DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 1/14/2025. Currently, claims 1-7 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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes legal phraseology, which is not permitted. The term “comprise” (recited a plurality of times) should be removed from the abstract to avoid this error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “the concave surface forming the concavity is positioned so as to be posterior to maxillary central incisors of the patient; and the protrusion is positioned so as to be superior to mandibular central incisors of the patient” should be amended to recite ---the concave surface forming the concavity is positioned so as to be posterior to maxillary central incisors of the patient in use; and the protrusion is positioned so as to be superior to mandibular central incisors of the patient in use---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a patient” in line 4 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the patient---. 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: “engagement mechanism” in claim 4.
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. Applicant’s specification teaches the following structure(s) as performing the claimed function: an extension (e.g., a post, hook, or the like) that may extend into an aperture.
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.
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: “biasing member” in claim 4.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lucas (US 2014/0060549 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lucas teaches in Figures 1-4, [0041], [0049], [0080] and [0083]
an upper portion (maxillary retention piece 3, maxillary guidance component 1-a) comprising a first base (maxillary retention piece 3) and a first feature (maxillary guidance component 1-a), the first base (maxillary retention piece 3) configured to engage upper teeth of a patient ([0049] teaches “the maxillary arch with the maxillary retentive piece (3) molded onto the maxillary teeth;” also shown in Figures 3 and 4), the first feature (maxillary guidance component 1-a) securing to ([0041] teaches “guidance components (1-a), (1-b) are attached respectively to the maxillary retention piece (3) and the mandibular retention piece (2) of a splint (4), respectively, by proper means of attachment”) an anterior area of (as shown in Figures 1 and 4, the maxillary guidance component 1-a is positioned on the anterior apex of the maxillary retention piece 3) the first base (maxillary retention piece 3);
a lower portion (mandibular retention piece 2, mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12) comprising a second base (mandibular retention piece 2) and a second feature (mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12), the second base (mandibular retention piece 2) configured to engage lower teeth of the patient ([0049] teaches “the mandibular arch with a mandibular retentive piece (2) molded onto mandibular teeth”), the second feature (mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12) securing to ([0041] teaches “guidance components (1-a), (1-b) are attached respectively to the maxillary retention piece (3) and the mandibular retention piece (2) of a splint (4), respectively, by proper means of attachment”) an anterior area of (as shown in Figures 1 and 4, the mandibular guidance component 1-b is positioned on the anterior apex of the mandibular retention piece 2) the second base (mandibular retention piece 2);
the upper portion (maxillary retention piece 3, maxillary guidance component 1-a), wherein the first feature (maxillary guidance component 1-a) comprises a concave surface forming a concavity ([0080] teaches “the concave internal surface of the maxillary guidance component (1-a)”);
the lower portion (mandibular retention piece 2, mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12), wherein the second feature (mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12) comprises a protrusion (protrusion 12; Figure 1 teaches the mandibular guidance component 1-b projecting in an upward direction away from mandibular retention piece 2; [0083] teaches “a smooth rounded protrusion (12) is developed on one surface of the square ovoid shaped mandibular guidance component (1-b)”); and
the upper (maxillary retention piece 3, maxillary guidance component 1-a) and lower (mandibular retention piece 2, mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12) portions, wherein the protrusion (protrusion 12) and the concave surface ([0080] teaches “the concave internal surface of the maxillary guidance component (1-a)”) are sized and shaped to define, during occlusion, a biasing force urging a lower jaw of the patient into a particular alignment with an upper jaw of the patient ([0083] teaches “tip of the protrusion (12) is engaged in the flat to concave inner surface of the maxillary guidance component (1-a) and guides and limits the movement of a patients' mandible”), where the protrusion (protrusion 12) contacts the concave surface ([0080] teaches “the concave internal surface of the maxillary guidance component (1-a)”) at a point of contact that is a sole or initial contact between (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) the upper (maxillary retention piece 3, maxillary guidance component 1-a) and lower portions (mandibular retention piece 2, mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12).
In regards to claim 2, Lucas teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Lucas teaches in [0041] that the first feature (maxillary guidance component 1-a) is bonded to ([0041] teaches “Those guidance components (1-a), (1-b) are attached respectively to the maxillary retention piece (3) and the mandibular retention piece (2) of a splint (4), respectively, by proper means of attachment to provide superior anterior guidance to the mandible. The proper means of attachment includes, but not limited to adhesive filler glue, screws and pins, etc.”) the first base (maxillary retention piece 3); and the second feature (mandibular guidance component 1-b, protrusion 12) is bonded to ([0041] teaches “Those guidance components (1-a), (1-b) are attached respectively to the maxillary retention piece (3) and the mandibular retention piece (2) of a splint (4), respectively, by proper means of attachment to provide superior anterior guidance to the mandible. The proper means of attachment includes, but not limited to adhesive filler glue, screws and pins, etc.”) the second base (mandibular retention piece 2).
In regards to claim 3, Lucas teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Lucas teaches in Figure 1 and [0080] that the concave surface forming the concavity ([0080] teaches “the concave internal surface of the maxillary guidance component (1-a)”) is positioned so as to be posterior to maxillary central incisors of the patient (Figure 1 teaches the concave surface of maxillary guidance component 1-a being positioned such that it would be positioned behind at least the front surface of the maxillary central incisors in use); and the protrusion (protrusion 12) is positioned so as to be superior to mandibular central incisors of the patient (Figure 1 teaches the protrusion 12 being positioned such that it would be positioned above the mandibular central incisors in use).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection, set forth in this Office action. Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach the at least one biasing member engaging each of the first engagement mechanism, the second engagement mechanism, and the third engagement mechanism and extending from the second engagement mechanism directly to the first engagement mechanism and from the first engagement mechanism directly to the third engagement mechanism, wherein a portion of the at least one biasing member is laterally anchored to the first engagement mechanism (see 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “engagement mechanism” presented above), in combination with the other element(s) of the claim(s). Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4 and therefore, would also be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LUCAS (US 2014/0370465 A1)
Scheffel (US 2013/0220341 A1)
Grosky (US 2011/0308531 A1)
Connell (US 2011/0277774 A1)
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 12/18/2025