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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claims 1 and 5-16 in the response filed on 05/05/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 5-16 remain pending in the application
Claims 2-5 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 5-16 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the elements of Perkins are not suited for oral cavity use and since the elements of Perkins are not suited for oral cavity use, it would not be obvious to modify Perkins for use in an oral cavity as required by the amended claims.
The examiner disagrees. Perkins teaches a stand-alone medical diagnostic or examination device that is coupled to a smart device. In the embodiment of Figs. 4a-4f, an otoscope is used as an example for the examination device. However, the examination device of Perkins is not limited to only an otoscope. Applicant confirms this by stating that “while an argument could be made that Perkins is not limited to the orifice's listed in its disclosure”. The examiner agrees, as Perkins states in [0081] that “the term “stand-alone medical diagnostic or examination device” refers to an instrument used to view a medical target of interest of a patient which includes an optical system and optionally includes an illumination system. Examples of these devices may include but are not limited to otoscopes, ophthalmoscopes, dermatoscopes, vagiscopes and anoscopes for viewing a medical target of interest”. It is obvious that Perkins, which teaches an examination device coupled with a smart device, can be combined with an examination device such as a tongue depressor. Therefore, Perkins does teach the “oral cavity” limitation.
Furthermore, Applicant cites element 1014 and the embodiment of Fig. 10a-10b of Perkins, but neither were not used to teach the limitations in the previous Office Action. Additionally, Applicant argues that Perkins is not meant for depressing the tongue or retracting cheeks. The examiner notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
The examiner suggests incorporating language to further clarify the oral cavity such as language from Applicant’s spec [0022], stating “The oral cavity may include at least one of the group consisting of: at least one cheek (or buccal region), tongue (or lingual region), beneath the tongue (or sub-lingual region), at least one tonsil (including palatine tonsils, nasopharyngeal tonsil (or adenoid) or lingual tonsils), uvula, pharynx and palate (including soft palate (or velum) or hard palate). The oral cavity may especially include at least one of (or all of) the group consisting of: palatine tonsils, adenoid, uvula and pharynx”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0303857 to Perkins et al. (hereinafter “Perkins”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0158358 to Holland.
Regarding claim 1, An oral cavity inspection system including: an oral cavity inspection device for illuminating a patient's oral cavity (200, Figs. 4a-4f; [0095]), theinspection device (220, Fig. 4a, [0097]); and a coupler arranged to attach with the smart phone so as to releasably couple the handle body of the oral cavity inspection device to the smart phone (208, Fig. 4e, [0097]), thereby positioning the structure relative to the image capture device (217, Fig. 4d, [0097]), wherein the coupler is positioned on a rear surface of the smart phone (208, Fig. 4e, [0097]) and is spaced apart from a lens of the image capture device (208, Fig. 4e, [0097]), and the handle body includes a substantially flat rear surface with a slot arranged to slidably receive the coupler (207, Fig. 4d, [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins to utilize the orifice inspection device, in the manner as taught by Holland. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of making it easier for an operator to identify certain features within the oral cavity ([0007] of Holland).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1.
Perkins, in view of Holland, fails to expressly teach wherein the disposable light transmissive structure is removable from the handle irrespective of whether or not the handle is coupled to the coupler.
However, Holland further teaches wherein the disposable light transmissive structure is removable from the handle irrespective of whether or not the handle is coupled to the coupler (Holland: [0025]- the blade is removably coupled to the handle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland, so that the disposable light transmissive structure is removable from the handle irrespective of whether or not the handle is coupled to the coupler, as taught by Holland. It would have been advantageous to make the combination so that when the blade is coupled to the handle light from the light sources is transmitted by the blade into the oral cavity (Holland: [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1, and Perkins further discloses wherein the coupler is planer (Perkins: 208, Fig. 4e, [0097]).
Regarding claim 13, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1.
Perkins, in view of Holland, fails to expressly teach wherein the light source extends laterally across the coupling portion of the handle.
However, Holland further teaches wherein the light source extends laterally across the coupling portion of the handle (Holland: Fig. 2A - light source 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland, so that the light source extends laterally across the coupling portion of the handle, as taught by Holland. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of making it easier for an operator to identify certain features within the oral cavity ([0007] of Holland).
Regarding claim 14, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 13.
Perkins, in view of Holland, fails to expressly teach wherein the light source includes a plurality of LED lights extending across the coupling portion of the handle.
However, Holland teaches of an analogous medical system wherein the light source includes a plurality of LED lights extending across the coupling portion of the handle (Holland: [0166]- typically the light source or plurality of light sources 14 in the handle 4 are light-emitting diodes (LEDs), such as surface mount LEDs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Perkins, in view of Holland to utilize a plurality of LED lights extending across the coupling portion of the handle, as taught by Holland. It would have been advantageous to make the combination in order to maximize battery life and prevent the handle from overheating ([0166] of Holland).
Regarding claim 15, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1, and Perkins further discloses wherein in the second condition an elongate axis of the handle body is parallel to an elongate axis of the smart phone (Fig. 4a-4f).
Regarding claim 16, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1, and Perkins further discloses wherein the handle body is elongate and extends perpendicularly to the disposable light transmissive structure (Fig. 4a-4f).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins in view of Holland and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0072189 to Jena et al. (hereinafter “Jena”).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1.
Perkins, in view of Holland, fails to expressly teach including a light guide structure, wherein the coupler and the handle body are arranged such that the light guide structure is positioned non-obstructively adjacent to and extending in a direction away from a lens of the image capture device.
However, Jena teaches of an orifice inspection system (Jena: Fig. 21, 22) further teaches (Fig. 26) teaches including a light guide structure (64, Fig. 26, [0112]), wherein the coupler (242, Fig. 26, [0112]) and the handle body are (30, Fig. 26, [0110]) arranged such that the light guide structure is positioned non-obstructively (72, Fig. 4, [0073]) adjacent to and extending in a direction away from a lens of the image capture device (Fig. 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland, to utilize a light guide structure, as taught by Jena. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing light ([0111]-[0114] of Jena).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins, in view of Holland, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0065803 to Douglas et al. (hereinafter “Douglas”) and CN 101046597 A to Zheng.
Regarding claim 7, Perkins, in view of Holland, teaches the orifice inspection system according to claim 1.
Perkins, in view of Holland, fails to expressly teach wherein the orifice inspection system is configured to detect the presence of the orifice inspection device, and to automatically adjust the image magnification of the image capture device based on the location of the orifice inspection device.
However Douglas teaches of an analogous orifice inspection device wherein the orifice inspection system is configured to detect the presence of the orifice inspection device (Douglas: see [0077] - A method of detecting if an otoscope lens device is attached to a mobile telecommunications device), and to adjust the image magnification of the image capture device based on the location of the orifice inspection device (Douglas: see [0043]- The magnification level may be chosen according to the desired application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland, to include an orifice inspection system configured to detect the presence of the orifice inspection device and to adjust the image magnification of the image capture device based on the location of the orifice inspection device, as seen above of the teachings of Douglas. It would have been advantageous to make the combination to enable dynamic configuration of the magnification or focus ([0043] of Douglas).
Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas fails to expressly teach to automatically adjust the image magnification of the image capture device based on the location of the orifice inspection device.
However, Zheng teaches of a mobile device and method including automatically adjusting the image magnification (Zheng: [0021]- Another aspect of the present invention is an electronic zoom method for a camera. A lever is actuated by a current signal or a voltage signal to move the lever from a first focal position (ie, a first side position) to a The second focal length position (that is, the second side position), thereby realizing the automatic zoom function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporate the teachings of Zheng that teach automatically adjusting the image magnification into the teachings Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas, that teaches automatically adjusting the image magnification. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for mobile phone cameras to meet the special needs of mobile phone products ([0007] of Zheng).
Regarding claim 8, Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas and Zheng, teaches the orifice inspection device according to claim 7.
Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas and Zheng, fails to expressly teach wherein the orifice inspection system is configured to detect the presence of the orifice inspection device based on user input.
However, Douglas further teaches wherein the orifice inspection system is configured to detect the presence of the orifice inspection device based on user input (Douglas: see [0077] - A method of detecting if an otoscope lens device is attached to a mobile telecommunications device having a digital camera).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland, Douglas and Zheng, to include the orifice inspection system is configured to detect the presence of the orifice inspection device based on user input, as seen above in the teachings of Douglas. It would have been advantageous to make the combination in order to indicate to the user in real time that it has been detected ([0326] of Douglas).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas and Zheng, teaches the orifice inspection device according to claim 7.
55. Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas and Zheng, fails to expressly teach wherein the system further includes a graphical user interface presented on a screen of the smart phone including an orifice positioning guide for positioning a patient's orifice in the photograph captured by the image capturing device.
However, Douglas further teaches wherein the system further includes a graphical user interface (Douglas: Fig. 32, Fig. 57, Fig. 46) presented on a screen of the smart phone (Douglas: Fig. 57, [0417]) including an orifice positioning guide for positioning a patient's orifice in the photograph (Douglas: Fig. 27A, [0320]) captured by the image capturing device (Douglas: Fig. 57, [0417]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland, and Douglas and Zheng, to include a graphical user interface presented on a screen of the smart phone including an orifice positioning guide, as seen above in the teachings of Douglas. It would have been advantageous to make the combination so that the subject may move the otoscope device to adjust the view being taken ([0039] of Douglas).
Regarding claim 10, Perkins, in view of Holland and Douglas and Zheng, teaches the orifice inspection device system according to claim 7, and Perkins further discloses wherein the orifice inspection system further includes a data interface for transmitting the photograph to the patient's medical service provider (Perkins: [0080]; note the claim interpretation section above; the examiner interprets data interface as the Wifi or Bluetooth connection as explain in [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Perkins, in view of Holland and Douglas and Zheng, teaches the orifice inspection device according to claim 7.
Perkins, in view of Holland and Douglas and Zheng, fails to expressly teach wherein the orifice inspection system further includes a graphical user interface configured to display the captured photograph and at least one photograph of an orifice having a known condition for comparison, to assist in identifying a condition affecting the patient's orifice.
However, Douglas teaches of an analogous orifice inspection device wherein the orifice inspection system further includes a graphical user interface configured to display the captured photograph and at least one photograph of an orifice having a known condition for comparison (Douglas: Fig. 33; [0121] - FIG. 33 illustrates one example of an access comparison screen for comparing an image of a patient's tympanic membrane to other (library) images), to assist in identifying a condition affecting the patient's orifice ([0350]- By visually comparing different intervention… They can use this information... in order to decide on the most appropriate intervention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Perkins, in view of Holland and Douglas and Zheng, to include a graphical user interface, as seen above in the teachings of Douglas. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of educating users about the meanings of different image features and to decide on the most appropriate intervention (([0342] and [0350] of Douglas).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights