NASAL CAVITY INSERTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12491105
ANTI SNORING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
40%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+38.4%)
4y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 676 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month