Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-19 and 21-29 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claimed limitation including “horizontal and vertical directions being defined…which is maintain their head vertical” is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim the horizontal and vertical closing forces relative to a patient when in use or just trying to define additional directions relative to a patient. It is noted that that applicant is only claiming the device and not the method of use and therefore, the applicant needs to clarify the limitations of the claim that are functional and that the claimed retractor is capable of having the claimed closer forces applied to it in the claimed directions relative to a patient. It is noted that the limitations do not add any structure to the claim and that the prior art would need to only teach a retractor that is capable is flexible, such that a force and be applied in both a vertical and horizontal direction. The limitation is being interpreted as the applicant is trying to functionally claimed the use of the device, such that in use, the patient is in a vertical, i.e. upright sitting or standing position, such that the horizontal and vertical forces are orientated relative to the patient, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 3, the claimed limitations related to the structure being “compressible horizontally…a force greater than 5N”. It is unclear if the force of claim 3 is the same horizontal moving closer force or a different force. It is noted that for examination purposes, the force of claim 3 is being interpreted as the same horizontal moving closer force of claim 1, however, the applicant should amen the claim to clarity what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 14, the claimed limitations including “being configured to be moved closer by more than 10 mm by a vertical force” is unclear in view of the vertical moving closer force of the independent claim. It is unclear if the vertical force of claim 14 is the same vertical force of the independent claim or a different vertical force. It is noted that for examination purposes, the force is being interpreted as the same force, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
The limitations of claim 15 are unclear of the similar limitations of claim 9, form which it depends from. It is noted in claim 9, the applicant claims the upper and lower flange being fixed to the structure by the fixing allowing vertical elastic movement, the movement being greater than 10 mm. In claim 15, the applicant claims the upper and lower flange being mounted to pivot elastically on the upper and lower arches, which is the structure, the distance being 10mm. The pivoting connection of claim 15 is unclear in view of the same connection of claim 9. It is noted for examination purposes, the limitation of the connection of claim 15 is being interpreted as the same connection as claim 9, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
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) 1-8, 11-14, 16, 19, 21-23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torlakovic (WO 2012/038474) in view of Hu (CN 112043228) in view of Levine et al. (2015/0079541).
With respect to claim 1, Torlakovic teaches a patient operated dental retractor intended to be placed in a mouth of a patient (see figs 1a-1b, pg. 2, ll. 3-6, such that the device can be used by the user and their cell phone, therefore, it is patient operated), the patient having an upper lip having an upper lip central part, a lower lip having a lower lip central part, a right-hand labial commissure and a left-hand labial commissure (see figs. 1a-1b, such that the retractor 2 is configured to be placed in a mouth 3 of the patient that has the anatomy), at least a left and right hand flange extending around a retractor opening and intended to bear, in a service position, on the right hand labial commissure and the left-hand labial commissure (see figs. 1a-1b, pg. 4, ll. 7-8, 29-30, pg. 6, ll. 4-5, pg. 7, ll. 2-3, 17-18, such that the lip spreader, i.e. retractor is “inserted in the mouth” and would bear against the left and right side of the mouth in order to spread the lips are taught), the dental retractor including a structure 2 (i.e. the portion of the lip spreader outside the mouth with the color chart), in which the structure is shaped in such a manner that a horizontal moving closer force can move the right hand flange and the left hand flange 10 mm closer together, however, does not specifically teach the force being greater than 5N. However, it is noted that the prior art of Torlakovic teaches the retractor being used for the same purpose as the current invention which is inserting into the mouth to spread the lip to clearly see the teeth to image them. 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 as discussed above. It is noted that depending on the size of the retractor relative to the users mouth the amount the left and right sides of the retractor are brought together (i.e. the closer distance) to allow it to be inserted into the mouth and then expand the lips as intended to would vary and further depending on the desired amount of retraction of the lips and once again the size of the mouth relative to the retractor, the force the retractor delivers to the user in order to retract the lips would be varied. Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the retractor such that the force required to move the left and right sides 10mm closer is greater than 5N to ensure the desired retraction. With respect to claim 1, Torlakovic further teaches the retractor wherein 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 one of the right-hand flange and the left-hand flange, to move it elastically closer to a free end of another of the right-hand flange and the left-hand flange, which is kept immobile (such that it is noted that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of applying the force, such that a force being applied to the retractor as claimed is capable of moving it a claimed specifically since the lip spread is designed to spread the lip open, therefore it obviously applies a force to the lip and is made of plastic which as degree of flexibility), a vertical moving closer force between an upper portion of the structure and a lower portion of the structure being a traction force exerted, parallel to the plane of the retractor, on a free end of one of the upper portion of the retractor or the lower portion of the retractor to move it elastically closer to a free end of another of the upper portion of the structure or the lower portion of the structure which is kept immobile (see detailed discussion above regarding the functional limitation of applying a force to the retractor, such that the method of applying the force is NOT claimed, only that a force can be applied to the retractor as claimed), horizontal and vertical direction being defined in the service position in which the retractor is disposed on the mouth of the patient, which is maintaining their head vertical (such that the retractor is capable of being used on a patient when their head is maintained in a vertical position), in which the structure is shaped in such a manner that the vertical moving closer force necessary to move the upper portion of the structure and lower portion of the structure 10 mm 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 (see figs. 1a-1b, such that due to the oval shape of the structure, the force required to move the upper and lower portions closer together is less than the force required to move the left and right sides closer together). Torlakovic teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach an upper flange and a lower flange extending around a retractor opening and intended to bear in a service position on the central part of the upper lip and the central part of the lower lip of the patient, respectively and right-hand and left-hand handles rigidly fixed to right-hand and left-had ends of the structure respectively shapes in such a manner as to extend to outside the mouth of the patient in the service position.
Hu teaches a patient-operated dental retractor intended to be placed in a mouth of a patient, the patient having an upper lip having an upper lip central part, a lower lip having a lower lip central part, a right-hand labial commissure and a left-hand commissure (see par. 2 of translation, such that it is configured to be placed on a patient that would have the anatomy), the dental retractor including a right-hand flange 122, a left-hand flange 122, an upper flange 133 and a lower flange 133 extending around a retractor opening 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 the patient, respectively (see figs. 1-2, pars. 9, 28), a structure 112/122 onto which the flanges are fixed by respective fixings (see figs. 1-4, such that the portion of the flanges directly connected to the structure is the claimed fixings). 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 taught by Torlakovic to include both an upper and lower flange in addition to the right and left hand flange as taught by Hu in order to ensure that the upper and lower lips are fully retracted in order obtain a clear unobstructed view of the teeth. Torlakovic/Hu 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-had ends of the structure respectively shapes in such a manner as to extend to outside the mouth of the patient in the service position.
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 Torlakovic/Hu with the handles taught by Levine to assist in insertion and removal of the retractor from the mouth.
Torlakovic/Hu/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 10N. However, as discussed above in detail, the retractor taught by the prior art is being used for the same purpose and the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages. It is noted that the device of the prior art is designed to function the same, such that a force is applied to the device to retract it while it is being inserted into the mouth and then the force is released to allow the retractor to expand and hold the lips away from the teeth. Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the retractor such that the horizontal moving closer force is greater than or equal to 10N to ensure the desired retraction.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Torlakovic further teaching with respect to claims 3-4, the structure has lateral ends and is compressible horizontally by 10 mm only by the action of a force exerted horizontally, parallel to the plane of the retractor, on one lateral end of the structure to move it elastically closer to another lateral end of the structure which is kept immobile (see above detailed explanation with respect to claim 1 regarding the functionality of the retractor such that a force as claimed is capable of being applied in the direction as claimed), however, does not specifically teach the force greater than 5N, specifically greater than or equal to 10N. However, as discussed above in detail, the retractor taught by the prior art is being used for the same purpose and the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages. It is noted that the device of the prior art is designed to function the same, such that a force is applied to the device to retract it while it is being inserted into the mouth and then the force is released to allow the retractor to expand and hold the lips away from the teeth. Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the retractor such that the force is greater than 5N or more specifically greater than or equal to 10N to ensure the desired retraction.
Torlakovic/Hu/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).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 6, Torlakovic further teaches the dental retractor is configured in such a manner as to leave entirely unobstructed the view through the retractor opening in the service position (see figs. 1a-1b).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 7, Torlakovic further teaches the structure is shaped in such a manner as to extend radially outside the mouth of the patient in the service position (see figs. 1a-1b).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 7, Torlakovic further teaches the entire dental retractor being shaped in such a manner as to extend, in the service position, only outside the mouth of the patient and in the space defined by the extrados of the teeth and the lip of the patient (see figs. 1a-1b). It is noted that the prior art of Hu also teaches the entire dental retractor being shaped in such a manner as to extend, in the service position, only outside the mouth of the patient and in the space defined by the extrados of the teeth and the lip of the patient.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 11, Torlakovic further teaches in which the structure includes upper and lower arches joined at the right hand and left hand ends of the structure is such a manner that the structure has an oval overall shape (see figs. 1a-1b).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 12, Torlakovic teaches the upper and lower arches extend along respective curved axis for the structure to have said oval overall shape (see figs. 1a-1b), however, does not specifically teach the slope is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 60 degrees, the slope being the absolute value of the smallest angle formed by a tangent to said curved axis of 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 have the slope as claimed to provide the desired retraction forces. 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 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 to obtain an unobstructed image of the user's teeth.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to 13, Torlakovic teaches the upper and lower arches are arranged in such a manner as to extend radially outside the retractor opening in the service position (see figs. 1a-1b).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to 14, Torlakovic further teaches the upper and lower arches being configured to be moved closer by more than 10 mm by a vertical force moving the arches closer together, 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 the arches to move it elastically closer to the middle of the other arch, which is kept immobile. Such that the force is capable of being applied to the retractor in the claimed orientation such that the method of applying the force to the arches is NOT claimed (see above detailed explanation with respect to claim 1), however, does not teach the force is lower than 15N. However, as discussed above in detail, the retractor taught by the prior art is being used for the same purpose and the applicant does not disclose that the force provides any unexpected results or advantages. It is noted that the device of the prior art is designed to function the same, such that a force is applied to the device to retract it while it is being inserted into the mouth and then the force is released to allow the retractor to expand and hold the lips away from the teeth. Therefore, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the retractor such that the force is lower than 15N to ensure the desired retraction.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 16, Hu teaches the right hand and left-hand flanges are fixed rigidly to the right hand and left hand end of the structure, respectively, of the upper and lower arches (see figs. 1-3, pars. 11, 25, such that the flanges 122 are rigid in the that provide a force to the cheeks in order to retract them).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above and with respect to claim 19, Torlakovic further teaches the 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, II. 27-29, pg. 3, II. 31-34, pg. 4, II. 7-14, pg. 5, II. 28-35). 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, II. 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.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 21 that ratio of the horizontal moving closer force to the vertical closer force being greater than 5. However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the horizontal moving closer force is less than the vertical moving closer force due to the oval shape of the structure. 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 Torlakovic to provide the ratio as claimed 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.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach with respect to claim 22, however, does not specifically teach the horizontal moving closer force is less than 20N 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 Torlakovic to provide the device that requires the forces as claimed to move the device as claimed 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.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Torlakovic further teaches with respect to claim 23, 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. 1a-1b).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Torlakovic further teaches with respect to claim 29, the retractor having no tongue support (see figs. 1a-1b).
Claim(s) 9-10, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torlakovic (WO 2012/038474) in view of Hu (CN 112043228) in view of Levine et al. (2015/0079541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kerr et al. (2021/0346135). It is noted that Kerr is entitled to the priority date of 4/17/2020.
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the upper flange and the lower flange being fixed to the structure of the retractor by the fixings allowing vertical elastic movement of any of free edges of the upper and lower flanges relative to the structure, the amplitude of the movement being greater than 10mm, the fixing allow the elastic movement because of the effect of a force less than 10N and greater than 0.5N exerted on the upper free edge of the upper flange or on the lower free edge of the lower flange.
Kerr teaches a dental retractor including an upper flange and a lower flange (see fig. 7, such that the flange is 76), a structure (see fig. 6 such that the structure is the frame (see par. 13, 15, 47, 59) on to which the flanges are fixed by respective fixings (pars. 13, 15, 47, 53, 59, such that the fixing is the portion directly adjacent to the structure of the over molded portion that extends from the structure/frame).
Kerr further teaches with respect to claim 9, the upper flange and the lower flange being fixed to the structure of the retractor by the fixings allowing vertical elastic movement of any of free edges of the upper and lower flanges relative to the structure (see fig. 7, pars. 59-60, 62). Such that the over molded portions 76 are made of a soft flexible material relative to the frame/structure and would function as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper and lower flange as taught by Torlakovic/Hu/Levine to include the flexible fixings as taught by Kerr to provide the patient with a comfortable device due to the flexibility of the fixing allowing adjustability of the flanges. It is noted that Kerr does not teach the amplitude of the movement being greater than 10 mm, however, it is noted that the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use and specifically moving the flanges by more than 10mm. It is noted that the device only has to be capable of being moved 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 sides are capable of being moved more than 10mm, 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. Further with respect to claim 10, Kerr does not specifically teach the force being less than 10N and greater than 0.5N exerted on the upper free edge of the upper flange or on the lower free edge of the lower flange. 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.
With respect to claim 20 Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the upper and lower flange include a notch to receive a labial brake.
Kerr further teaches the upper and lower flange including a notch to revie a labial brake (see figs. 6-7, par. 53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper and lower flanges taught by Torlakovic/Hu/Levine to include a notch as taught by Kerr in order to allow for frenum comfort.
With respect to claim 15 Torlakovic/Hu/Levine/Kerr teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above. Torlakovic further teaches the retractor includes upper and lower arches joined at their ends in such a manner that the structure has an oval overall shape (see figs. 1a-1b). Hu further teaches the upper and lower flanges being fixed to the upper and lower arches of the structure of the retractor (see figs. 1-2). Kerr further teaches the upper and lower flange being mounted to pivot elastically on the upper and lower arches, respectively, the pivoting of the upper and lower flange allowing vertical movement of the free eds of the upper and lower flange respectively (see detailed discussion above with respect to claims 9-10). Further see above detailed explanation with respect to claims 9-10 regarding the distance and force.
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torlakovic (WO 2012/038474) in view of Hu (CN 112043228) in view of Levine et al. (2015/0079541) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salah et al. (2018/0303331).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach a kit including the dental retractor and 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 Torlakovic/Hu/Levine to be included in a kit with a support to allow for the easy imaging of the mouth during the dental procedure. It is noted that Torlakovic teaches the use of the dental retractor with a camera, such as a cell phone camera (see pg. 2, ll. 3-6).
Torlakovic/Hu/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).
Torlakovic/Hu/Levine/Salah teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Torlakovic using a mobile phone to acquire an image of the teeth (see pg. 2, ll. 3-6), further 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, Torlakovic/Hu/Levine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the dental retractor as discussed above in detail with respect to claim 1. Torlakovic 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 figs. 1a-1b) and closing the mouth of the patient so as to render teeth visible through the retractor opening in the mouth closed position (see figs. 1a-1b, such that the teeth are in occlusion, therefore the mouth is closed), acquiring by means of the mobile telephone at least one image representing the teeth in the mouth closed position (see pg. 2, ll. 3-6, claim 1). Torlakovic/Hu/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 that the dental retractor is in the assembly 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 teeth (pars. 89, 97-98, 154). 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 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 Torlakovic/Hu/Levine with the support fixed to the image acquisition as taught by Salah to allow for the easy imaging of the mouth during the dental procedure and allow for accurate images, such that the support allows for the camara placement is consistent.
Torlakovic/Hu/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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach the claimed upper or lower flange including a right hand fin and a left hand fin configured to come into abutment with the right hand flange and the left hand flange, respectively, in such a manner as to impede movement apart of the upper flange and the lower flange during movement closer together of the right-hand and left hand flanges in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 3 and 14 (points 9 and 13), the applicant argues that the force being applied is different than the one of claim 1, however, the limitations are still unclear as to what is being claimed. As the applicant has claimed the force being applied to the structure and/or flanges, it is noted that the forces of claims 3 and 14 is applied to the structure and more specifically the arches, which is the structure. As mentioned, several times in the rejection, the applicant is NOT claiming the method of use, but rather the retractor that is flexible and can have forces applied to it to move different portions of the retractor relative to other portions. It is unclear how different vertical and horizontal forces can be applied to the same structure, such that the forces achieve the same outcome, i.e. the moving by more than 10 mm in the same direction. The applicant should amend the claims to clarify the structure that allows the movement of the device as functionally claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Wang has been cited to teach an oval retractor with upper and lower flanges and left and right flanges.
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 HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights