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 .
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 1-6,11,12,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chodorow et al 20160180450 (cited by applicant).
As an initial matter, it is noted that in the previous office action, claims 14 and 15 were inadvertently omitted from the listing of claims in the previous rejection over Chodorow et al. However, claims 14 and 15 were addressed in the body of the rejection, as to how Chodorow et al discloses these claimed elements.
With regard to claims 1 and 14, Chodorow et al discloses a dental sensor 40 for an intraoral region and method of inserting, comprising an attachment portion 50 of plastic material for molding onto an oral region during insertion of the dental sensor 40, which plastic material is curable after molding. See paragraph 86.
With regard to the newly presented amendments to claims 1 and 14, note how at least one of the attachment portion 50 of the dental sensor 40 and/or a sensor housing 20 that house the dental sensor comprises a prefabricated through opening and one or more channels. See annotated figure below, as well as figures 16A and 17.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Through opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (channel)]
PNG
media_image1.png
217
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 2 and 15, note that Chodorow et al discloses wherein the plastic material is curable by light, electromagnetic radiation, or heat. See paragraph64. The materials described inherently cure when exposed to the heat of an intraoral environment.
With regard to claim 3, note that Chodorow et al discloses wherein the plastic material comprises a curable polymer. See paragraph 64 which discloses curable polymers.
With regard to claim 4, note that Chodorow et al discloses wherein the plastic material is disposed on a sensor housing 20 of the dental sensor. See figure 16a.
With regard to claim 5, note that Chodorow et al discloses wherein a connection between the attachment portion 50 and the dental sensor or the sensor housing 20 is established by a positively configured connection. See figure 14c.
With regard to claim 6, note that Chodorow et al discloses wherein the sensor housing 20 comprises a transparent or thermally conductive material (see paragraph 77, plastic material) and the transparent or thermally conductive material is in contact with the plastic material.
With regard to claim 11, note that Chodorow et al discloses a surrounding region (the frame of the sensor housing 20) around the through opening, wherein the surrounding region of the plastic material (see paragraph 77 which discloses plastic material for the sensor housing 20) around the through opening is not curable. See figure 16a which shows how the sensor housing 20 surrounds the through opening.
With regard to claim 12, note that Chodorow et al discloses wherein the plastic material is anatomically preformed. See figure 4.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chodorow et al 20160180450 in view of Ruth et al 20180206957.
With regard to claims 7-9, Chodorow et al do not disclose that the dental sensor comprises a light exposure device for the plastic material, the light exposure device being activatable by a user and being wireless.
Ruth et al disclose a dental impression tray which comprises a light exposure device (LED’s 6, see figs. 7 and 8). Ruth et al also disclose that the light exposure device may be activatable by a user and may be wireless (see paragraph 108 which discloses remote operation of the device).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include alight exposure device that is remotely/wirelessly operated by a user with the device of Chodorow et al, as taught by Ruth et al, if one wished to utilize a light activated impression material with the device of Chodorow et al.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chodorow et al 20160180450 in view of Hansen et al 20180280116.
With regard to claim 13, Chodorow et al do not disclose wherein a release layer is disposed on the plastic material for releasing the plastic material from the mouth region.
Hansen et al disclose a dental molding device in which a release layer may be applied to surfaces in contact with an impression material. See paragraph 28.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a release layer on the plastic material of Chodorow et al, in view of the teaching of Hansen et al that a release layer may be used with a molding device to facilitate removal of material from molding devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 5 of response) that Chodorow does not include channels in the sensor, housing or attachment region, and therefore the claims are not anticipated by Chodorow. Applicant’s additional remarks are drawn to the assertion that the additional references cited do not cure the deficiencies of Chodorow.
This is not found persuasive. As outlined in the above rejection over Chodorow et al, there is clearly a through opening and a channel in each of the attachment portion 50, sensor 40, and sensor housing 20.
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 NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772