PTAB

IPR2025-01104

Ascentcare Dental Products Inc v. Solmetex LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Intraoral Device
  • Brief Description: The ’329 patent discloses an enclosed dental isolation mouthpiece used to retract a patient's tongue and cheek while providing suction to remove fluids and debris during dental procedures. The device includes a main body with two walls defining an interior space, a suction connector, and a cheek retractor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Black - Claims 1-5 and 8 are obvious over Black.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Patent 8,029,280).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Black, which teaches a tongue shield aspirator, discloses every limitation of independent claim 1. Black's aspirator includes a main body narrower at its second end, an anterior layer and posterior layer that function as the claimed first and second walls, transverse walls that act as a bridge structure, and a distal flap that serves as a cheek retractor. Petitioner asserted that during prosecution of a related patent, the Examiner agreed that Black taught the claimed bridge structure. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Black discloses superior and inferior edges (claim 2), a symmetrical design (claim 3), a suction connector (claim 4), a thick neck portion (claim 5), and open sides that function as slits for cleaning (claim 8).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground relies on a single reference. However, Petitioner argued that to the extent certain features are in different embodiments within Black (e.g., a "connecting wall"), a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine them to provide additional structural integrity and anti-collapse properties, which does not require a leap of inventiveness.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as they would be combining features from different embodiments of the same reference to achieve a predictable improvement in structural integrity.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Black and Hirsch - Claims 6, 7, 9-25, and 27-30 are obvious over Black in view of Hirsch.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Black (Patent 8,029,280) and Hirsch (Application # 2003/0134253).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the teachings of Black by adding Hirsch to disclose features related to interlocking connectors, stability bars, and perforations. For independent claim 9, Petitioner argued Black teaches the main body, walls, and cheek retractor, while Hirsch teaches adding perforations along the edges of both walls to improve suction. For claim 6's interlocking cutout, Hirsch discloses slots on a suction connector that engage retention barbs, teaching the claimed feature. For claim 7's stability bar located between the walls, Petitioner argued Black's external stiffener could be modified using Hirsch’s internal spine.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Hirsch's features with Black's device to solve known problems and make predictable improvements. For instance, a POSITA would incorporate Hirsch’s interlocking slots to create a more secure connection for the suction tube in Black, a known area of concern. Similarly, adding Hirsch's perforations to Black's device would be a known method to improve suction efficiency. Modifying Black's external stiffener to be an internal stability bar like in Hirsch would provide better anti-collapse rigidity and cheek retraction force.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in combining these known elements from similar dental devices to achieve predictable functional improvements, such as enhanced suction and structural stability.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Park, Baughan, and Johnson - Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are obvious over Park in view of Baughan and Johnson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Park (Korean Patent No. 10-1082826), Baughan (Patent 3,101,543), and Johnson (Patent 4,017,975).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Park, the primary reference, teaches an enclosed dental mouthpiece with nearly all features of claim 1, including the main body shape, two walls defining an interior space, a connecting sidewall, and a cheek retractor. However, Park is silent on an internal anti-collapse "bridge structure." Baughan was introduced to teach such a structure, specifically projecting discs that prevent a flexible tube from collapsing under suction. Johnson was cited to teach the common practice of forming integral projections on plastic dental devices via injection molding.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would recognize that Park's flexible silicone mouthpiece would be susceptible to collapsing under suction, which would block fluid flow. To solve this predictable problem, a POSITA would look to known anti-collapse techniques, such as the projecting structures taught by Baughan. A POSITA would combine the teachings of Baughan and Johnson with Park to add a bridge structure, thereby preventing collapse and ensuring the device remains functional.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination involves applying a known solution (Baughan's anti-collapse structure) to a known device (Park's mouthpiece) to solve a predictable problem. This application would yield the predictable result of preventing suction collapse, giving a POSITA a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations incorporating Black and/or Hirsch with the Park/Baughan/Johnson combination. Further grounds relied on adding Zheng (Chinese Application # 200420094338.X) to the Black and Park combinations to explicitly teach separating the mouthpiece walls within the cheek retractor portion to improve suction.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that Patent Owner has asserted overly broad constructions for key terms during infringement contentions. For example, Petitioner contended that Patent Owner construes a "connecting wall" to include a bite block, even though the patent specification describes the main body as separate from the mouth prop. Petitioner also noted that terms such as "corresponding," "edge," and "interior surface" are likely to be disputed but argued the challenged claims are invalid under any reasonable construction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-25 and 27-30 of the ’329 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.