PTAB

IPR2025-01057

Ascentcare Dental Products Inc v. Solmetex LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interoral Device with Detachable Mouth Prop
  • Brief Description: The ’970 patent discloses a dental isolation mouthpiece designed to remove fluids and debris from a patient’s oral cavity during dental procedures. The device comprises a main body configured as a pocket, a suction connector, and a bridge structure with protrusions intended to prevent the device's walls from collapsing under suction.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 1, 9-13, 15-16, and 18 over Park, Baughan, and Johnson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (Korean Patent No. KR10-1082826), Baughan (Patent 3,101,543), and Johnson (Patent 4,017,975).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Park teaches the primary elements of the challenged claims, including a dental mouthpiece with a main body portion configured as a pocket, first and second walls, a connecting wall (sidewall), a suction connector, and a mouth prop. Petitioner argued that Park’s device is made of a flexible material susceptible to collapse under suction but is silent on anti-collapse structures. Baughan was cited to teach an anti-collapse structure in the form of spaced-apart projecting discs on a saliva ejector that prevent a sleeve from collapsing, which Petitioner contended is analogous to the claimed bridge structure with protrusions. Johnson was cited to teach the common practice of integrally forming such projections on a dental apparatus via injection molding.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to solve the predictable problem of Park's flexible mouthpiece collapsing under suction. A POSITA would look to known anti-collapse solutions like Baughan’s and apply them to Park’s device. Incorporating the protrusions integrally, as taught by Johnson, was presented as an obvious manufacturing choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known technique (anti-collapse projections) to a known device (a flexible mouthpiece) to achieve a predictable result (preventing suction-induced collapse).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 17 over Park, Baughan, Johnson, and Black

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (Korean Patent No. KR10-1082826), Baughan (Patent 3,101,543), Johnson (Patent 4,017,975), and Black (Patent 8,029,280).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Black to address limitations related to a removable and interchangeable mouth prop. Petitioner argued that while Park’s mouth prop (tooth support section) is integral, Black explicitly teaches a removable bite block that attaches to a tongue shield aspirator. Black’s bite block includes a circular conduit ("strap") that fits around the aspirator’s neck, can be made of elastic material, and is available in different sizes for different patients.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify Park’s integral mouth prop to be removable and interchangeable, as taught by Black, to accommodate different patient mouth sizes. This modification addresses a well-known need for customizable sizing in dental appliances.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Black provides a clear blueprint for rendering a bite block removable, and applying this known design to the Park mouthpiece was a straightforward modification to improve functionality.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 14 over Park, Baughan, Johnson, and Hirsch

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (Korean Patent No. KR10-1082826), Baughan (Patent 3,101,543), Johnson (Patent 4,017,975), and Hirsch (Application # 2003/0134253).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 14’s limitation of a "stability bar protruding from an interior surface…along a longitudinal axis." Petitioner noted that Park’s figures depict a line along the longitudinal axis but do not describe its function. Hirsch was cited to explicitly teach a "spine" (stability bar) running down the longitudinal axis of a similar dental mouthpiece.
    • Motivation to Combine: Hirsch teaches that its spine provides rigidity and assists in dispersing light. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the spine from Hirsch into the Park device to gain these same known benefits of increased rigidity and improved light handling, particularly since both devices perform similar functions.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in adding this feature, as it involved combining similar elements from analogous devices to achieve predictable improvements in structural integrity and performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that while claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, the Patent Owner asserted overly broad constructions during infringement contentions. Specifically, Petitioner highlighted that Patent Owner’s interpretation of "connecting wall" to encompass a separate and detachable mouth prop, and "corresponding" to apply to flaps of different sizes and shapes, is inconsistent with the patent’s specification and should be rejected.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • A central technical contention was that a POSITA would inherently understand that Park’s mouthpiece, described as being made from a flexible material like silicone, would be prone to collapse under suction. This understanding would create a clear and obvious motivation to incorporate an anti-collapse structure, even if Park did not explicitly identify this problem.
  • Petitioner also contended that the figures in Park, when viewed by a POSITA, clearly depict an enclosed mouthpiece with continuous sidewalls forming an interior chamber, thereby satisfying limitations for a "pocket" even where the text is not explicit.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and a final written decision canceling claims 1-4 and 7-18 of the ’970 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.