DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Prakash does not provide for the limitation of “a retractor attachment part is articulated in, at least two directions from the support” by asserting that their specification recites “An articulation is a link allowing a rotation about at least one axis of rotation” and thus the articulation of Prakash does not provide for two axis of rotation, however the claim language used is “articulated in at least two directions” and Prakash is articulated as rotates around an axis of rotation by the guide being curved which is about an axis. As the claim limitation only requires that pat is articulated/moved in two directions there is no requirement for the retractor part to provide at least two axis of rotation, but that the pat is articulated in two directions on an axis. There is no requirement that the retractor be articulated in the two directions is about a center point that is coincident with any particular axis location.
Applicant has further argued that Salah does not provide for the limitation of “a retractor attachment part is articulated in, at least two directions from the support” by asserting that the articulator in figure 1 is disclosed in one embodiment “may be formed an integral part of the support 12 or be fastened, preferably rigidly, to the support 12”, however this is only one embodiment and is not the embodiment relied upon the rejection. The rejection cited the arrangement of the retractor in figure 6a/b which is not formed integrally, and is not fastened rigidly to the support, but is loose and articulated in at least two directions. While a prior art can disclose more than one embodiment, arguments against an embodiment not relied upon are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the prior art of Prakash and Salvati, Teller and Shankar are directed to taking images of different types of body parts and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not have looked too them for modifying Prakash, however the cited are related in medical photography and relevant for their teachings.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation greater than 2cm, and the claim also recites the distance is less than 20mm, or 15cm, or 10cm or 7cm or 5cm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prakash et al. (US 2013/0209954 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Prakash discloses a dental photography kit comprising (Figs. 2a, 5a/b, Fig. 1c etc.):
a support, taking the form of a housing (Fig. 5b element 520), wherein the housing emerges/opens outward on only two opposing end faces, through a proximal opening, on the side of a personal device comprising a camera (Fig 2b/c element 220 having a side that opens proximally for a cellphone with camera, Fig. 5b side of element 520 into which cellphone 580 is retained, Fig. 10c showing housing with 8.75mm from opening into which the personal cell phone with a camera would be inserted into on a proximal side), and a distal opening, on the side of the retractor (Fig. 10a element 1023 and Fig. 10c opening at 1023 that opens out towards the retractor side, Fig. 5a element 523, Fig. 2c element 223 opening towards retractor 210 ) , comprising a support attachment part (Fig. 10 a elements 1022, Fig. 5a element 522, Fig. 2a element 222);
a dental retractor defining a retractor opening (fig. 2a element 210 with opening 211, Fig. 5a element 510 and opening 511, and Fig. 10b element 1010 and opening 1011) and comprising a retractor attachment part that is removably attached to the support attachment part when the retractor is in the mounted position on the support (Fig. 2a element 214a/b, Fig. 5b element 522, Fig. 10b element 1012; and
a camera incorporated in the personal device (Fig. 2c element 280 personal device and element 284 camera) and removably attached to the support in an operating position in which the camera is oriented to receive an at least partial image of the retractor opening (Fig. 2c showing camera/cellphone removed and to be inserted in the housing such that camera element 284 would be aligned with retractor opening via optical path 223 when inserted, similar for figures 5a/b and 10 how 10a/b would function) and,
characterized in that the retractor attachment part is articulated in, at least two directions from the support (Fig. 2a showing retractor articulated to move in at least two directions of left and right, similar for figs. 5a/b and 10a/b), on the support attachment part;
and wherein the retractor attachment parts and support attachment parts are conformed in such a way that the retractor can be attached to the support only in a single predetermined position (Fig. 2a element 214a/b connected to 2222. Fig. 5a/b 522 connected to 510, Fig. 10a/b element 1010 connected to 1022, the retractors attachment can only be attached to the support parts in a single predetermined position of being attached directly to the support part such that it is aligned with the support part, as best can be understood as the claim also requires the retractor to articulate in at least two direction to the support).
Regarding claim 2, Prakash further discloses where the retractor attachment part is mounted to pivot on the support attachment part (Fig. Fig. 3a-c showing the retractor 210 being able to pivot on support of the mount 210, Fig. 2a the retractor 210 can also pivot around the support by the curved arrow to a degree).
Regarding claim 4, Prakash further discloses where the retractor attachment part is mounted to pivot on the support attachment part about a pivoting axis, and the pivoting axis is translationally movable with respect to the support in a direction of translation that is different from that of the pivoting axis (Fig. 2a straight arrow showing translation form of pivoting and a pivot axis of curved arrow about an axis through the optical path).
Regarding claim 6, Prakash further discloses where the retractor attachment part is magnetically attached to the support attachment part (paragraph [0054] lines 9-20 disclosing the use of magnets and thin metal to connect the retractor and support).
Regarding claim 8, Prakash further discloses where the support comprises two support attachment parts and the retractor bears two retractor attachment parts (Fig. 2a top and bottom of element 222 and elements 214a/b, Fig. 10a/b elements 1022 being two support flanges and element 1010 having two surfaces that contact flanges 1022 respectively).
Regarding claim 9, Prakash further discloses where the retractor attachment part comprises a metal insert and the support attachment part comprises a magnet disposed to attach the metal insert ( paragraph [0054] lines 9-20 disclosing the use of magnets and thin metal to connect the retractor and support).
Regarding claim 14, Prakash further discloses where the retractor has cheek separating lugs (Fig. 5b showing the ends/lugs of the retractor separating the cheeks).
Regarding claim 18, Prakash further discloses where the distance between the camera and the retractor is less than 20cm, 15cm, 10cm, 7cm, or 5cm (Fig. 10c elements 2.50 and 3.36 showing the distance between the housing portion that hold the camera and the end of the support where the retractor is attached is set to 2.5mm+ 3.36mm= 5.86mm ;which is less than any of 20cm, 15cm, 10cm, 7cm, or 5cm, paragraph [0116] all).
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salah et al. (US 2018/0303331 A1).
Claim 1, Salah et al. discloses a dental photography kit comprising:
a support (Fig. 1 element 12), taking the form of a housing (Fig. 1 showing elongated housing of 12a/b) wherein the housing emerges/opens outward on only two opposing end faces , through a proximal opening on the side of a personal device comprising a camera (Fig. 4b) and a distal opening on the side of the retractor (Fig. 4c), comprising a support attachment part (the structure corresponding to the retractor fastening described in paragraph [0090] , examples in paragraphs [0091-0093]);
a dental retractor (14) defining a retractor opening (24) (paragraph [0078 line 3] )and comprising a retractor attachment part that is removably attached to the support attachment part (paragraph [0089 lines 1-3) when the retractor is in the mounted position on the support;
and a camera removably attached to the support in an operating position in which the camera is oriented to receive an at least partial image of the retractor opening (Fig. 2 camera of cellphone 19, paragraph [0076] all),
characterized in that the retractor attachment part is articulated, in at least two directions from the support (Fig. 6a/b showing space within elements 48 to allow the retractor parts 38b to articulate in at least two directions by the “play” space such as when being inserted and before pictures would be taken when a user would be adjusting the retractor and while being used as the retractor held in the mouth would pivot relative to the support that would be held in a patients hands and thus be moved to some amount resulting in pivoting) on the support attachment part (paragraph [0089 lines 1-3], The tabs as seen in Fig. 6b allow for the retractor attachment to be moved laterally along the tab, thus being articulated along the support attachment, for example area 40b. As seen in Fig. 6c, lines Za and Zb the tabs move relative to axis X and axis Y. Articulated is understood as allowing rotational or translation motion relative to another object. As the retractor (14) can move laterally, and on the angles Za and Zb seen in Fig. 6c, it is articulated on the support attachment parts 40a and 40b),
wherein the retractor attachment parts and support attachment parts are conformed in such a way that the retractor can be attached to the support only in a single predetermined position (Fig. 6a/b element 14 can only be receive in a single predetermined position of being attached directly to the support part such that it is aligned with the support part, as best can be understood as the claim also requires the retractor to articulate in at least two direction to the support).
Regarding claim 2, Salah further discloses where the retractor attachment part is mounted to pivot on the support attachment part (Fig. 6a-6c the retractor attachments 38b having open space around them inside element 40a/b allow for pivoting).
Regarding claim 3, Salah further discloses where the retractor attachment part is mounted to pivot on the support part about a pivoting axis which in the operating position extends horizontally (Fig. 6a the horizontal axis from 38a to 38b allows pivoting by the space surrounding 38a/b inside elements 40a/b)
Regarding claim 4, Salah further discloses where the retractor attachment part is mounted to pivot on the support attachment part about a pivoting axis, and the pivoting axis is translationally movable with respect to the support in a direction of translation that is different from that of the pivoting axis (Fig. 6a/b the retractor supports can translate up and down within 40a/b while pivoting).
Regarding claim 7, Salah further discloses wherein the support comprises two support attachment parts and the retractor bears two retractor attachment parts that are removably attached to the two support attachment parts, respectively, the distance between the two retractor attachment parts being less than the distance between the two support attachment parts when the supports is not attached to the retractor, such that when the support is attached to the retractor the retractor is flexed.
Claim 6, Salah further discloses wherein the retractor attachment part is magnetically attached to the support attachment part [0090 line 3 wherein the fastening means is magnets].
Claim 8, Salah further discloses wherein the support (12) comprises two support attachment parts (40a, 40b Fig. 6b) and the retractor (14) bears two retractor attachment parts (38a, 38b Fig. 6b), the retractor attachment parts and support attachment parts being configured in such a way that the retractor can be attached to the support only in a single predetermined position (Fig. 1, there is only one location for the retractor to attach to the support. Further, as best seen in annotated Fig. 6a, there is a coupling feature at the bottom of the support which corresponds the outer geometry of the retractor. This feature indicates the proper location of the bottom of the retractor indicating where the u-shaped connection portion should be located).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Salah further discloses wherein the retractor comprises cheek separating lugs (elements 34, 36 and paragraph [0085].)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2013/0209954 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Prakash discloses the claimed invention, including where the pivot can be rotated several degrees (paragraph [0072] lines 1-3) but fails to explicitly disclose the maximum amplitude of pivoting of the support with respect to the retractor is greater than 5 degrees and less than 30 degrees however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the maximum amplitude be between 5 and 30 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah et al. (US 2018/0303331 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Salah further discloses wherein the support comprises two support attachment parts (Fig. 6a elements 40a and 40b) and the retractor bears two retractor attachment parts that are removably attached to the two support attachment parts respectively (Fig. 6b elements 38a and 38b), and there being a distance between the two retractor attachment parts (Fig. 6b element 38a/b having distance based on the retractors size) and being less than the a distance between the two support attachment parts (fig. 6a elements 40a/b).
Salah discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the distance between the retractor attachment parts is less than a distance between the support parts such that when the retractor would be attached to the support the retractor would be flexed.
However Salah further discloses that various sized retractors can be used with the imager (paragraph [0089] lines 1-5) and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a retractor having a smaller size for a smaller patients mouth opening that would need to flex the retractor to secure to the supports as various sizes would have been obvious to treat the varied anatomy of patients with needs for smaller size retractors since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2013/0209954 A1) in view of Salvati et al. (US 2015/0150440 A1) and further in view of Teller et al. (US 2002/0072337 A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Prakash teaches the kit substantially as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the support comprises a body (Fig. 2c element 220 having a body shape) and that the phone can be held into the support by various arrangements such as one or more clips (paragraph [0062] lines 1-3) or received in an opening of the housing (Fig.10a/c the phone would be received in the opening surround of the housing)
Prakash fails to explicitly disclose a door mounted to pivot on the body about a door pivot of axis, between a closed position in which it holds a cellphone clamped against a receiving face of the body, and an open position in which it allows the cellphone to be extracted, the door pivot being mounted to slide in translation, along a sliding axis not parallel to the axis, with respect to the body of the support (claim 10), comprising a return member disposed so as to oppose a separation of the door pivot away from the plane of the receiving face (claim 11),
Salvati et al. teaches medical imaging device to use housing to hold a phone with a camera (Fig. 9 housing element 102 with phone 800 being used for imaging using its camera 904) where the camera phone is held to the housing by a door (Fig. 9 element (806)) mounted to pivot on a body about a door pivot axis (paragraph [0080 lines 8-9](annotated Fig, 8)), between a closed position in which it holds the cellphone clamped against a receiving face of the body (Fig. 8 element 806 holding element 800 against the housing), and an open position in which it allows the cellphone to be extracted (As described in paragraph [0080 lines 1-3], the door 806 covers the device 800, as such it must open to allow insertion of the device 800) and the door can open by means of a hinge as (paragraph [0080 line 9), or other means described in [0080 lines 12-13]).
PNG
media_image2.png
440
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interchange include a door and hinge with pivot axis as taught by Salvati with the clips or in addition to the housing opening of Prakash as doing so is a substitution of one known element for another. Prakash contains a base device which includes a moveable vertical and horizontal clips for a mobile phone or an opening to surround the sides of the phone. The only difference between Prakash and the instant invention is the substitution of moveable vertical and horizontal clips for a phone support with a door on hinge or the addition of the door and hinge to an enclosing housing. The substituted component of a phone support with a door is known in the art as illustrated by Salvati. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that substituting the phone support of Prakash for the phone support as taught in Salvati would result in a more secure phone support, that minimizes accidental damage to the mobile device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification for the purpose securely attaching a mobile device to the retractor kit of Prakash and would have been motivated for protecting the screen of the phone/camera device during use as taught by Salvati (paragraph [0080] lines 1-3).
Prakash/Salvati as combined is silent regarding the door pivot being mounted to slide in translation, along a sliding axis not parallel to the axis, with respect to the body of the support, comprising a return member disposed so as to oppose a separation of the door pivot away from the plane of the receiving face.
However, Teller teaches a door pivot (12, 14) being mounted to slide in translation, along a sliding axis (vertical axis of Fig. 4) not parallel to the [pivot] axis (12)(the sliding axis and pivot axis are perpendicular to one another)[pg. 2 0017 lines 28- 33], with respect to the body of the support, comprising a return member (for example 34, 36, 38, 40, as described on hinge member 14 [0017 lines 46-47]) disposed so as to oppose a separation of the door pivot away from the plane of the receiving face [0017 lines 47-49]. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to include a moveable door pivot of Teller to the door pivot of Prakash/Salavati as doing so combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification for the purpose of fitting devices of various sizes as taught by Teller [0017 lines 31-33]. Further regarding claim 11 one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include the return members as taught by Teller to the holder of Prakash/Salvati as doing so utilizes known techniques to improve similar devices. One of ordinary artisan would recognize that including a return member would help to maintain the desired position of the door and device holder relative to one another as taught by Teller [0017 lines 44-49].
Claim 16, Prakash/Salvati/Teller further discloses wherein the body is in the form of a housing (Prakash Fig. 10a/c, element 1020 “camera mount housing”).
Claim 17, Prakash/Salvati/Teller as combined discloses the kit as claimed in claim 11, and as combined Teller further discloses wherein the return member (for example 34, 36, 38, 40, as described on hinge member 14 [Teller 0017 lines 46- 47]) is disposed to elastically oppose the separation of the door pivot away from the plane of the receiving face [0017 lines 47-49 teaches that the washers encourage the hinge to stay closed unless a force (the user) is applied to change positions) and thus as combined would provide for the elastic opposing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2013/0209954 A1) in view of Salvati et al. (US 2015/0150440 A1) and further in view of Teller et al. (US 2002/0072337 A1) as combined above and further in view of Shanker et al. (US 2016/0062099 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Prakash/Salvati/Teller as combined above discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where when in an open position of the door the cellphone would rest on a receiving face of the support (Fig. 2b the face of 220 would have the phone rest against it, Fig. 10a/c the face of the phone would rest against the inner face of the housing) and contact at least a fist and second abutment that would each prevent slippage in a first and second direction when the door would be open ( Fig. 10a/b the walls surrounding the phone would be a first and second abutments that would slop the phone from slipping) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the support comprises only first and second abutment.
However, Shankar discloses an image collection device (title and abstract) being an adapter housing for a cellphone with a camera (Fig. 1 all) having a receiving face of a support (Fig. 4 element 3) having an elastic band that swings over at a pivot axis to hold the cellphone against the face (Fig. 1 element 25 with a first end pivotable by hinge point 18) and having only a first and second abutments each for limiting the slippage of the cellphone on the receiving face when the hinged elastic would be in an open position (Fig. 1 elements 6 and 9) such that the abutments allow for adjusting the positioning of the cellphone laterally and distal-proximally to align the camera with the optical path (Fig. 1 elements 6 and 9 are adjustable abutments paragraph [0024] all).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of only a first and second abutments for the limiting of slippage of the cellphone on the face when the door would be open as taught by Shanker into the support body as taught by Prakash/Salvati/Teller for the purpose of allowing for adjustment of the cellphone camera to a hole in the support as taught by Shanker (paragraph [0024] lines 16-21).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 04/04/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights