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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 8 of the claim “of the lower lip, respectively,” is believed to be in error for -of the lower lip of the user, respectively,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 14 of the claim “in which retractor the structure and/or said fixings” is believed to be in error for -in which the structure and/or said fixings-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “the left-flange” in lines 16, 19 and 20-21 is believed to be in error for -the left-hand flange-. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figure 17 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-28 are 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims the horizontal moving closer force between the right hand flange and the left hand flange being a traction force exerted parallel to the plane of the retractor on “a free end of a first of the right-hand flange and the left-hand flange, to move it elastically closer to a free end of a second of the right-hand flange and the left-flange” It is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim with respect to the claimed “a first” and “a second” of the right-hand and left-hand flanges. It is noted that the applicant has only claimed a single left-hand flange and a single right-hand flange, therefore, it is unclear what the applicant is claiming with respect to a first and second of each of the left-hand and right-hand flanges. For examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as moving a free end of one of the claimed left- or right-hand flanges towards a free end of the other respective left- or right-hand flanges, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. The same issue applies to the similar limitation of the first and second upper and lower flanges and is being interpreted the same as discussed above in detail. It is noted that the limitations are functional and therefore, the prior art would only need to be capable of functioning as claimed, such that it only need to be capable of moving in the claimed directions if a force is applied to it as claimed.
Further the limitation “horizontal and vertical direction being defined in the service position in which the retractor is disposed on the mouth of the user, who is maintaining their head vertical” is unclear. The applicant has claimed the horizontal moving closer force moving the left- and right-hand flanges closer together and the vertical closer force moving the upper and lower flange closer together and has functionally claimed how the flanges are configured to be placed in the mouth, therefore, it is unclear what the applicant is trying to further claim. Further it is unclear how the user holding their head “vertical” further defines the horizonal and vertical directions in view of the other claim limitations which claim the upper, lower, left, and right flanges relative to the anatomy of the user. It is noted that the applicant is only claiming the apparatus and not the method of use. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as not further limiting the claim, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
With respect to claim 3, the claimed “first and second lateral ends” of the structure are unclear in view of the claimed right-hand and left-hand ends of the structure in claim 1. It is noted that the claimed lateral ends are being interpreted as the same structure as the claimed left and right ends of the structure, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 3, the claimed force applied to the structure to compress it horizontally is unclear in view of the claimed horizontal closer force of the independent claim. It is noted that the claimed force of claim 3 is moving the structure/retractor in the same direction and requires the force to be the same (i.e. greater than 5N), therefore, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim that the claimed reactor is functionally capable of in use, having two different forces applied to the structure/retractor or if the applicant is claiming the same force. It is noted that the independent claim claims “in which retractor the structure and/or said fixings of the flanges onto the structure is/are shaped in such a manner that a horizontal moving closer force necessary to move the right-hand flange and the left-flange 10 mm closer together is greater than 5N. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations of claim 3 are being interpreted as the same force, i.e. the horizontal closer force, of the independent claim.
The same issues applies to claims 2 and 4, such that the force is being interpreted the same.
With respect to claim 9, the claimed “junction” of the upper and lower flange is unclear in view of the claimed “fixings” of the independent claim. The applicant has amended the independent claim to include the limitation of all of the claimed flanges being fixed to the claimed structure by “respective fixings”. Therefore, it is unclear if the claimed junction of claim 9 is the same structure as the claimed fixing of the independent claim or a different connection between the two elements. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the same structure, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Further with respect to claim 9, the claimed “said flanges” is unclear in view of which flanges the applicant is trying to reference. It is noted that four different flanges have been claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as only the upper and lower flanges, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the free edges" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the upper free edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lower free edge" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 11, the claimed “ends” of the upper and lower arches are unclear in view of the claimed left and right ends of the structure in the independent claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed ends in which the arches are joined together are being interpreted as the claimed left and right sides of the structure, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
With respect to claim 14, the claimed vertical moving force is unclear in view of the claimed vertical moving force of the independent claim. It unclear if the device is configured to function as claimed if a different force, than that of claim 1 is applied or if the same forces is applied. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed applied force of claim 14 is being interpreted as the same as that of the independent claim, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarity what is being claimed.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the free edge" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 16, the claimed left- and right-hand ends of the upper and lower arches are unclear in view of the claimed left- and right-hand end of the structure of the independent claim. It is unclear if they are the same end or different ends. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as the same end, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
It is noted that in view of the deficiencies, the claims were interpreted as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 17-18, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman (2005/0171406) in view of Levine et al. (2015/0079541).
Dorfman teaches, as best understood, with respect to claim 1 a dental retractor intended to be placed in a mouth of a user, the user having an upper lip having an upper central part, a lower lip having a lower lip central part, a right-hand labial commissure and a left-hand labial commissure (such that the user is NOT positively claimed only that the device is configured to be placed in the mouth of a user, see fig. 8), the dental retractor 10’ including a right-hand flange (12’, such that when positioned in the mouth flange 12’ would be on the right side of the patient), a left-hand flange (14’), an upper flange (18’) and a lower flange (16’) extending around a retractor opening (see fig. 7, annotated figure below) and intended to bear, in a service position, on the right-hand labial commissure, the left-hand labial commissure, the central part of the upper lip and the central part of the lower lip of a user, respectively (see fig. 8), a structure (20’) onto which said flanges are fixed by respective fixings (see fig. 8, such that the connection between the structure and the flanges is a fixing), in which retractor is shaped in such a manner that a horizontal force (a force applied in the horizontal direction) can be applied to the left and right flanges to move the left and right flanges closer together and a vertical force can be applied to the upper flange to move it closer to the lower flange which can be keep immobile (i.e. only the force is applied to the upper flange so that it is moved towards the lower flange), the vertical force applied to the upper flange elastically moves it closer to the lower flange, while the user keeps their head in a vertical position (see fig. 7, pars. 32, 39). Dorfman does not specifically teach the horizontal force is greater than 5 N and that the left and right flanges are brought 10mm closer together. However, does teaches the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces (i.e. the forces needed to be overcome in order to move the left and right flanges and the upper and lower flanges closer together, see par. 32), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman to require the force to move the left and right sides closer together be greater than 5N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the left and right flanges to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth. Further it is noted that Dorfman does not specifically teach the left and right sides are brought 10mm closer together, however, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to allow for the device to function as claimed, such that the left and right sides are capable of being moved 10mm closer together to each other, in order to allow for insertion in the mouth. Such that depending on the size of the user’s mouth and the size of the device, the amount of movement would vary. It is noted that the limitation is functional such that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use. Dorfman teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach right-hand and left-hand handles rigidly fixed to right-hand and left-hand ends of the structure, respectively and/or to the right-hand and left-hand flanges, respectively shaped in such a manner as to extend outside the mouth of the user in the service position.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Levine teaches a dental retractor including a right-hand flange 11 and a left-hand flange 13, right hand 29 and left-hand 31 handles rigidly fixed to the right-hand and left-hand flanges (see fig. 4-5) and shaped in such a manner as to extend to outside the mouth of the user in the service position (see fig. 5, such that when the lips are in the channels, the handles would be outside the mouth, see abstract, pars. 7, 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman with the handles taught by Levine in order to assist in insertion and removal of the retractor from the mouth.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 2 the horizontal moving closer force is greater than or equal to 10 N. However Dorfman, does teach the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces (i.e. the forces needed to be overcome in order to move the left and right flanges and the upper and lower flanges closer together, see par. 32), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman to require the force to move the left and right sides closer together be greater than 10N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the left and right flanges to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 3, the structure has first and second lateral ends (i.e. the ends of the structure connected to the left and right flanges) and is compressible horizontally by 10mm only by the action of a force greater than 5N exerted horizontally, parallel to the plane of the retractor, on the first lateral end of the structure to move it elastically closer to the second lateral end of said structure, which is kept immobile. However, Dorfman does teach the structure is compressible horizontally by the action of a force exerted horizontally, parallel to the plan of the retractor, on a lateral end of the structure to move it elastically close to the other lateral end of the structure, which is kept immobile (see par. 39, such that the force can be applied indirectly to the lateral ends). Dorfman further teaches the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces (i.e. the forces needed to be overcome in order to move the left and right flanges and the upper and lower flanges closer together, see par. 32), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman to require the force to move the upper and lower sides closer together be greater than 5N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the upper and lower flanges to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth. Further it is noted that Dorfman does not specifically teach the upper and lower sides are brought 10mm closer together, however, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to allow for the device to function as claimed, such that the upper and lower sides are capable of being moved 10mm closer together to each other, in order to allow for insertion in the mouth. Such that depending on the size of the user’s mouth and the size of the device, the amount of movement would vary. It is noted that the limitation is functional such that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 4, the force exerted horizontally, parallel to the plane of the retractor, on the first lateral end of the structure to move it elastically closer to the second lateral end of the structure which is kept immobile, is greater than or equal to 10 N. However Dorfman, does teach the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces (i.e. the forces needed to be overcome in order to move the left and right flanges and the upper and lower flanges closer together, see par. 32), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman to require the force to move the left and right sides closer together be greater than 10N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the upper and lower flanges to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 5, Levine further teaches the right-hand and left-hand handles are arranged in such a manner as to extend radially to the outside of the retractor opening in the service position (see figs. 4-5, such that the retractor opening is between flanges 11/13 and the handles extend outward from the opening).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 6, Dorfman further teaches the retractor is configured in such a manner as to leave entirely unobstructed the view though the retractor opening in the service position (see figs. 7, 9).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 7, Dorfman further teaches the structure is shaped in such a manner as to extend radially outside the mouth of the user in the service position (see fig. 9).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 8, Dorfman further teaches the retractor is shaped in such a manner as to extend, in the service position, only outside the mouth of the user and in the space defined by the extrados of the teeth and lips of the user (see fig. 9).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 9, Dorfman further teaches the upper flange and the lower flange being fixed to the structure of the retractor by junctions (see fig. 9, such that the junctions are where the flange meets the structure 20’) allowing vertical elastic movement of the free edges of the flanges relative to the structure (see pars. 32, 39, such that a force can be applied to the free end of the upper or lower flange and due to the connection and material, a vertical elastic movement is provided), however, does not specifically teach the movement being greater than 10 mm. However, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to allow for the device to function as claimed, such that the upper and lower sides are capable of being moved more than 10mm, in order to allow for insertion in the mouth. Such that depending on the size of the user’s mouth and the size of the device, the amount of movement would vary. It is noted that the limitation is functional such that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 10, Dorfman further teaches the junctions allow the elastic movement because of the effect of a force exerted on the upper free edge of the upper flange or on the lower free edge of the lower flange (see par. 39), however, does not specifically teach the force is less than 10N and greater than 0.5N. However Dorfman, does teach the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces, such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman to require the force to move the upper and lower flanges to be greater than 0.5N and less than 10N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the upper and lower flanges to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 17, Dorfman further teaches at least one of the upper and lower flange include a right hand fin and a left hand fin configured to come into abutment with the right hand flange and the left hand flange in such a manner as to impede movement apart of the upper flange and the lower flange during movement closer together of the right and left hand flanges (see annotated figure below, such that when a force is applied to the left and right flanges, they are capable of abutting the fins and therefore, the left and right flanges abutting the fin, it would impede movement of the upper and lower flanges, such that the left and right flanges would be in the space that the upper and lower flanges would need to occupy in order to move).
PNG
media_image2.png
426
414
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 18, Dorfman further teaches the upper and lower flange include a notch to receive a labial brake (see fig. 7 which shows the notch, labeled as 48, see par. 28).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 23, Dorfman further teaches the retractor opening is entirely unobstructed in such a manner that when the dental retractor is observed along the axis x of the retractor opening no part of the retractor conceals the retractor opening even partially (see figs. 7, 9).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 29, Dorfman further teaches having no tongue support (see fig. 7, such that it teaches no tongue retractor/support)
Claim(s) 11-16 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman (2005/0171406) in view of Levine et al. (2015/0079541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Torlakovic (WO 2012/038474).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Dorfman teaching upper and lower arches joined at their ends (see figs. 7 and 9, annotated figure below, such that the arches are joint at their ends through troughs), however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 11, the upper and lower arches jointed at their ends in such a manner that the structure has an oval overall shape.
PNG
media_image3.png
577
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Torlakovic teaches a dental retractor wherein the structure has an oval overall shape (see figs. 1A-1B, pg. 3, ll. 31-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the structure taught by Dorfman/Levine to function as taught by Torlakovic in order to expand the oral cavity as desired in order to obtain an uninhibited view of the entire oral cavity. Such as more force is needed to move the lips/cheeks outward at the side of the mouth then at the upper and lower portions of the mouth in order to get a clear view of the side and back of the mouth.
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Torlakovic teaching the upper and lower arches extend along respective curved axis for the structure to have said overall oval shape, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 12 at any point on said upper and/or lower arches the slope of the arch is greater than or equal to 0° and less than or equal to 600, the slope at a point of the arch being the absolute value of the smallest angle formed by a tangent to said arch at said point with a horizontal plane in the service position. It is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the slope of the oval structure to has the slope as claimed in order to provide the desired retraction forces. Such that it is noted that Dorfman teaches changing the structure changes the retraction force. Depending on the shape of the structure, including the slope a desired retraction force can be provided. Such as depending on the size of the patient’s mouth and the desired retraction force, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the slope of the overall oval structure in order to provide the desired retraction forces. It is noted that the applicant has not provided that the claimed slope provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the structure of the prior art is used for the same purposes, including retracting the user’s lips in order to obtain an unobstructed image of the user’s teeth.
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and further with respect to claim 13, Dorfman further teaches the upper and lower arches are arranged in such a manner as to extend radially outside the retractor opening in the service portion (see annotated figures above, such that the arches are outside the area of the opening).
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 14, the upper and lower arches being configured to be moved closer by more than 10 mm by a vertical force moving said arches closer together that is lower than 15 N, the force moving the two arches closer together being a traction force exerted parallel to the plane of the retractor at the middle of one of said arches to move it elastically closer to the middle of the other arch, which is kept immobile. Dorfman teaches, the upper and lower arches being configured to be moved closer by a vertical force, the force moving the arches closer together capable of being a traction force exerted parallel to the plane of the retractor to move it elastically closer to the opposing arch, which is capable of being keep immobile (see par. 39). Torlakovic teaches the upper and lower arches being configured to be moved closer by a vertical force, the force moving the arches closer together capable of being a traction force exerted parallel to the plane of the retractor at the middle of one of said arches to move it elastically closer to the middle of the other arch, which is capable of being keep immobile (see figs. 1A-1B, pg. 4, ll. 7-9, 29-31, such that it is a conventional lip spreader and made of plastic is has a degree of flexibility which would allow it to function as claimed). Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic does not specifically teach the upper and lower arches are configured to be moved closer by more than 10mm by a vertical force moving the arches closer together that is lower than 15N. However, Dorfman does teaches the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces (i.e. the forces needed to be overcome in order to move the left and right flanges and the upper and lower flanges closer together, see par. 32), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic to require the force to move the upper and lower arches to be lower than 15N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the retractor to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth. Further it is noted that Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic does not specifically teach the upper and lower arches are configured to be moved closer by more than 10mm, however, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to allow for the device to function as claimed, such that the upper and lower arches are capable of being moved by more 10mm closer together to each other, in order to allow for insertion in the mouth. Such that depending on the size of the user’s mouth and the size of the device, the amount of movement would vary. It is noted that the limitation is functional such that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use.
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, and Dorfman further teaches with respect to claim 15, the upper and lower flanges being fixed to the upper arch and the lower arch of the structure of the retractor (see annotated figure above), the upper flange and the lower flange being mount to pivot elastically on the upper and lower arches (see figs. 7, 9, such that the structure is capable of functioning as claimed), the pivoting of the upper and lower flange allowing vertical movement of the free edge of the upper and lower flange by a distance because of the effect of a force (see figs. 5, 9, par. 39). Dorfman does not specifically teach the force is less than 10 N and that distance is 10mm. However, does teaches the device can be modified to vary the retraction forces (i.e. the forces needed to be overcome in order to move the left and right flanges and the upper and lower flanges closer together, see par. 32), such that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman to require the force to move the upper and lower flanges together be less than 10N in order to provide the desired retraction force. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the upper and lower flanges to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth. Further it is noted that Dorfman does not specifically teach the upper and lower flanges are moved 10mm, however, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to allow for the device to function as claimed, such that the upper and lower flanges are capable of being moved 10mm closer together to each other, in order to allow for insertion in the mouth. Such that depending on the size of the user’s mouth and the size of the device, the amount of movement would vary. It is noted that the limitation is functional such that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use.
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, and with respect to claim 16, Dorfman further teaches wherein the right-hand and left-hand flanges are fixed rigidly to right-hand and left-hand ends of the upper and lower arches (see figs. 7, 9, such they are fixed rigidly in that they maintain a specific shape and orientation).
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, and with respect to claim 19, Torlakovic teaches a retractor wherein the color of at least part of the retractor having, in RGB code, substantially the same value for red, green and blue (pg. 2, ll. 27-29, pg. 3, ll. 31-34, pg. 4, ll. 7-14, pg. 5, ll. 28-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the color of the retractor taught by Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic to include a RGB code as taught by Torlakovic in order to easily identify the color of the teeth of the patient (see pg. 7, ll. 17-27). It is noted that Torlakovic does not specifically teach substantially the same value for red, green, and blue, the maximum difference between the values for red, green, and blue being less than 10. However, Torlakovic teaches the colors being standard colors and known color to enable electronic processing to identify and correct any differences between the image colors and the known colors of the color chart (see pg. 2, ll. 27-34). Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Torlakovic to ensure the same value for red, green, and blue, the maximum difference between the values for red, green, and blue being less than 10 to ensure accurate results in determining the color. It is noted that the colors of Torlakovic are being used in the same manner as the current invention, which is to determine the color of the teeth electronically from the image.
Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, with respect to claim 20, does not specifically teach the structure and/or the fixing of the flanges onto the structure is/are shaped in such a manner that the vertical moving force necessary to move the upper flange and the lower flange 10mm closer together is less than the horizontal moving closer force necessary to move the right-hand flange and the left-hand flange 10 mm closer together.
Torlakovic teaches a dental retractor wherein the structure is shaped in such a manner that the vertical moving force necessary to move the upper and lower portions10mm closer together is less than the horizontal moving closer force necessary to move the left and right portions 10 mm closer together (see figs. 1A-1B, such that the oval shape would function as claimed, the force required to move the upper and lower portions closer together would be less because of the slope of the upper and lower portions than the force required to move the left and right portions closer together).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the structure taught by Dorfman/Levine to function as taught by Torlakovic in order to expand the oral cavity as desired in order to obtain an uninhibited view of the entire oral cavity. Such as more force is needed to move the lips/cheeks outward at the side of the mouth then at the upper and lower portions of the mouth in order to get a clear view of the side and back of the mouth.
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, with respect to claim 21, does not specifically teach the ratio of the horizontal moving closer force to the vertical closing force being greater than 5. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the ratio of forces provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the retractor to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the structure of Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic to provide the ratio as claimed in order to provide the desired retraction forces. Such that it would provide a more comfortable retraction for the patient to provide only the necessary forces in each direction.
Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, with respect to claim 22, does not specifically teach the horizontal moving closer force is les than 20 N and the vertical moving closer force is less than 8N. It is noted that the applicant does not disclose that the ratio of forces or the specific forces provides any unexpected results or advantages and that the device of the prior art is designed for the same purpose which is to allow as user to apply a force to the retractor to reduce the size of the device to allow for insertion into the oral cavity and then upon release of the force, expand the oral cavity to allow a health care professional to more easily see the teeth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the structure of Dorfman/Levine/Torlakovic to provide the device that requires the forces as claimed to move the device as claimed in order to provide the desired retraction forces. Such that it would provide a more comfortable retraction for the patient to provide only the necessary forces in each direction.
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorfman (2005/0171406) in view of Levine et al. (2015/0079541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salah et al. (2018/0303331).
With respect to claim 24, Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the dental retractor as discussed above in detail with respect to claim 1, however, does not specifically teach a kit including the dental retractor and a retractor attachments parts and a retractor support including support attachment parts disposed in such a manner as to cooperate with the retractor attachment parts in such a manner as, in an assembled position of the retractor on the retractor support, to impose a distance between the right-hand flange and the left-hand flange.
Salah teaches a kit (see pars. 51-57, claims 1, 13) including a dental retractor 14 including retractor attachment parts 38a/38b and a retractor support 12 including support attachment parts 40a/40b disposed in such a manner as to corporate with the retractor attachment parts in such a manner as in an assembly position of the reactor on the retractor support, to impose a distance between the right-hand flange and the left-hand flange (see fig. 6b, par. 88, 90, 99). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the retractor of Dorfman/Levine to be included in a kit with a support in order to allow for the easy imaging of the mouth during the dental procedure.
Dorfman/Levine/Salah teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including with respect to claim 25, Salah further teaching in which in the assembled position each retractor attachment part is pressed onto a corresponding support attachment part along an attachment axis, said retractor and support attachment parts being configured to block by means of abutment movement in a plane perpendicular to the attachment axis (see fig. 6b, par. 88, 90, 99).
Dorfman/Levine/Salah teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including with respect to claim 26, Salah further teaching including a mobile telephone removably fixed onto the retractor support in a position enabling said mobile phone to acquire an image representing the retractor opening (abstract, pars. 45-50, claim 14, fig. 19).
With respect to claim 27, Dorfman/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the dental retractor as discussed above in detail with respect to claim 1. Dorfman further teaches a method of acquiring dental images by means of a dental retractor, the method including the following steps, placing the dental retractor in the service position (see par. 20), moving the dental retractor, towards the right and/or toward the left of the user, so that to render at least one molar visible through the retractor opening (see fig. 9, such a molar is visible, par. 39 regarding moving the retractor, such that it would be moved in a direction towards the user before being inserted in the mouth). Dorfman/Levine teaches the method as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach if the method is executed by means of a kit, fixing the retractor support to the dental retractor so the the dental retractor is in the assembly position, and acquiring by means of an image acquisition device at least one image representing the molar and/or representing teeth in the mouth closed position.
Salah teaches a method of acquiring dental images by means of a dental retractor, the method including the following steps, placing the dental retractor in the service position, fixing the retractor support to the dental retractor so that the dental retractor is in the assembly position, providing a molar visible through the retractor opening and acquiring by means of the mobile telephone device at least one image representing the molar (pars. 89, 97-98). While Salah does not specifically teach first inserting the retractor and then fixing the retractor support, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to first insert the retractor and then attach the support in order to easily insert the retractor. Such that before it is fixed to the support, the retractor is flexible allowing for reduction in size to allow for insertion to the mouth and then when fixed to the support, the retractor is held in a fixed position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the method taught by Dorfman/Levine with the support and image acquisition as taught by Salah in order to assist in carrying out the dental procedure by taking required images of the oral cavity as needed.
Dorfman/Levine/Salah teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including with respect to claim 28, Salah further teaching in which before step d), the mobile phone is fixed to the retractor support in a position enabling said image acquisition device to acquire an image representing the retractor opening (see abstract, pars. 108, 141, 147).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, with respect to the 112 rejections of the forces, that the forces of the claims are different in that they have different effects. However, the claims are still not clear in that if the forces are the same and have different effects, or if the forces are different, in that they are applied to different parts and therefore also have different effects. The rejection was maintained as the claims are not clear for the reasons discussed above in detail.
The applicant argues that the prior art of Dorfman does not teach the threshold of greater than 5N as claimed in the independent claim. It is agreed that Dorfman does not teach the threshold as claimed, however, it is also noted that Dorfman was not used to teach the specific claimed threshold. Dorfman was used to teach the that the material and design of the retractor can be modified to change the retraction forces (see par. 32). This teaching, along with the teaching of the retractor of Dorfman being used to retract the mouth of the user open to allow for examination of the teeth, was used to teach modifying Dorfman to have the threshold as claimed would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
The applicant argues that the retractor of Dorfman is very flexible and deformable, such that the flexibility in not incompatible with the function of moving the lips away from the teeth and that function is fulfilled in Dorfman thanks to the elasticity of the resilient members 20 such that the retractor of Dorfman allows the retraction of the lips when it is in the service position. It is unclear what the applicant is trying to argue that the prior art does not teach with respect to the claimed limitations. It is noted that the applicant has claimed a retractor and not the method of use, such that the claimed retractor However, it is noted that applicant has not claimed how the retractor retracts specific parts of the mouth, only that parts of the retractor can be moved closer to each other by a force greater than the claimed threshold.
As discussed above it is noted that Dorfman does not teach the claimed threshold, but teaches that the threshold can be changed based on the selected material and design of the retractor. Therefore, the modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention as discussed above in detail.
The applicant further argues that the retractor of Dorfman, in use, would deform if forces are applied to it, however, the applicant’s own retractor also deforms when forces are applied to it. Further it is noted that the claimed method of use, including pushing and pulling as argued is not claimed. Further it is noted that the modification of Dorfman to be deformable with the threshold would result in the retractor functioning the same as the applicants.
It is noted that the modification of changing the force required to deform the retractor would not result in an unexpected advantage as the applicant seems to argue. It is noted that if the retractor is modified to require a greater force to deform, it would provide a greater retraction force then a more flexible retractor.
The applicant further argues that one skilled in the art would not have any incentive to make the retractor more rigid (the Dorfman) as claimed, however, Dorfman teaches increasing the rigidity of the retractor (par. 32) and on