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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/4/2025. Currently claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 10/4/2025, with respect to the previous objection of claim 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claim 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 1-2, filed 10/4/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of claims 11-19 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 11-19 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2, filed 10/4/2025, with respect to the previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 3-5, filed 10/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11 and 20 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Morreale
Claims 1 and 5-7 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Demarest in view of Morreale
Claims 10 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Morreale in view of Vermeulen
Claims 12-19 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Morreale in view of Brawn
have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the additional references of: Bloch et al (US 20200114165), Altshuler et al (US 20090287195), Whitney et al (US 20190388208), Sale et al (US 20060003284), Morreale et al (US 20210085993), Nahshon et al (US 20170027675) as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
“wherein tubular section further comprises a reflective ring which encircles an internal cavity in the hollow tubular section to direct light toward the teeth of the user and reduce light spillage around the mouth of the user”
This should be changed to:
“wherein the tubular section further comprises a reflective ring which encircles an internal cavity in the hollow tubular section to direct light toward the teeth of the user and reduce light spillage around the mouth of the user”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bloch et al (US 20200114165) hereafter known as Bloch.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1:
A portable teeth whitening apparatus [see Figs. 1-9 element 1000 and para 50… “an oral treatment device 1000 will be described in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. It is known in teeth whitening systems that a more effective whitening result can be achieved by applying a tooth whitening material to a user's teeth and then emitting light or electromagnetic radiation onto the teeth with the tooth whitening material pre-applied thereon in order to activate the tooth whitening material.”] comprising:
a main unit [see Fig. 1-6B element 300 and para 51… “the handle 300 extends from the mouthpiece 100 in a direction generally opposite the direction in which electromagnetic radiation/light is emitted from the mouthpiece 100.”] comprising:
a housing having an internal cavity therein [se Fig 1-6B element 301 (i.e. housing) and see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim and para 51… “the handle 300 extends from the mouthpiece 100 in a direction generally opposite the direction in which electromagnetic radiation/light is emitted from the mouthpiece 100.”];
a light source within the housing for emitting light to be applied to teeth of a user [see Figs. 1-6B element 150 and para 60… “a lamp 150”]; and
a detachable mouthpiece that is removably connectable to the main unit [see Figs. 1-9 element 100 and para 51… “an intraoral mouthpiece (hereinafter, “the mouthpiece”) 100”],
the mouthpiece designed to fit in the mouth of a user and allow at least a portion of light emitted from the light source to pass through the mouthpiece to the teeth of the user [see para 51… “The mouthpiece 100 comprises a concave front surface 101 from which the electromagnetic radiation is emitted onto the user's teeth during use and a convex rear surface 102.”],
wherein the detachable mouthpiece comprises a hollow tubular section for interfacing with the main unit [see Fig. 1-6B elements 120, 150, 180 and 210 (i.e. parts that make the hollow tubular section) and para 60… “The mouthpiece 100 of the oral treatment device 1000 generally comprises a lamp support structure 120, a lamp 150, a lens plate or cover lens plate 180, and a guard component 210.”] and a U-shaped section to be placed in the user’s mouth [see Fig. 5 elements 101-108 (i.e. parts that make up U-shaped section)],
wherein the U-shaped section comprises an outer flange that is designed to be located between the teeth and lips of a user during use [see Fig. 5 element 102 and para 51… “The mouthpiece 100 comprises a concave front surface 101 from which the electromagnetic radiation is emitted onto the user's teeth during use and a convex rear surface 102.”], and
wherein the tubular section extends perpendicularly from the outer flange through the lips of a user during use [see Fig. 1-6B and Fig. 28-29 which shows device relative to teeth (i.e. element 400 are teeth)]
PNG
media_image1.png
756
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
a mouthpiece socket for receiving the tubular section of the detachable mouthpiece [see Figs. 20-21 elements 185-186 (i.e. mouthpiece socket(s)) and para 112… “The lens plate 180 comprises a first connection element 185 located on the first end 183 and a second connection element 186 located on the second end 184. As will be described in more detail below, the first and second connection features 185, 186 of the lens plate 180 mate with the first and second connection features 140, 141 of the lamp support structure 120 to couple the lens plate 180 to the lamp support structure 120.”]
Regarding claim 3:
wherein the tubular section further comprises a locking flange designed to secure the mouthpiece to the main unit [see Fig. 7 and 20-21 elements 140-141 (i.e. locking flange(s)) and para 112… “the first and second connection features 185, 186 of the lens plate 180 mate with the first and second connection features 140, 141 of the lamp support structure 120 to couple the lens plate 180 to the lamp support structure 120.” And Para 80… “Thus, there is a gap between the two legs of each of the first and second connection elements 140, 141. The first and second connection elements 140, 141 are configured to interact and mate with connection elements on the lens plate 180, as discussed more fully below with reference to FIGS. 20 and 21, to couple the lens plate 180 to the lamp support structure 129.”], and
wherein the mouthpiece socket further comprises a locking groove for receiving the locking flange of the tubular section of the mouthpiece to secure the mouthpiece to the main unit [see labelled figure directly below rejection to this claim]
PNG
media_image2.png
730
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
wherein the mouthpiece socket comprises a translucent barrier to allow light to pass from the light source of the main unit to the detachable mouthpiece [see Fig. 6A-6B, 20-21 element 180 and para 60… “then the lens plate 180 is coupled to the lamp support structure 120 thereby sandwiching the lamp 150 between the lamp support structure 120 and the lens plate 180. The guard component 210 is then coupled to the lens plate 180. In some embodiments, the guard component 210 may be formed of a resilient or elastomeric material, such as a thermoplastic elastomer. In such embodiments, the guard component 210 may be injection molded onto the lens plate 180 after the lens plate 180 is coupled to the lamp support structure 120 as described herein.” And para 111… “the lens plate 180 may be formed of a transparent material”]
Regarding claim 5:
wherein the translucent barrier of the mouthpiece socket is shaped to direct light [see para 111… “the lens plate 180 is formed of a light transmissive material so that the light generated by the light emitters of the lamp 150 can pass through the lens plate 180.”]
Regarding claim 6:
wherein tubular section further comprises a reflective ring which encircles an internal cavity in the hollow tubular section to direct light toward the teeth of the user and reduce light spillage around the mouth of the user [see Figs 1-6B and Fig. 12-13 element 160 (i.e. reflective ring) and para 86… “a flexible reflective substrate 160, first and second electrical contacts 161, 162, an upper bus bar 171, and a lower bus bar 172. The plurality of light emitters 154 are disposed between the flexible lens plate 159 and the flexible reflective substrate 160. The upper and lower bus bars 171, 172 and portions of the first and second electrical contacts 161, 162 may also be located between the flexible lens plate 159 and the flexible reflective substrate 160. In some embodiments, when assembled, the flexible reflective substrate 160 is adjacent to the lamp support surface 122 and the light is emitted from the flexible lens plate 159 side of the flexible sheet body 151.”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Altshuler et al (US 20090287195) hereafter known as Altshuler.
Bloch discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Bloch fails to disclose “a metallic plate in thermal communication with the light source to dissipate heat generated by the light source” as recited by claim 7.
Altshuler discloses in the analogous art of phototherapy treatment devices [see abstract… “An apparatus is disclosed that uses at least one low power optical radiation source in a suitable head which can be held over a treatment area for a substantial period of time or can be moved over the treatment area a number of times during each treatment.”] using a metal heat sink in thermal contact with an optical ration source (i.e. a metallic plate in thermal communication with the light source) for the purpose of removing heat from radiation sources [see para 85… “While the low power radiation sources employed for this invention generate far less heat than the higher power sources previously employed, they do generate some heat, which, particularly for longer treatments, it is desirable to dissipate from the sources. A heat sink of a thermally conductive material, for example aluminum or some other metal or a thermally conductive ceramic, in contact with the sources can dissipate heat from the head, and heat can be removed from the heat sink into ambient air.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bloch by including a metal plate in thermal contact with the light source to help remove heat similarly to that disclosed by Altshuler to help prevent overheating from the light.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Whitney et al (US 20190388208) hereafter known as Whitney.
Bloch discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Bloch fails to disclose “wherein the main unit further comprises:
a whiteness sensor for measuring a whiteness level of the teeth of the user” as recited by claim 8
Whitney discloses in the analogous art of teeth whitening devices [see abstract… “Devices for whitening teeth of a user where the device outputs data, the device is controlled using hand gestures detected by at least one sensor, or the device includes wireless charging.”] using multiple color sensors to determine the color of the teeth (i.e. whiteness sensor) for the purpose of determining the appropriate light parameters to use in treatment [see para 14…. “the device includes multiple color sensors, and, in particular embodiments, different color sensors of the multiple color sensors sense color of the teeth of the user in different areas of the mouth of the user. Further, in other embodiments, shade sensors are used in addition to, or instead of, color sensors, and shade of the teeth is used.” And see “When the teeth are scanned, in some embodiments, an algorithm determines (e.g., based on the timer and shade value received for the quadrant), what duty cycle to set (e.g., for each quadrant), for instance, when the treatment begins. Due to the flexibility of the modulation scheme, in particular embodiments, the algorithm may be further tuned, for example, to generate modulation patterns to further enhance the treatment process, for instance, by the dynamic variation of the duty cycles for each quadrant. In certain embodiments, peak output (e.g., in terms of millicandela or mcd), or the intensity of light (e.g., from 210) or dynamic variations is controlled, for example, by the algorithm, driven by the PWM (e.g., 808), or both.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bloch by including whiteness sensors similar to that disclosed by Whitney as this will allow a user to determine the best light parameters in whitening a user’s teeth.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Block in view of Whitney by placing the whiteness sensors in the main unit (i.e. thereby reciting claim 8) because there are a limited number of structures to place the whiteness sensor(s) (i.e. the main unit or the mouth piece) and the main unit is one of those limited number of structures.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Sale et al (US 20060003284) hereafter known as Sale.
Bloch discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Bloch fails to disclose “wherein the main unit further comprises:
a chin pad attached to the housing made of a soft material and located below an interface between the main unit and the detachable mouthpiece”
Sale discloses in the analogous art of teeth whitening devices [see abstract… " The invention is a locally mounted light source for light activation of tooth whitening compositions.”] a chin pocket (i.e. chin pad) attached to the main unit to increase stability [see Fig. 4 element 41 (i.e. chin pad) and 39 (i.e. main unit) and Para 30… “Referring to FIG. 4, another alternative embodiment of the invention also uses a resilient neck strap 39 that passes around the neck, but instead of the head straps, uses instead a chin strap 40 with a chin receiving pocket 41 to increase stability.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bloch by placing a chin pad attached to the main unit similarity to that disclosed Sale because this will increase stability.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloch in view of Morreale et al (US 20210085993) hereafter known as Morreale.
Bloch discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Bloch fails to disclose “a safety sensor to reduce or halt light output of the light source when the portable teeth whitening apparatus is not in proximity to the user, wherein the safety sensor comprises a camera, an infrared emitter/receiver, an ultrasonic sensor, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a temperature sensor, a capacitive sensor, or a physical switch”
Morreale discloses in the analogous art of light therapy in the mouth [see abstract… “An oral hygiene device comprises a housing having an outside mouth portion and an inside mouth portion, at least one energy delivery element disposed in or on the inside mouth portion, configured to deliver energy to one or more teeth of a subject,”] using a photodiode sensor that detects IR light to determine if a device is in the mouth (i.e. a safety sensor, infrared emitter/receiver) so that the lights are turned off when the device is not in the mouth[see para 72 of Morreale…“a device of the present invention includes an ambient light sensor, for example comprising a photodiode, mounted on a surface of the device that would typically be located inside the mouth of a subject while in use. The controller could then periodically poll the ambient light measured by the ambient light sensor, and turn off any LEDs or illuminating elements in the illumination unit when the ambient light sensor measures a level of ambient light above a pre-determined threshold (thereby indicating that the illumination unit is not positioned in the mouth of the subject).” And para 96… “reading the temperature and the ambient infrared light levels,”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bloch to include a photodiode sensor similarly to that disclosed by Morreale to prevent the application of light when the device is not in the mouth and therefore not being used.
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney in view of Nahshon et al (US 20170027675) hereafter known as Nahshon.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 11:
Whitney discloses:
A portable teeth whitening apparatus [see Fig. 1-4 element 100 and para 32… “FIGS. 1 to 4 illustrate an example of an embodiment of a device or mouth piece for whitening teeth, device or mouth piece 100.”] comprising:
a housing [see Fig. 1 and 3 element 405 and para 34… “outer case 405”] having an internal cavity therein [see labelled figured directly below rejection to this claim];
a light source within the housing for emitting light to be applied to teeth of a user [see Fig. 2 elements 210, 240 and para 32… “LEDs (light emitting diodes) 210 collectively form a light source that is located outside of the user's mouth when device 100 is properly positioned for operation, which is partially within the user's mouth. Light from LEDs 210 reflects off of polished surface or reflector 220 (e.g., shown in FIG. 2) to the user's teeth when device 100 is in operation.” And para 65… “two UV light source elements 240 are visible, but in some embodiments, a third UV light source element is present opposite the UV light source element 240 that is on the right side of FIG. 2.”];
a microcontroller operably connected to the light source for controlling the light source [see para 14… “the device controls a teeth-whitening process, for instance, using the color of the teeth of the user, the device for whitening teeth includes a processor, for example, that controls the teeth-whitening process, for instance, using the color of the teeth of the user, or a combination thereof.” And para 92… “the device includes a primary host processor, includes a secondary host processor, includes an Arm Cortex M-4 processor, includes a PIC MCU processor, or a combination thereof, as examples. Further, in many embodiments, users can set (e.g., select) their own treatments. For example, in particular embodiments, users can set a timer, users can set intensity of a treatment, users can set duration of a treatment, or a combination thereof. Further still, in various embodiments, users can select a teeth-whitening treatment, users can select a gum treatment,”]; and
a mouthpiece connected to the housing [see Fig. 1-4 element 412 (i.e. mouthpiece) and para 34… “clear silicone mouth piece 412.”], the mouthpiece designed to fit in the mouth of a user and allow at least a portion of light emitted from the light source to pass through the mouthpiece to the teeth of the user [see Figs. 1-4 and para 34… “clear silicone mouth piece 412” the based on the positioning of the lights shown in Fig. 2 and the fact that the mouthpiece is clear… the mouthpiece is at the very least capable have light emitted as claimed],
wherein the microcontroller is designed to activate the light source according to a lighting scheme, the lighting scheme defining a duration of a treatment session and an intensity of the light source during the treatment session [see para 92… “the device includes a primary host processor, includes a secondary host processor, includes an Arm Cortex M-4 processor, includes a PIC MCU processor, or a combination thereof, as examples. Further, in many embodiments, users can set (e.g., select) their own treatments. For example, in particular embodiments, users can set a timer, users can set intensity of a treatment, users can set duration of a treatment, or a combination thereof. Further still, in various embodiments, users can select a teeth-whitening treatment, users can select a gum treatment,” and para 60… “the processor controls the intensity of light produced (e.g., with LEDs 210) by the device (e.g., 100). Even further, in some embodiments, the processor analyzes reflected light from the teeth. For example, in particular embodiments, the processor analyzes color, shade, or both, of the teeth. Even further still, in certain embodiments, the device for whitening teeth of a user includes or uses a learning algorithm.”], and
wherein the lighting scheme has a variable intensity during the treatment session [see para 39… “light reflection patterns are designed to change the intensity of the light waveform, for instance, by modifications to the peak output.”]
However, Whitney is silent as to the type of waveforms used and therefore fails to disclose “and wherein the lighting scheme has a waveform comprising a sine, ½ sine, sawtooth, or triangle wave”.
Nahshon discloses in the analogous art of teeth whitening devices [see abstract… “A teeth whitening device and method are presented.”] known treatment waveforms include a triangle and sawtooth waveforms [see Fig. 6 “triangle” and/or “sawtooth” and para 81… “FIG. 6 is an example of suitable AC current profiles used in the tests presented in the current application”]
Since Whitney is silent as to the exact waveform patterns used and Nahshon discloses that a known waveform patterns used in teeth whitening are a triangle and sawtooth pattern, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Whitney processor to use both a triangle and a sawtooth pattern because these are known patterns used in teeth whitening.
PNG
media_image3.png
688
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, see rejection to claim 11 which discloses using both a triangle and saw-tooth pattern (i.e. two or more waveforms).
Regarding claim 13, see para 44 of Whitney [see “the lighting system (e.g., 210) or light reflection system (e.g., 210 and 220) is controlled, for example, by the pulse width modulation circuit (e.g., 808).”] discloses a pulse width component modulation indicating Whitney in view of Nahshon is configured to change the period of the over the duration of the treatment session.
Regarding claims 14, see para 60 of Whitney [see “the processor controls the intensity of light produced (e.g., with LEDs 210) by the device (e.g., 100). Even further, in some embodiments, the processor analyzes reflected light from the teeth. For example, in particular embodiments, the processor analyzes color, shade, or both, of the teeth.”]
Regarding claims 15-18:
See para 14 of Whitney [see “the device includes multiple color sensors, and, in particular embodiments, different color sensors of the multiple color sensors sense color of the teeth of the user in different areas of the mouth of the user. Further, in other embodiments, shade sensors are used in addition to, or instead of, color sensors, and shade of the teeth is used.”] and para 42 of Whitney [see “When the teeth are scanned, in some embodiments, an algorithm determines (e.g., based on the timer and shade value received for the quadrant), what duty cycle to set (e.g., for each quadrant), for instance, when the treatment begins. Due to the flexibility of the modulation scheme, in particular embodiments, the algorithm may be further tuned, for example, to generate modulation patterns to further enhance the treatment process, for instance, by the dynamic variation of the duty cycles for each quadrant. In certain embodiments, peak output (e.g., in terms of millicandela or mcd), or the intensity of light (e.g., from 210) or dynamic variations is controlled, for example, by the algorithm, driven by the PWM (e.g., 808), or both.”] which discloses multiple color sensors that determine the color of the teeth (i.e. whiteness sensors recited in claim 15) and that data from these color sensors controls the lighting algorithm (i.e. light intensity, light duration and light waveform as recited in claims 16-18).
Regarding claim 19: para 88 of Whitney [see “various embodiments include wireless charging (e.g., in enclosure 500), treatments that users can track, machine learning (e.g., that helps improve performance), self-cleaning (e.g., using UV elements 240), shade detection (e.g., with sensors 230), wireless control, connection to the cloud, or a combination thereof.”] and para 89 of Whitney [see “in some embodiments, the primary processor is an Arm Cortex M-4, the secondary process is PIC MCU, or both. In various embodiments, the primary processor is used for local methods and more-complex methods are processed in the cloud, for example. Even further still, in some embodiments, systems are user customizable. In particular embodiments, for example, users can set their own treatments, customize: timers, intensity, duration, or programs, or a combination thereof, for instance, to cycle between teeth whitening and gum treatment.”] disclose a cloud (i.e. apparatus structured to store whiteness data) and connection to the cloud (i.e. structured to transmit the whiteness data to another device) which recites claim 19.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitney in view of Nahshon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Morreale.
Whitney in view of Nahshon discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 11 as outlined above.
However, Whitney in view of Nahshon fails to disclose “a safety sensor to reduce or halt light output of the light source when the portable teeth whitening apparatus is not in proximity to the user, wherein the safety sensor comprises a camera, an infrared emitter/receiver, an ultrasonic sensor, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, a temperature sensor, a capacitive sensor, or a physical switch”
Morreale discloses in the analogous art of light therapy in the mouth [see abstract… “An oral hygiene device comprises a housing having an outside mouth portion and an inside mouth portion, at least one energy delivery element disposed in or on the inside mouth portion, configured to deliver energy to one or more teeth of a subject,”] using a photodiode sensor that detects IR light to determine if a device is in the mouth (i.e. a safety sensor, infrared emitter/receiver) so that the lights are turned off when not in the mouth[see para 72 of Morreale…“a device of the present invention includes an ambient light sensor, for example comprising a photodiode, mounted on a surface of the device that would typically be located inside the mouth of a subject while in use. The controller could then periodically poll the ambient light measured by the ambient light sensor, and turn off any LEDs or illuminating elements in the illumination unit when the ambient light sensor measures a level of ambient light above a pre-determined threshold (thereby indicating that the illumination unit is not positioned in the mouth of the subject).” And para 96… “reading the temperature and the ambient infrared light levels,”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Whitney in view of Nahshon to include a photodiode sensor similarly to that disclosed by Morreale to prevent the application of light when the device is not in the mouth and therefore not being used.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792