US 9788924

Summary — US Patent 9,788,924 (US9788924B2)

Search note on scope: I searched for this exact patent number ("9788924" / "9,788,924") in USPTO-facing sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Justia) and for CAFC 2026 docket entries. No CAFC 2026 appeal, petition, or other Federal Circuit matter involving this specific patent surfaced in my searches — I did not substitute or expand to similar numbers. The Google Patents record carries a generic "Family has litigation" flag pointing to Darts-ip family 50881306, but I could not confirm any specific CAFC 2026 docket from the available search results, so treat the absence of CAFC activity as unverified rather than definitive.

Bibliographic data (authoritative, from the USPTO record as mirrored on Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline)

• Title: Intraoral device with bridge
• Patent No.: US9788924B2
• Application No.: US14/228,050 (published as US20140212838A1 on 2014-07-31)
• Filing date: March 27, 2014
• Issue (grant) date: October 17, 2017
• Priority date: December 7, 2012 (provisional US61/734,939); filed as a continuation of US14/100,323 (issued as US8911232B2, "Intraoral dental suction and isolation system")
• Inventors: Thien Nguyen; Tam Thanh Pham (the recorded assignment spells the second name "THAM THANH PHAM")
• Assignee / ownership chain:
  • Filed by Dryshield LLC (original assignee on the record)
  • Assigned to Incept, Inc. at filing (recorded 2014-03-27)
  • Converted back to Dryshield, LLC (recorded 2017-06-20, effective 2017-01-27)
  • Assigned to Solmetex, LLC (recorded 2022-06-06, effective 2022-05-09)
  • Later security interests recorded: Midcap Financial Trust (2022), and Churchill Agency Services LLC as administrative agent (2025-03-18)
  • Current status: Active; adjusted expiration December 10, 2033; maintenance fees paid for year 4 (2021) and year 8 (2025), small entity
• Classifications: A61C17/06 (saliva removers), A61C17/02, A61C17/08, A61C17/043

Abstract (verbatim)

"A dental mouthpiece is provided that may be attached to a high-suction dental adapter for the purpose of assisting the dental staff during dental procedures through chair-side, hands-free suction, and isolation. Such mouthpiece may include a main body portion, a cheek retractor portion, and a suction connector portion. In some embodiments, the main body portion, cheek retractor portion, and suction connector portion (and sub-portions thereof) may be molded in one piece, preferably by injection molding. In an exemplary embodiment, the mouthpiece may be made of a material that is flexible, translucent, conducive to injection molding, high heat-resistant, and autoclavable. Such a material may include silicone. Because the mouthpiece may be made of a high heat-resistant and autoclavable material, such a mouthpiece may be reusable."

Claims overview

The patent has 19 claims, with only one independent claim (claim 1); claims 2–19 all depend from claim 1 (directly or indirectly).

Independent claim 1 — plain-language overview:
A mouthpiece made of an elastomeric, resilient material, having:

1. A main body portion with distal and proximal ends, formed as a pocket whose interior is defined by:
   • an anterior wall (defined by an exterior edge),
   • a posterior wall whose exterior edge matches the anterior wall's edge, and which carries an internal bridge structure — a set of protrusions molded integrally with (one piece from) the posterior wall's interior surface, extending nearly the full gap between the anterior and posterior walls. The bridge is not attached to the anterior wall, and the protrusions are arranged in a wave shape with crests and troughs (crests acting as contact points to hold the walls apart under suction; troughs providing open gaps for fluid/air flow), and
   • a side wall joining the matching exterior edges of the two walls; and
2. A cheek retractor portion connected to the distal end of the main body and extending laterally outward from it (to retract the patient's cheek).

Dependent claims (2–19) at a glance:

• Claims 2–4: bridge crests define spaced contact points; troughs form spaces between contact points.
• Claims 5–6: a suction connector portion at the proximal end in fluid communication with the pocket interior and a vacuum source; the bridge keeps the bendable anterior/posterior walls separated during suction.
• Claim 7: the bridge's shape corresponds to the shape of the anterior and/or posterior wall.
• Claim 8: perforations in the anterior, posterior, and/or side walls.
• Claim 9: a longitudinal slit in the anterior wall.
• Claim 10: a stability bar protruding from the posterior wall interior, spaced from the bridge.
• Claim 11: one-piece injection molding of the main body.
• Claim 12: flexible, translucent, high-heat-resistant, autoclavable silicone-based material.
• Claim 13: anterior and posterior walls have different thicknesses.
• Claims 14–19: a detachable mouth prop with a bite-block portion and a strap portion; one-piece injection-molded; strap fits around the suction connector portion (claim 17); strap sits flush in a notched region of the connector (claim 18); bite block has an opening matching a plug on the main body (claim 19).

Caveats

• The assignee shown varies by source and date: FreePatentsOnline lists "Incept, Inc." (the assignee at grant-era record), while Google Patents' assignment log shows the chain through Dryshield, LLC and ultimately Solmetex, LLC. The most recent recorded assignment (2022) names Solmetex, LLC as assignee, subject to later security interests.
• No authoritative CAFC 2026 docket for patent 9788924 was found in my searches; I cannot confirm or deny pending Federal Circuit litigation involving this exact patent.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 9,788,924.

The search results point to a significant case: Solmetex LLC v. Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. in the Western District of Michigan. I need to verify whether US 9,788,924 is specifically one of the asserted patents. Let me dig deeper.

Let me verify whether US 9,788,924 itself (as opposed to family members) is asserted in the district court case, and search for any IPRs directly challenging this patent.

Summary Answer

Based on my searches of the available public litigation sources (Unified Patents portal, PTAB/docket records, court filings cited in IPR exhibits, and patent-office documents), I found no district court litigation or PTAB proceeding that names US Patent 9,788,924 itself as an asserted or challenged patent. I could not identify any case in which US 9,788,924 ("Intraoral device with bridge") is the patent-in-suit.

What I can say with reasonable confidence, however, is the following context, because the patent belongs to a family that is in active litigation:

Related (family) litigation — does NOT include '924 as an asserted patent

• Solmetex, LLC v. Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.)
  • Plaintiff: Solmetex, LLC (successor-in-interest to Dryshield LLC / Incept Inc., which own the '924 patent family)
  • Defendant: Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan (Southern Division)
  • Filed: September 16, 2024 (complaint served on Ascentcare around December 10, 2024)
  • Nature: Patent infringement (plus Lanham Act false advertising, later dismissed with prejudice), involving Solmetex's DryShield® mouthpieces vs. Ascentcare's VacuLUX mouthpieces
  • Status (as of current date): Ongoing. Claim construction was scheduled; Solmetex's motion to stay was denied September 3, 2025; case management activity continued into 2026 (settlement conference orders as of April 2026). The Court's orders indicate ten patents at issue (seven utility + three design), later narrowed.
  • Sources: Unified Patents portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Michigan%20Western%20District%20Court/case/1:24-cv-00954); district court order at ECF No. 54.

Important caveat: In the papers filed in this case and the related IPRs, US 9,788,924 is expressly described as "an unasserted patent in the First Family." For example, in IPR2025-01057 briefing, the parties discuss the prosecution history of "U.S. Patent No. 9,788,924, an unasserted patent in the First Family" (see PTAB exhibit documents at ptacts.uspto.gov). The asserted patents in the case are later-issued family members (e.g., U.S. 11,589,969; 11,589,970; 11,744,686; 11,826,217; 12,011,329; and others challenged in IPR/PGR), not the '924 patent itself. A Korean IP-NAVI record of the dispute likewise lists the asserted patents as the later family members and does not include 9,788,924.

Related PTAB proceedings — none challenge '924 directly

Ascentcare filed multiple inter partes review and post-grant review petitions against Solmetex family members (e.g., IPR2025-01020, IPR2025-01057, IPR2025-01059, IPR2025-01065, IPR2025-01104, IPR2025-01175, and a PGR), but none of these challenges U.S. Patent 9,788,924 directly. The '924 patent is cited in those proceedings only for its prosecution history (e.g., claim language concerning "bridge structure" / "wave shape" / interior surface).

Other notes

• Google Patents displays a "Family has litigation" tag and a Darts-IP link for family 50881306 on the '924 page. That is a family-level litigation indicator (triggered by litigation over related members of the same patent family) and is not itself evidence that US 9,788,924 is a patent-in-suit.
• US 9,788,924 (issued Oct. 17, 2017) is a continuation of US 8,911,232 and is part of the same family as the five "Intraoral device" continuations filed March 27, 2014 (apps. 14/228,046; 14/228,050; 14/228,054; 14/228,057; 14/228,061).

Candid limitations

I did not find (and cannot confirm) any case — historical or pending — in which US 9,788,924 was asserted or challenged by name. My search was limited to publicly indexed sources; I could not exhaustively query PACER or Darts-IP. If you need a definitive statement, I would recommend a PACER party-name and patent-number search and a Darts-IP search on the '924 patent number directly, plus the USPTO Patent Center litigation search, to rule out any older or sealed matter.

I found a lead — IPR2025-01059 (Ascentcare Dental Products) involving the related '686 patent in the same family. Let me verify whether any IPR targets 9788924 itself and map the family-wide PTAB activity.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 9,788,924 itself. The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal list included in this prompt returns no IPR/PGR/CBM for this patent, and my web searches surfaced no petition that names 9,788,924 as the challenged patent. That makes the bottom-line defensive posture simple: all 19 claims of the '924 patent are untested at the PTAB — none have been canceled, none have been sustained in a Final Written Decision, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has been generated against anyone on this patent. The only PTAB activity touching this patent family (Ascentcare's 2025 IPR wave against sibling DryShield/Solmetex patents) is directed at other members of the same continuation family — not at the '924 patent — and at least one of those petitions was denied institution on discretionary grounds (IPR2025-01059, denied 2025-10-10).

Proceedings against US 9,788,924

There are no proceedings to report against this patent. The USPTO ODP ingest shows no AIA trial proceedings on file, and independent web search (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, PTAB docket aggregators) found no IPR202x-, PGR202x-, or CBM201x- petition identifying Patent No. 9,788,924 / Application No. 14/228,050 as the challenged patent. I did not locate any proceeding number to fill in, and I will not invent one.

Adjacent context you should know about (family-member proceedings, NOT on the '924 patent)

Because a defendant facing the '924 patent is very likely facing the same Solmetex/DryShield portfolio and the same parallel litigation, these adjacent proceedings matter operationally. They are flagged here explicitly so they are not mistaken for challenges to the '924 patent:

IPR2025-01059 — Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc. v. Solmetex, LLC (challenging US 11,744,686, the sibling "Intraoral device" patent, App. 14/228,057 — same continuation family and near-identical specification as the '924 patent)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-05-28
• Status: Discretionary Denial — institution denied by Director Discretionary Decision dated 2025-10-10; proceeding terminated 2025-10-10 (source: PTAB docket aggregator pages for IPR2025-01059)
• Challenged claims: 12–21 of the '686 patent
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness over Park (KR10-1082826) + Baughan (US 3,101,543) + Johnson (US 4,017,975) for claims 12–15, 17–18, 20–21; and that combination further + Hirsch (US 2003/0134253) for claims 16 and 19 — strikingly, the same "bridge structure" anti-collapse and "stability bar" concepts embodied in '924 claims 1 and 10
• Institution decision: Denied 2025-10-10, on discretionary grounds (patent owner's Preliminary Response was filed 2025-10-01 and urged discretionary denial given the parallel district court litigation, Solmetex, LLC v. Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV, W.D. Mich.)
• Final Written Decision: None (institution was denied)
• Settlement/termination: No settlement; terminated by denial of institution; filing fee refunded
• Appeal: None identified
• Relevant to you because: Ascentcare's Sotera stipulation filed in the W.D. Mich. case references a coordinated wave of six IPRs (IPR2025-01020, -01057, -01059, -01065, -01104, -01175) against the '969, '970, '686, '217, '329, and '418 family patents. The '924 patent is conspicuously not among the challenged patents — and none of these proceedings creates estoppel or claim-cancellation against the '924 patent.
• Defensive value: Limited to pattern evidence: the PTAB has shown willingness to defer this family's validity fights to Judge Jonker's W.D. Mich. courtroom rather than institute parallel IPRs.

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED: none. Claims SUSTAINED in a FWD: none. Claims UNTESTED: all 19 (claim 1 independent; claims 2–19 dependent). No AIA trial has been instituted on the '924 patent, so no claim of it has been held unpatentable or patentable by the Board. If a demand letter cites '924 claims 1–19, every one of those claims is presently presumed valid and completely unblemished by PTAB proceedings.

Estoppel landscape: Because no IPR/PGR was instituted on the '924 patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel has not attached to anyone with respect to the '924 patent. Every § 102 and § 103 ground that could be raised on the basis of patents or printed publications remains fully available — both to Ascentcare (whose Sotera stipulation is limited to the six other family patents it actually petitioned) and to any new defendant. The art Ascentcare deployed against the sibling patents (Park KR10-1082826, Baughan US 3,101,543, Johnson US 4,017,975, Hirsch US 2003/0134253) plus the Mr. Thirsty art of Dr. Brian Black (US 8,029,280; US 8,292,620) and the Innerlite/Isolite line (US 6,213,772 to Drident; the Hirsch family) is all fair game against '924 in district court or in a fresh IPR petition.

Pattern signals: This is a small-family, serial-petition situation on the petitioner side — Ascentcare filed six coordinated IPRs against Solmetex family patents in May 2025 while defending Solmetex, LLC v. Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.). Notably, the IPR wave omitted the '924 patent even though its specification is shared with the challenged siblings — possibly because '924's claim 1 (the "bridge not attached to the anterior wall" limitation) was viewed as harder to knock down, or because the parties' litigation focus settled on the later-issued family patents. Patent owner Solmetex (which acquired DryShield in 2022) is litigating assertively: it filed substantive Preliminary Responses with expert declarations and pressed discretionary-denial briefing successfully in IPR2025-01059. No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the chain — this is a competitor-vs-competitor fight.

Caveat on completeness: the USPTO ODP snapshot is current only to its most recent ingest, and my web searches did not surface any 2026-docketed petition against the '924 patent — but a petition filed very recently (e.g., an IPR2026-xxxxx case still in the pre-institution window) might not yet be indexed. Before relying on this analysis in litigation, run the patent number through USPTO PTAB E2E / the PTAB Trial Search API to confirm no new petition has landed.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant receiving a demand letter on the '924 patent: there is no PTAB FWD to cite, because there is none — say so plainly in any invalidity contentions, and note that zero estoppel constrains you. All § 102/§ 103 art (including the Park/Baughan/Johnson/Hirsch combinations Ascentcare already briefed against the sibling patents, and the Black/Mr. Thirsty and Innerlite/Isolite prior-art lines) is available in district court. You can also file your own IPR on '924 — but read the Fintiv tea leaves from IPR2025-01059: with the W.D. Mich. case (No. 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV) pending and trial dates set before Judge Jonker, the PTAB may discretionarily deny institution, as it did for Ascentcare on 2025-10-10. A Sotera-style stipulation may mitigate, but does not guarantee, institution.

2. If you want the PTAB record on the family art: the IPR2025-01059 docket is publicly available and contains the fully-briefed Park/Baughan/Johnson/Hirsch obviousness case plus Solmetex's successful discretionary-denial arguments — useful ammunition regardless of which family patent you face:

   • IPR2025-01059 docket: https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01059/Ascentcare_Dental_Products_Inc._v._Solmetex_LLC/
   • Case summary: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01059

3. Verify currency: re-check the USPTO PTAB Open Data Portal / PTAB E2E for any newly filed petition naming 9,788,924 before filing anything that relies on the "untested" status — the absence of PTAB history is itself a signal that this patent has been enforced mainly through district court (with the Darts-ip "family has litigation" flag), so expect any validity fight to be litigated there unless you force the PTAB question yourself.

4. Monitor the W.D. Mich. case (Solmetex v. Ascentcare, 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV) — claim-construction rulings there on "bridge structure," "wave shape," "crests/troughs," and "not attached to the anterior wall" will likely set the interpretive template that a future PTAB panel would apply to '924 claim 1, and could be preclusive for Ascentcare and its privies.

Inventors

• Thien Nguyen — co-founder/CEO of the DryShield dental-isolation business at and after the time of filing; publicly quoted in that role in the April 11, 2022 Solmetex–DryShield acquisition announcement (Solmetex press release, solmetex.com) and in trade coverage of DryShield product launches (2019 single-use mouthpieces). He remained with the business through the 2022 sale — no early-departure pattern.
• Tam Thanh Pham (recorded on reel 032545/0891 as "THAM THANH PHAM") — named inventor; employer at filing not independently determinable from available sources. Note the literal spelling mismatch between the patent (Tam) and the recorded assignment (Tham); I am flagging rather than "correcting" it.

No unusual pattern: the named inventor with public visibility (Nguyen) stayed with the original business for ~8 years until acquisition, which is inconsistent with a post-filing portfolio fire-sale by departing founders.

Original assignee

The assignee of record on the issued patent is Incept, Inc. (California), per the patent cover record as mirrored on FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents; the continuation application itself was filed in the name DryShield LLC (Fountain Valley, CA). Incept, Inc. was the corporate entity behind what became the DryShield® isolation system — the all-in-one intraoral high-suction evacuation / bite-block / tongue-shield / oral-pathway-protector device. Yes — this entity shipped products embodying the claims: the DryShield system (autoclavable and, from 2019, single-use mouthpieces) launched in 2014, the same year this continuation was filed, and is repeatedly described in trade press as the product the '924 bridge-structure claims cover. Status: acquired — Solmetex, LLC closed its acquisition of DryShield (announced April 11, 2022; recorded assignment June 6, 2022). Solmetex is a portfolio company of Avista Capital Partners.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center record for US 9,788,924 (search page: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search) mirrors the six entries below as reconstructed from the Google Patents legal-events record. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record (attorney) names for these reels from the available search results — I am stating that gap rather than fabricating attorney identities. Every entry below is confirmed as to conveyance type, parties, dates, and reel/frame.

• Executed 2014-01-06 / 2014-01-07, recorded 2014-03-27 — Reel 032545/0891

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Thien Nguyen; Tham Thanh Pham (as spelled in the record)
  • Assignee: Incept, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: initial inventor assignment into the operating entity (executed ~3 months before this continuation was filed); this is the ordinary inventor-to-company assignment, not a transfer between unrelated parties.

• Effective 2017-01-27, recorded 2017-06-20 — Reel 042916/0954

  • Conveyance: Conversion
  • Assignor: Incept Incorporated
  • Assignee: Dryshield, LLC (California)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: statutory entity conversion (Inc. → LLC) consolidating the IP under the DryShield name; internal reorg / change of corporate form only.

• Recorded 2022-06-03 — Reel 060099/0397

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Dryshield, LLC
  • Assignee: Midcap Financial Trust (Maryland)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: lender security interest recorded in the same week as the Solmetex acquisition — consistent with acquisition/debt financing, not an equity transfer.

• Effective 2022-05-09, recorded 2022-06-06 — Reel 060107/0030

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Dryshield, LLC
  • Assignee: Solmetex, LLC (Massachusetts)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: the operative asset sale matching the publicly announced April 11, 2022 acquisition of DryShield by Solmetex (Avista Capital Partners portfolio company).

• Recorded 2022-11-02 — Reel 061637/0932

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: Dryshield, LLC
  • Assignee: Midcap Financial Trust (Maryland)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: follow-on lender security-interest recording; financing continues to encumber the patent.

• Recorded 2025-03-18 — Reel 070544/0954

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignors: Dryshield, LLC; Impladent, Ltd.; Solmetex, LLC; Sterisil, Inc. (and others)
  • Assignee: Churchill Agency Services LLC, as Administrative Agent (New York)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources
  • Context: refinancing of the combined Solmetex group's debt; recorded against the whole group's assets, of which this patent is one.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9788924
    2012 : Provisional priority date
    2013 : Parent application filed
    2014 : Continuation filed
         : Inventors assign to Incept Inc
    2017 : Patent issued Oct 17
         : Incept converts to DryShield LLC
    2022 : Solmetex acquires DryShield
         : Midcap security interest recorded
    2025 : Churchill security interest recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Every substantive assignee is an operating entity with documented products: Incept, Inc. / DryShield, LLC (dental isolation systems sold since 2014) and Solmetex, LLC (dental amalgam-separator and water-treatment products). No "IP / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix entity, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose Delaware LLC appears anywhere in reels 032545/0891 → 070544/0954.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of Incept, DryShield, Solmetex, Midcap, or Churchill appears on the standard public NPE/asserter lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp., or Spangenberg entities). Solmetex is a private-equity-owned (Avista) operating company, not an assertion vehicle.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. This is the one signal I cannot score: correspondent-of-record names for reels 032545/0891, 042916/0954, 060099/0397, 060107/0030, 061637/0932, and 070544/0954 were not retrievable from the sources available to me. Per instructions I am not inferring recurrence without the underlying names.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two substantive ownership events in 11 years: inventors → Incept (2014) and DryShield → Solmetex (2022). The 2017 entry is a statutory conversion of the same company; the 2022 and 2025 Midcap/Churchill entries are lender security interests tied to a publicly announced PE acquisition and group refinancing — not chained LLC shuffles.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (unverified). The 2022 assignment (reel 060107/0030, effective 2022-05-09) coincides with the announced acquisition, not with any infringement suit I could identify. The Google Patents "family has litigation" flag (Darts-ip family 50881306) could not be tied to any specific docket naming this patent; no suit confirmed.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 or insolvency proceedings identified for any assignor in the chain.

7. Privateering — not present. Solmetex acquired the entire operating business — products, brand, and go-to-market (per the April 2022 Solmetex/DryShield press release) — not a bare patent for covert assertion against DryShield's competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at Solmetex, an operating company, subject to conventional lender security interests.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

The recorded chain (reels 032545/0891 → 060107/0030) runs inventors → Incept, Inc. → DryShield, LLC → Solmetex, LLC — a single operating lineage that has continuously sold the DryShield mouthpiece embodying the bridge claims since 2014, with the 2022 transfer being a publicly documented private-equity acquisition rather than a transfer to any licensing entity. The remaining recordings (060099/0397, 061637/0932, 070544/0954) are lender security interests by Midcap Financial Trust and Churchill Agency Services, which are standard financing encumbrances and carry no NPE weight. No shell-entity, cascading-transfer, privateering, bankruptcy, or known-asserter signal is present; the only un-scored signal is correspondent recurrence (signal 3), which I could not verify. Caveat: I found no confirmed infringement suit naming this patent, so "assertion" here describes ownership posture (active, maintained, product-embodying operating company) rather than observed litigation; per the verdict definitions this is the closest fit and is clearly not an NPE pattern. Verification: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search (search "9788924"; compare Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9788924/en).

I've confirmed the Google Patents / FreePatentsOnline records for the exact patent (US9788924B2). Now let me verify details of the most material cited references so the §102 mapping rests on accurate disclosure descriptions.

Exact-number lookup result

A USPTO-facing database search for the exact number 9788924 (not truncated or corrected) returns one patent: US9788924B2 — "Intraoral device with bridge" (Google Patents record; mirrored on FreePatentsOnline at freepatentsonline.com/9788924.html). No different or similar-numbered patent was substituted. Key bibliographic facts are as previously captured in the patent summary: application 14/228,050 filed 2014-03-27, issued 2017-10-17, priority 2012-12-07 (provisional 61/734,939), inventors Thien Nguyen and Tam (Tham) Thanh Pham, 19 claims (only claim 1 independent), status Active, adjusted expiration 2033-12-10.

I was able to verify details of the highest-value cited references (US6213772B1, US5890899A, US4167814A) directly against full-text sources during this session. For the remaining references I rely on the citation metadata printed in the authoritative Google Patents record supplied in the task, supplemented by my knowledge of the art; where I cannot verify a disclosure detail with confidence, I say so rather than assert it.

Statutory framework used for the §102 mapping

• The earliest provisional priority date is 2012-12-07, before the AIA's March 16, 2013, cutover. Claims fully supported by the provisional (and by the chain through parent application 14/100,323) have a pre-AIA effective filing date, so pre-AIA §102(a)/(b)/(e) may govern them. Claims whose subject matter first entered the family after March 16, 2013 (e.g., some mouth-prop/detachable-strap details of claims 14–19, if unsupported by the provisional) would be governed by AIA §102(a)(1)/(a)(2).
• In practice, every reference listed below that was published before 2012-12-07 is §102 prior art under either regime. Publications of the applicant's own family (parent US20140162209A1 / US8911232B2 and siblings US20140212837A1–US20140212841A1) are not §102 prior art against this patent (same inventive entity, commonly owned; AIA §102(b)(2)(C) / pre-AIA §103(c) exclusions), so I flag them as "not prior art" even though they appear on the citation list.
• "Potentially anticipates" is used deliberately: anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every limitation, arranged as in the claim. Most of these references will at best be primary references for §103 obviousness. I indicate where the disclosure gaps versus claim 1 sit (most commonly, the absence of the wave-shaped internal bridge that touches but is not attached to the anterior wall).

Claim 1 element skeleton used for the mapping

1. Elastomeric/resilient main body (distal + proximal portions);
2. Pocket interior defined by an anterior wall (exterior edge), a posterior wall (matching exterior edge) carrying an integral internal bridge — protrusions rising nearly the full wall gap, not attached to the anterior wall, in a wave shape (crests/troughs);
3. A side wall joining the exterior edges;
4. A cheek retractor portion at the distal end extending laterally away.

Dependent claims add: crest contact points/trough gaps (2–4); suction connector to vacuum (5); bridge keeps walls apart under suction (6); bridge shape follows wall shape (7); perforations (8); slit (9); stability bar (10); one-piece injection molding (11); autoclavable translucent silicone (12); differing wall thickness (13); detachable mouth prop, bite block + strap (14–19).

Most relevant prior art (deep dive)

1. US6213772B1 — "Oral isolation device with evacuation chambers" (Drident, L.L.C.; filed 1999-04-14; granted 2001-04-10)

What it shows (verified from full text): An essentially U-shaped, hollow, squeezable oral isolation device with a tongue-retraction arm, cheek-retraction arm (wall) and hinge section having position memory. Each arm is hollow, defining upper and lower suction/evacuation chambers with inlet apertures in the inner walls and a vacuum outlet. Retraction of the cheek/tongue is achieved by the arms' resilience — functionally the closest analog to the '924 cheek retractor portion.
§102 mapping: Strongest single-reference candidate against claim 1's combination up to the bridge: elastomeric resilient body forming a pocket-like hollow (anterior/posterior walls + side wall), cheek-retracting wall member, and suction outlet. Drident's device, however, does not disclose the claimed internal wave bridge on the posterior wall whose crests nearly span the gap and are unattached to the anterior wall — its chamber walls are kept apart by the device's molded hollow structure, not by discrete internal bridge protrusions. Therefore it potentially anticipates claims 1 (absent the bridge limitation), 2–4 (dependent on the bridge, so no), 5 (suction connector + vacuum, yes if base claim met), 8 (apertures in walls — yes), 11–12 (one-piece resilient material — plausible). Realistically it is the primary §103 reference for claim 1 in combination with a bridge-teaching reference.

2. US5890899A — "Dental isolator" (Intellitech Corp.; filed 1997-06-27; granted 1999-04-06)

What it shows (verified from full text): Low-cost integral dental isolation device with a prop stem, upper maxillary support, a curved buccal member (cheek side), a lingual member (tongue side) with spaced distal ends disposed on opposite sides of the mandibular arch; pliable material; optional aspirating suction tube with side-wall apertures releasably attachable to a projecting portion; hollow sidewalls forming conduits/apertures in fluid communication.
§102 mapping: Discloses resilient intraoral isolation structure with wall members defining hollow conduits, apertures, cheek/buccal retraction, and suction attachment. No wave-shaped internal bridge; no anterior/posterior pocket walls joined by a side wall as claimed. Potentially anticipates claims 1 (absent bridge), 5 (suction), 8 (apertures), 11–12 (integral pliable material) — weaker than Drident because the main body is an arch isolator rather than an enclosed pocket, and the cheek retractor is not a distal hammerhead extension.

3. US4167814A — "Mouth prop and oral evacuation device" (Robert E. Schubert; filed 1977-04-11; granted 1979-09-18)

What it shows (verified from full text): Combination of a wedge-shaped mouth prop detachably clamped to a U-shaped suction tube with perforations along its length, a connecting tube for a vacuum line, and a tongue guard. This is the classic antecedent for claims 14–19's detachable mouth prop + bite block concept.
§102 mapping: Anticipates nothing in claim 1 (no pocket, no anterior/posterior walls, no bridge, no cheek retractor portion as claimed — its "tongue guard" is not a laterally extending cheek retractor). It is the best pre-AIA §102(b) art for the detachable mouth-prop concept of claims 14–19, but the '924's strap-and-slot/flush-notch and plug-in-opening specifics (claims 15–19) are absent, so at most it anticipates claim 14 at a high level of generality (detachable mouth prop) and is otherwise a §103 building block.

4. US5037298A — "Apparatus and improved process for removing saliva while retracting cheeks and lips" (John J. Hickham; filed 1985-11-25; granted 1991-08-06)

What it shows: A saliva-evacuation appliance that simultaneously retracts cheeks and lips using shield-like members, with suction channels.
§102 mapping: Discloses cheek/lip retraction integrated with fluid removal, relevant to claims 1 (cheek retractor element), 5, 8. No enclosed pocket with anterior/posterior walls or internal bridge → does not anticipate the pocket+bridge combination; secondary reference for §103.

5. US5460524A — "Device and method for saliva suction with tongue retractor and bit handle" (Ross W. Anderson; filed 1994-06-24; granted 1995-10-24)

What it shows: Saliva suction device combined with a tongue retractor and a bit (bite) handle, i.e., mouth-prop functionality with evacuation.
§102 mapping: Relevant to claims 14–19 (bite/bit block + suction combination) and claims 5, 8; no pocket/bridge teaching → no anticipation of claim 1 or its bridge-dependent claims 2–4, 6–7, 10.

6. US5516286A — "Dental isolation tray" (Philip Kushner; filed 1994-05-16; granted 1996-05-14)

What it shows: A flexible dental isolation tray conforming to the arch that keeps cheek/tongue away and provides an isolation field; some versions incorporate suction.
§102 mapping: General dental isolation background; possibly anticipates the broad "body portion for isolation" concept but not the pocket/bridge/cheek-retractor structure of claim 1 → no claim anticipated with confidence; §103 background.

7. US6267591B1 — "Dental prop, throat dam and retractor" (Ricky A. Barstow; filed 2000-04-18; granted 2001-07-31)

What it shows: A dental prop with a throat dam (protective barrier at the back of the mouth) and retractor elements — the throat-dam concept maps onto the '924's "protect the back of the mouth/throat from debris" function.
§102 mapping: Relevant to the throat-protection function and to claim 14 (mouth-prop combination); lacks pocket/bridge/suction-connector limitations → no anticipation of claim 1; useful §103 secondary reference.

8. Innerlite / James A. Hirsch family — US6022214A (2000), US20030134253A1 (2003), US20060063129A1 (2006), USD495799S1, USD497426S1, USD615203S1, US8529256B2 (2013)

What it shows: Hirsch's intraoral devices (including illumination variants) are resilient intraoral shields that retract cheek/lips and carry evacuation channels — the commercial Isolite®-type platform. US8529256B2 discloses an air/water vacuum syringe with an intraoral device.
§102 mapping: These disclose resilient intraoral body + suction but not a two-wall pocket with an unattached wave bridge (they use spacer ribs/bosses in some commercial forms, but I cannot confirm from the record that any single one discloses the full wave-crest bridge of claim 1). Potentially anticipates claims 1 (absent the specific bridge limitations), 5, 8, 11–12; primary §103 combination art against claim 1 and dependents. The design patents (USD495799S1, USD497426S1, USD615203S1) disclose only appearance — they cannot anticipate the functional/suction claims as a matter of law and are cited for shape/styling only.

9. US20080166684A1 — "Dental suction appliance" (David C. Kanas; filed 2007-01-09; published 2008-07-10)

What it shows: A hands-free dental suction appliance held in the mouth that retracts tissue and evacuates fluids — very much in the '924's operative space (chair-side hands-free isolation).
§102 mapping: Relevant to claims 1 (overall combination), 5, 8. I could not verify from this session's results whether Kanas discloses an internal anti-collapse bridge; if it does not, it is a §103 primary reference. Flag: not verified at full-text level — treat the anticipation assessment as provisional.

10. US20090274991A1 — "Intra-oral device and method" (Edge Medical Technologies / Brian P. Black; filed 2008-05-02; published 2009-11-05)

What it shows: Intra-oral device providing isolation and evacuation in a low-profile flexible format (family includes US8029280B2, US20110311942A1).
§102 mapping: Same relevance profile as Kanas — potentially anticipates claims 1, 5, 8, 11–12 elements but the bridge limitation is not confirmed in my sources; §103 primary reference. Not verified at full-text level.

11. US20080318183A1 — "Bite block with snap-in positionable fluid ejector" (Colin Suzman; filed 2007-06-23; published 2008-12-25)

What it shows: A bite block carrying a snap-in, positionable fluid ejector — relevant to detachable accessory + bite block combination.
§102 mapping: Relevant to claims 14–19 (mouth prop/bite block + connector interplay); lacks the pocket/bridge of claim 1.

12. US20130095450A1 — "Dental appliance and method for removing bodily and other fluids from a dental site" (Inger-Marie Ames; filed 2011-10-14; published 2013-04-18)

What it shows: A dental appliance for fluid removal positioned at a dental site. Pre-dates the '924 priority date (published 2013-04-18 — wait, that is after 2012-12-07). Correction: publication date 2013-04-18 is after the 2012-12-07 priority date; however, its filing date (2011-10-14) precedes the priority date. Under AIA it is prior art under §102(a)(2) only for claims whose effective filing date is after 2011-10-14 (i.e., if any claim lacks provisional support); it is not §102(a)(1) prior art (published after the critical date). Under pre-AIA it could be §102(e)/§103(c)-subject art with the same caveats. Relevance: moderate; suction appliance for the dental site.

13. US8535056B2 — "Dental bite block" (Centrix, Inc.; filed 2008-11-26; granted 2013-09-17)

What it shows: Bite block for propping the mouth open.
§102 mapping: Relevant only to the mouth-prop/bite-block claims 14–19; not to claim 1.

14. US9084656B2 / US20150335409A1 (Innerlite; filed 2013-04-12 and 2014-05-22)

Both post-date the 2012-12-07 priority date in filing and publication. They are not §102(a)(1)/pre-AIA §102(a)/(b) art for claims entitled to the 2012-12-07 priority date; they could only be §102(a)(2)/pre-AIA §102(e) art against any claim not entitled to that priority (and even then US20150335409A1's own filing date of 2014-05-22 is later than the '924's 2014-03-27 filing, so it is not art at all against the '924). Listed because the family's prosecution cited them; treat as non-art or, at best, art only against late-added claims.

15. Applicant's own family (US20140162209A1 = parent; US20140212840A1 = sibling "with slit")

Same inventors/common assignee → not §102 prior art (excluded under AIA §102(b)(2)(C) and the judicially recognized same-inventor rule pre-AIA). Listed on the face of the record but excluded from any anticipation analysis.

Complete citation-by-citation list for US9788924B2

Citations are the 49 references listed on the Google Patents record for US9788924B2. Dates are publication (grant/issue) dates; "priority date" (earliest) noted where relevant. Claim mapping reflects the elements each reference plausibly places in issue; "—" means the reference is too far afield to anticipate any claim.

Bottom line

• Best single-reference anticipation candidates for the non-bridge portions of claim 1 (and claims 5, 8, 11–12): US6213772B1 (Drident), US5890899A (Intellitech), and the Innerlite/Hirsch intraoral-device line (US6022214A, US20030134253A1, US8529256B2).
• No cited reference that I could verify discloses the claimed internal wave-shaped bridge integral with the posterior wall, nearly spanning the wall gap, unattached to the anterior wall (claims 1, 2–4, 6, 7, 10 depend on it). That limitation is the apparent point of novelty that would defeat a clean §102 anticipation of claim 1 by any single citation listed; the strongest case against the full claim 1 would be a §103 combination (e.g., Drident or Innerlite + a bridge-spacer teaching). I could not verify the internal spacer/bridge disclosure of US20080166684A1 (Kanas) or US20090274991A1 (Black) at full-text level in this session — if either discloses an internal wave/spacer keeping opposing walls apart under suction, it would be the most dangerous §102 reference against claim 1 and should be checked first.
• Mouth-prop claims (14–19) have the deepest field of antecedents: US4167814A (1979), US5460524A, GB2170106A, US8535056B2, US20080318183A1, and US6267591B1 — but none I verified discloses the specific strap/notch/flush and plug-in-opening geometry of claims 15–19.
• Citations 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 33, 41, 45, and the design patents (31, 32, 39) are background or unrelated and would not anticipate any claim.

Caveats on confidence

• Full-text verification in this session was limited to US6213772B1, US5890899A, and US4167814A. Descriptions of the remaining references are based on their face-of-record titles and dates plus general knowledge of the art; where a disclosure point matters to the anticipation conclusion (notably Kanas and Black), I flagged it as unverified rather than asserting it.
• The examiner/third-party marking (*/†) shown in the Google Patents family-citation view is not reliably attributable to this specific patent's search report, so I did not use it to distinguish examiner- from applicant-supplied references.
• No USPTO examination history for application 14/228,050 itself (office actions) was available in the searched records, so the claim mappings above are analytic, not reconstructions of the actual §102 rejections made during prosecution.

I'll ground my §103 analysis in the prior art actually cited on this patent's record. Before writing the combination analysis, let me verify the structures of the most important cited references so I don't misstate their teachings.

The search results surfaced valuable prosecution-history material from the family (including an Examiner rejection treating Hirsch's dispersion piece as a wave-shaped "bridge structure"). Let me verify a few more cited references' structures so the combination analysis is accurate.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,788,924 ("Intraoral device with bridge")

Scope note: I base this analysis on (1) the prior art listed in the "Citations / Patent Citations" sections of the '924 patent record, and (2) family prosecution documents surfaced in the PTAB record (IPR2025-01057/-01059) that show how the Examiner and Applicants mapped the same specification against Hirsch (US 2003/0134253), Black (US 2009/0274991; US 8,029,280), McKelvey (US 4,083,115), and Sclafani (US 5,890,899). Where I rely on a reference feature I could not verify from full text in this session, I flag it. This is a technical analysis, not a legal opinion; a full validity position requires the complete reference texts and expert testimony.

1. The claimed invention in one paragraph

Claim 1 is a device claim directed to an elastomeric, resilient dental mouthpiece organized as a pocket (anterior wall + posterior wall + side wall joining matching exterior edges) with a cheek retractor at the distal end extending laterally away from the body. The pocket's posterior wall carries an internal bridge structure: protrusions formed integrally with (molded from) the posterior wall's interior surface, arranged in a wave shape with crests and troughs, extending nearly the full anterior–posterior gap, but not attached to the anterior wall. Functionally (claims 2–6 make this express), the crests act as spaced contact points that keep the bendable anterior and posterior walls from coapting under suction, while the troughs remain open as fluid passages. That function — anti-collapse spacing of two flexible walls of a suction pocket — is the practical heart of the claim set.

Everything else in the dependent claims (suction connector at the proximal end, perforations/mesh, a longitudinal slit, a stability bar, silicone/autoclavable material, one-piece injection molding, and a detachable mouth prop with a bite block + strap) is conventional and individually known in the cited art, as mapped below.

2. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A designer of intraoral dental suction/isolation devices: e.g., a mechanical or biomedical engineer (or equivalent experienced device designer) familiar with intraoral anatomy, dental operatory high-volume evacuator (HVE) systems, and the molding of flexible, autoclavable elastomers (silicone, urethane/TPE). The PHOSITA would be familiar with the Isolite/Innerlite, Mr. Thirsty, DryShield, and classic saliva-ejector/shield product lines and with the standard problem of flexible suction lumens and pockets collapsing under vacuum.

3. Closest prior art from this patent's own record

The art actually cited on the '924 record clusters into four groups that map almost perfectly onto the claim elements:

A notable evidentiary point: in the prosecution of a sibling continuation with the same specification (record excerpt from the IPR2025-01059 file, Ex. 1022), the Examiner took the position that Hirsch alone anticipated claims requiring a mouthpiece pocket, anterior/posterior walls, a side wall (edge 22 or 56), a cheek retractor 52, perforations 60/68, a suction connector 74/84/86, a mouth prop 26 with bite block 94 and strap 100 — and a wave-shaped "bridge structure 24." The Applicants overcame those rejections largely on arrangement/integrality grounds, not by showing that the elements were absent from the art. For a § 103 analysis, that prosecution history is powerful: it shows the Examiner — a proxy PHOSITA — reading Hirsch to disclose nearly every structural element of this claim family. (Source: family Office Action/Remarks excerpts at ptacts.uspto.gov and docketalarm.com, IPR2025-01059 Exs. 1022, 1032.)

4. Combinations rendering independent claim 1 obvious

Combination A — Hirsch (US 2003/0134253) as the primary reference, alone or with McKelvey/Sclafani

What Hirsch discloses (verified from the publication text, ¶¶ 0046–0050, via the IPR2025-01059 Ex. 1012 record):

• A tongue-and-cheek retractor 22 with a curved main body portion 50 (an upper roof portion 54 and lower tongue-retractor portion 56) and a cheek retractor portion 52 of curved fish-tail shape at one end — i.e., a resilient body with a laterally extending cheek retractor.
• Internal evacuation channels 58 within the tongue-retractor portion, with evacuation holes 60 on both the inner surface 46 and outer surface 48 — i.e., perforations through spaced walls into an interior channel.
• A main receiving channel 62 and lip 64 receiving a dispersion piece 24 having a fluid evacuation portion 72 — the element the family Examiner read as the wave-shaped bridge.
• A bite piece/mouth prop at the opposite end (per the family Examiner's mapping: mouth prop 26 = bite block 94 + strap 100).
• Materials: single injection-molded, sterilizable, flexible material (e.g., molded flexible urethane); the broader Hirsch/Innerlite family (US 6,338,627; US 6,974,321) teaches one-piece elastomeric construction.

The only arguable gaps versus claim 1 are (i) the wave-shaped spacing structure being integral with the posterior wall's interior surface, rather than a separately molded dispersion piece received in a channel, and (ii) it being not attached to the anterior wall.

Why those gaps are obvious, not inventive:

• Integrality. The claimed "integral with and protruding from an interior surface" is a routine manufacturing choice. Hirsch already forms the retractor body as one molded piece; one-piece molding of the entire mouthpiece to eliminate a separate part, avoid misassembly, reduce cost, and ease sterilization is an express, conventional motivation (the '924 specification itself relies on it, claim 11). Merging a separate molded piece into the wall from which it already functionally protrudes is an "obvious to try" design consolidation with a predictable result — no unexpected property is achieved.
• "Not attached to the anterior wall." This negative limitation describes exactly what a spacer/standoff does: it extends to near-contact with the opposite wall but is not bonded to it, leaving the crests free to contact only under compression. Bonding a spacer to both walls would defeat the stated purpose (keeping the walls separated while leaving open channels). A PHOSITA designing an anti-collapse rib in a flexible lumen knows it need not (and generally should not) be bonded to both walls. The "wave shape with crests and troughs" is likewise a standard way to get point contacts (crests) with open flow gaps between them (troughs) — the same geometry as corrugated spacers/standoffs used to keep flexible suction lumens patent. The dependent claims (2–4) merely restate this geometry.
• Secondary reference support. If a reference disclosing a discrete wave-shaped spacing element in a suction pocket is needed, the family Examiner's own combination practice supplies it: the sibling prosecution rejected claims over Hirsch in view of Sclafani (US 5,890,899) (dental isolator), and over Black in view of McKelvey (US 4,083,115). McKelvey's saliva ejector (flush strap/connector geometry) and the various anti-collapse suction tips in the record (Anders US 3,768,477, tongue-depressing aspirating tip; Koping US 5,762,496, disposable saliva ejector) all lie in the same A61C17 field and teach spaced-wall/standoff construction for flexible suction conduits. Combining a known spacer geometry into a known pocket device is the paradigm § 103 case: "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results" (KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)).

Combination B — Black ("Mr. Thirsty": US 2009/0274991 / US 8,029,280) + a wall-connector/spacer reference

What Black discloses (verified from the abstract and family prosecution record): an intraoral device with a tongue shield aspirator (an open, unitary, flexible, position-memory component) having anterior and posterior layers (48a/48b), a tongue retractor portion and a cheek retractor portion, a bite member with a conduit, and an evacuation tube connectable directly to an HVE valve — i.e., an elastomeric, resilient, cheek-retracting, suction-isolation mouthpiece.

Gap and why obvious: In the sibling prosecution the Applicants successfully distinguished Black on the ground that Black's two layers are joined directly at their edges (top edge 40c formed by the edges of layers 48a/48b) rather than by a distinct side wall (IPR2025-01059 Ex. 1022 record). That distinction is a textbook § 103 non-distinction: where two flexible layers are edge-joined to form a pocket that must carry HVE suction, adding a side wall between the corresponding edges (to open the pocket, increase intake area, and route flow) is an obvious structural choice — Black's own bite-member conduit and Hirsch's side-wall channel (edge 22/56) and Drident's seamed hollow walls (upper/lower seams 42/44) all show the same construction. Adding internal anti-collapse spacing (the wave bridge) to Black's flexible, position-memory layers is the obvious solution to the known problem of flexible layers coapting under high-volume suction — the exact problem Hirsch's channel structure and Drident's hollow chambers (below) were designed to manage. Motivation: hands-free HVE suction at chairside (Black's own purpose) requires the pocket to stay open; a PHOSITA adds standoffs.

Combination C — Drident (US 6,213,772) + Hirsch/Black + a spacer reference

What Drident discloses (verified): a U-shaped, essentially hollow oral isolation device made of two co-formed halves forming an upper suction chamber 46 and lower suction chamber 48 separated by an internal divider 38, with a tongue retraction arm 50, a cheek retraction arm 52, suction-inlet apertures, and suction outlet members 56 — a double-wall hollow suction retractor with an internal structure already inside the hollow. Drident is arguably the closest "pocket-with-internal-structure" prior art on the record. The PHOSITA reading Drident's divider (a full wall spanning the hollow) together with Hirsch's wave-shaped channel structure would find it obvious to shape internal spacing elements as crests/troughs — leaving open passages so one continuous pocket (rather than two separated chambers) can be evacuated through a single suction connector (the '924 spec's "single, large evacuation conduit"). No new function results; only a known geometric rearrangement.

Synthesis on claim 1's core limitation

The only limitation that could carry patentable weight is the integral, wave-shaped, non-attached internal bridge on the posterior wall. On this record that feature is (a) disclosed in substance by Hirsch as read by the family Examiner; (b) a conventional anti-collapse standoff geometry known throughout flexible-lumen art; and (c) an obvious consolidation (integral molding) of a separate molded part. Under KSR's "design need or market pressure" and "obvious to try" frameworks — a finite field of predictable solutions to the known problem of suction-wall collapse — claim 1 is the strongest candidate for obviousness in the set. The countervailing arguments (Section 8) center on whether the Examiner's Hirsch mapping survives scrutiny and whether the "not attached" + "wave" combination produces an unexpected result (e.g., superior debris passage) — issues requiring expert testimony and the full Hirsch text.

5. Dependent claims 2–19 — element-by-element obviousness

• Claims 2–4 (spaced contact points at crests; troughs = spaces): pure functional restatement of the wave geometry of claim 1; no separate inventive content. If claim 1 falls, these fall.
• Claim 5 (suction connector at the proximal end, in fluid communication with the pocket interior and a vacuum source): Hirsch (fluid evacuation portion 72 / connector 74/84/86 to a vacuum port 108, per the family Examiner), Black (evacuation tube 30 to an HVE valve), Drident (suction outlet members 56), Schubert (connecting tube 18). Obvious.
• Claim 6 (bridge keeps bendable walls separated during suction): expresses the purpose of the bridge; inherent in the structure of claim 1 and conventional (anti-collapse) design.
• Claim 7 (bridge shape corresponds to wall shape): a design choice; Hirsch's dispersion lens follows the arcuate/U-shape of the retractor body, and the '924 spec itself discloses the bridge "follow[ing] the shape of a logo (e.g., an arrowhead or shield)" — ornamental correspondence with no functional significance.
• Claim 8 (perforations in the walls/mesh): Hirsch (holes 60, 68), Black, Drident (apertures), Schubert (perforations 22), Erickson. Obvious.
• Claim 9 (longitudinal slit in the anterior wall): The slit is an elongated suction inlet/access opening; elongated slots and slit-like openings in suction shields/ejectors are ubiquitous in the cited art (e.g., Schubert's tube openings, Hirsch's channel 62). Adding a slit to a perforated wall to increase intake area and ease cleaning is an obvious design expedient (the '924 spec states the slit "assist[s] in cleaning and maintenance").
• Claim 10 (stability bar on the posterior wall interior, spaced from the bridge): a rib/stiffener. Adding a thickened rib or protrusion to stiffen the neck region of a flexible molded part is a trite mechanical expedient; Hirsch's structure and the general use of molded ribs supply the motivation. (Consistent with the parallel art Ascentcare briefed against the sibling '686 patent in IPR2025-01059, where stability-bar features were challenged with Park KR10-1082826 + Baughan US 3,101,543 + Johnson US 4,017,975 + Hirsch — a proceeding denied institution on Fintiv, not on the merits, so those grounds remain live. Johnson '975 and Hirsch are in-record on this page.)
• Claim 11 (one-piece injection molding): disclosed in the '924 spec as the preferred, conventional process; Hirsch and the Innerlite family use single-piece molded construction; Drident co-forms halves. Obvious.
• Claim 12 (flexible, translucent, high-heat-resistant, autoclavable silicone): silicone is the standard autoclavable dental elastomer; Hirsch expressly discloses sterilizable injection-molded flexible materials and Black discloses position-memory material. Selecting silicone for autoclave reuse is an obvious material choice with a predictable property profile.
• Claim 13 (anterior/posterior walls of different thickness): routine design choice; the '924 spec itself describes thicker base walls "for additional stability" — a conventional variable-thickness molded part.
• Claims 14–19 (detachable mouth prop: bite block + strap, one-piece, strap around the suction connector, flush in a notch, bite-block opening matching a plug): This sub-set has the strongest independent prior-art support of any dependent group:
  • Schubert US 4,167,814 discloses a wedge-shaped mouth prop 30 detachably secured to a suction/evacuation tube 12, expressly so "the prop and tube ... [can be] constructed independently and of different sizes and selectively assembled ... to fit the mouth of the particular patient" — i.e., the mix-and-match detachable mouth-prop concept of claims 14–15 and the '924 spec.
  • Hirsch, per the family Examiner's mapping, discloses a mouth prop 26 with a bite block portion 94 and a strap portion 100 receiving the suction connector, a flush exterior where the strap meets the connector in a notch region, and a plug protrusion 88/90/86 engaging an opening 100 in the bite block for crush resistance — mapping to claims 16–19 almost element-for-element (family Office Action, IPR2025-01059 Ex. 1022 record).
  • McKelvey US 4,083,115 was cited by the family Examiner for the flush strap/connector geometry (elements 10/11) — claim 18's "substantially flush" limitation.
  • Suzman US 2008/0318183 (bite block with snap-in, positionable fluid ejector) and Barstow US 6,267,591 (dental prop, throat dam and retractor) provide additional bite-block-plus-ejector combinations.
  • Motivation: keep the patient's mouth open (bite block) while routing suction and retracting the cheek — Schubert states this exact purpose; detachability for size mixing is taught by Schubert; flush geometry is taught by Hirsch/McKelvey.

6. Why a PHOSITA would combine (general motivations)

1. Same field / analogous art. Every primary reference is an intraoral dental suction, isolation, retraction, or bite-block device (A61C17/02–/08), so the analogous-art inquiry is easily satisfied.
2. Known problem, finite solutions. Collapse/coaptation of flexible suction walls under HVE vacuum is a known failure mode; internal standoffs, ribs, dividers, and channel walls were the known solutions (Hirsch's channels, Drident's divider, spacer ribs in ejector tips). Shaping a spacer as a wave with crest contact points and open troughs is one of a small number of predictable geometries.
3. Manufacturing and ergonomic incentives. One-piece molding (fewer parts, no assembly, sterilizable, no crevices), translucent autoclavable silicone, variable wall thickness for stiffness, and interchangeable mouth-prop sizes are each conventional design drivers with predictable results.
4. No teaching away. Nothing in Hirsch, Black, or Drident discourages integral wall protrusions, spacing the walls, or adding a side wall; Black's edge-bonded layers and Hirsch's separate dispersion piece are functional choices, not design barriers.
5. Predictable result. The combination yields a flexible suction pocket that stays open under vacuum and evacuates through perforations to a single connector — the very result each component was designed to achieve.

7. Where the analysis is strongest and weakest

Strongest: Claims 2–9 and 11–19. Each adds only conventional structure (perforations, slit, ribs, connectors, flush straps, bite blocks) with direct in-record or family-prosecution support (Hirsch, Schubert, McKelvey, Black, Drident). Claim 18's "flush strap in a notch" and claim 19's "plug-in-opening bite block" were both mapped by the family Examiner to Hirsch.

Strongest single combination for claim 1: Hirsch (US 2003/0134253), optionally with McKelvey or Sclafani, on the theory that the wave-shaped spacing element is disclosed (family Examiner's reading) and the "integral + not attached" limitations are obvious manufacturing/functional refinements.

Weakest (and where the patent owner's case would concentrate):

• Whether Hirsch's dispersion piece 24 is fairly characterized as a wave-shaped bridge inside a wall pocket rather than an illumination lens mounted on the channel exterior — the Applicants successfully distinguished it in the sibling prosecution.
• Whether "not attached to the anterior wall" plus "crests contact, troughs flow" yields an unexpected functional result (e.g., continuous debris passage and anti-occlusion) that a PHOSITA would not have predicted — a factual question for expert testimony.
• Whether claim 13 (different wall thicknesses) and claim 10's "spaced from the bridge" specificity have any hidden purpose not apparent on the record.

Secondary considerations (patent owner's rebuttal): commercial success of the DryShield product line, long-felt need for hands-free chairside isolation, and the copying allegations against Ascentcare in the W.D. Mich. litigation (No. 1:24-cv-00954) would need to be weighed if a nexus to the claimed bridge feature can be shown. No merits finding on these exists in the record I reviewed; the IPR2025-01059 denial was discretionary (Fintiv), not a merits ruling, so it does not cut against a later § 103 challenge.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is vulnerable under § 103 on the strongest reading of the record — Hirsch (as the family Examiner read it) plus routine integral-molding and spacer design — but the outcome would hinge on claim construction of "bridge structure," "wave shape," and "not attached to the anterior wall," and on expert testimony about the Hirsch mapping. This is a litigable, not an open-and-shut, position.
• Claims 2–9, 11–19 are the most vulnerable: they add only conventional, well-documented features (perforations, slit, one-piece silicone molding, stability rib, and the Schubert/Hirsch/McKelvey mouth-prop and flush-strap geometries). Any invalidity contention should lead with these.
• Claim 10 (stability bar) and claim 13 (wall thickness) are conventional expedients but should be briefed with the full text of the molding-art references; the parallel Park/Baughan/Johnson/Hirsch grounds from IPR2025-01059 (never reached on the merits) remain available for the stability-bar concept.
• No PTAB estoppel constrains any of these grounds (see prior sections): all 19 claims are untested, and all § 102/§ 103 art is available in district court.

Verification caveat: Before filing, confirm against the full texts of Hirsch, Black, Drident, Schubert, McKelvey, Anders, Koping, and Sclafani that each structural mapping I rely on (especially "wave-shaped bridge" in Hirsch and "detachable wedge mouth prop, different sizes" in Schubert) is supported by the actual disclosure — several of these I verified only through abstracts, titles, or the family prosecution record, not full-text review.