PTAB

IPR2025-01175

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 ’418 patent discloses an isolation mouthpiece for use in dental procedures. The device features a main body with first and second walls, a wave-like structure with crests and troughs to maintain separation and allow fluid suction, perforations for fluid removal, a suction connector, a mouth prop, and a cheek retractor.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Black and Hirsch - Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19 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: Petitioner argued that Black taught the fundamental structure of the claimed mouthpiece, including a main body with corresponding anterior and posterior walls (first and second walls), and transverse walls that form a wave-like anti-collapse structure with troughs for fluid flow. Petitioner asserted that various embodiments in Black also disclosed a "third wall" connecting the main walls, a varying width profile, a suction connector, a mouth prop, and a cheek retractor. Hirsch was introduced to supply limitations allegedly not explicitly taught in a single Black embodiment. Specifically, Hirsch was argued to teach a mouthpiece with perforations along its edges, a cutout in the suction connector to engage a vacuum adapter, and a central stability bar (spine) for added rigidity.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hirsch's features with Black's device to achieve predictable improvements. Adding Hirsch's perforations to Black's walls would improve suction and fluid removal from the oral cavity. Incorporating Hirsch’s suction connector cutout would provide a more secure and reliable connection to the vacuum source, a known objective in the field. Finally, adding Hirsch’s stability bar to Black’s design would increase anti-collapse rigidity and enhance cheek retraction force.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as both references address dental isolation mouthpieces, and the proposed modifications involved combining known features to enhance well-understood functions like suction, structural integrity, and connection security.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Park, Baughan, and Johnson - Claims 20-22 and 24-28 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 disclosed a flexible, enclosed mouthpiece with most of the claimed structural elements, including a main body with a first and second wall defining an interior space, a "third wall" (sidewall) connecting them, a cheek retractor, and a suction connector. However, Petitioner argued that Park was silent on internal anti-collapse structures, making its flexible body susceptible to collapse under suction. Baughan was cited for its teaching of using spaced-apart projecting discs on a suction tube to prevent a surrounding flexible sleeve from collapsing. Johnson was cited for teaching the conventional technique of forming integral projections on flat, injection-molded plastic dental apparatuses.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would recognize the potential for Park's flexible silicone mouthpiece to collapse under suction, which would block fluid flow. This known problem would motivate the POSITA to seek an anti-collapse solution. Baughan provided a simple, known mechanical solution using spaced-apart projections to maintain separation between surfaces. A POSITA would apply Baughan's anti-collapse principle to Park's device by adding projections to an interior wall, as taught by Johnson, to prevent collapse and ensure continuous suction.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as the application of a known technique (Baughan's anti-collapse structure) to a known device ready for improvement (Park's mouthpiece) to solve a predictable problem (suction-induced collapse). This would predictably yield a mouthpiece that maintains its internal space during use.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Park, Baughan, Johnson, and Hirsch for claims 1-9, 11-17, and 23. Further grounds relied on adding Black and/or Zheng (Chinese Application # 200420094338.X) to these core combinations to supply specific teachings on features like wall thickness or the precise manner in which walls merge in the cheek retractor portion.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that it adopted the Patent Owner's broad constructions, as implied from its infringement contentions, to demonstrate invalidity. Petitioner highlighted that the Patent Owner appeared to be asserting a broad meaning for terms like "corresponding shape" to mean a general resemblance rather than being identical. It also noted the Patent Owner’s interpretation of a "connecting wall" could encompass a bite block, even though the patent specification described the main body as separate from the mouth prop. Petitioner contended the claims are invalid under either party's likely construction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-28 of the ’418 patent as unpatentable.