DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 9-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (US Patent 5,174,284).
Referring to Claim 1, Jackson teaches an assembly comprising: a light guide defining a hollow light transmissive pathway configured to receive light from at least one light source (e.g. Figure 1, Element 56. The examiner notes the claim as currently recited functionally recites the light source); a mouthpiece supported by the light guide such that at least a portion of the light guide extends through the mouthpiece, the mouthpiece comprising a biting surface, a first protrusion that extends from only a first portion of the biting surface that is above the light guide (e.g. Figure 5, Element 27), and a second protrusion that extends from only a second portion of the biting surface that is below the light guide (e.g. Figure 5, Element 30), the first and second protrusions configured to engage with back surfaces of teeth and expand an oral cavity of a user to position a portion of the hollow light transmissive pathway within the oral cavity (e.g. Figure 5, rear upper teeth guard 28 and rear lower teeth guard 31).
Referring to Claim 2, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the mouthpiece is configured to position the hollow light transmissive pathway in a direction that targets an oropharynx of the user (e.g. Figures 1 and 2B).
Referring to Claim 3, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the mouthpiece comprises one or more bite guards for protecting and securing the light guide (e.g. Figure 2B, Elements 22 and Column 3 lines 42-44 discloses teeth 52 are in contact with the upper and lower surfaces 27 and 30 of the channel 22 and are exerting a biting effect on the channel 22).
Referring to Claim 4, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 2, further comprising a tongue depressor that is configured to depress the user’s tongue for providing the light to the oropharynx (e.g. Figure 2B, Element 32).
Referring to Claim 5, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 4, wherein the tongue depressor is formed by a portion of the light guide (e.g. Figure 2B, Element 32).
Referring to Claim 9, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the light guide is secured to the mouthpiece (e.g. Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 10, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 9, wherein the light guide and the mouthpiece are parts of a single structure (e.g. Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 11, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the mouthpiece and the light guide are configured to be removably attached to an illumination device including the at least one light source (e.g. Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 12, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 11, wherein the mouthpiece and the light guide are configured to facilitate tool-less attachment and separation with the illumination device (e.g. Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 15, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 1, wherein the light guide comprises a wall that defines the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Figures and 8, Elements 35 and 36).
Referring to Claim 16, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the wall defines a circular cross-section of the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Column 2, lines 67-Column 3, line 3 discloses the channel is round).
Referring to Claim 17, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the wall defines a rectangular cross-section of the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Column 2, lines 67-Column 3, line 3 discloses the channel is shown in rectangular form).
Referring to Claim 18, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the wall defines an elliptical cross-section of the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Column 2, lines 67-Column 3, line 3 discloses the channel is elliptical).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US Patent 5,174,284) in view of Mantovani et al (US Publication 2020/0288958).
Referring to Claim 6, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 4, except wherein the tongue depressor comprises a first width at an end of the tongue depressor and a second width at an opposite end that is closer to the mouthpiece, wherein the first width is greater than the second width.
Mantovani et al teaches that it is known to use a tongue depressor blade, 21 and 30, comprising a first width at an end of the tongue depressor and a second width at an opposite end that is closer to the mouthpiece and lips, wherein the first width is greater than the second width as set forth in Figures 1-3, 6, 8, 12 and 16 to provide improved mouth gag for the exposure of the palatal and oropharyngeal region of a patient by preventing the formation of mono- or bilateral eversion, of the lateral portion of the lingual root (e.g. Paragraph [0016]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Jackson, with a tongue depressor blade, 21 and 30, comprising a first width at an end of the tongue depressor and a second width at an opposite end that is closer to the mouthpiece and lips, wherein the first width is greater than the second width as taught by Mantovani et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an improved mouth gag for the exposure of the palatal and oropharyngeal region of a patient by preventing the formation of mono- or bilateral eversion, of the lateral portion of the lingual root.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jackson (US Patent 5,174,284) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oren-Artzi et al (US Patent 11,638,636).
Referring to Claim 7, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 4, wherein the tongue depressor is further configured to block the light within the hollow transmissive path from reaching the tongue of the user (e.g. Figures 1, 7 and 8 and Column 2, line 54 discloses the device is made of plastic; the examiner notes that no plastic is not 100% transparent and therefore necessarily comprises blocking the light from reaching the tongue).
However, in the alternative that the light blocking is greater than the material of Jackson. Oren-Artzi et al teaches that it is known to use an intraoral appliance made of stainless steel or aluminum for assessing at least a portion of the user’s mouth as set forth in Column 10 lines 36-38 to provide improving the ability to sterilize the device between uses. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Jackson, with an intraoral appliance made of stainless steel or aluminum as taught by Oren-Artzi et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improving the ability to sterilize the device between uses.
Referring to Claim 8, Jackson or Jackson in view of Oren-Artzi et al teaches the assembly of claim 7, wherein the light guide comprises a cylindrical wall that defines the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Column 2 lines 67- Column 3, line 1 discloses the light guide is round), and the tongue depressor extends from a portion of the cylindrical wall (e.g. Figures 2B, 8 and 9, Element 21).
Referring to Claim 20, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the wall defines a light-blocking wall for light within the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Figures 1, 7 and 8 and Column 2, line 54 discloses the device is made of plastic; the examiner notes that no plastic is not 100% transparent and therefore necessarily comprises a light blocking wall). However, in the alternative that the light blocking is greater than the material of Jackson. Oren-Artzi et al teaches that it is known to use an intraoral appliance made of stainless steel or aluminum for assessing at least a portion of the user’s mouth as set forth in Column 10 lines 36-38 to provide improving the ability to sterilize the device between uses. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Jackson, with an intraoral appliance made of stainless steel or aluminum as taught by Oren-Artzi et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improving the ability to sterilize the device between uses.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US Patent 5,174,284) in view of Prakash et al (US Patent 8,998,609).
Referring to Claim 13, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 11, except wherein the light guide comprises securing tabs configured to interface with a housing of the illumination device.
Prakash et al teaches that it is known to use the light guide which comprises securing tabs attachable to a camera, such as a cell phone as set forth in Figure 2C, light guide 233 with securing tabs 226b to provide a less invasive way to image the mouth/throat of the user so that issues can be monitored and visualized remotely. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Jackson, with the light guide which comprises securing tabs attachable to a camera, such as a cell phone as taught by Prakash et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a less invasive way to image the mouth/throat of the user so that issues can be monitored and visualized remotely.
Referring to Claim 14, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 11, except wherein the light guide comprises securing protrusions configured to interface with the mouthpiece. Prakash et al teaches that it is known to use the light guide which comprises securing protrusions configured to interface with the mouthpiece, the light guide is attachable to a camera mount such as a cell phone as set forth in Figure 2C, light guide 233 with securing flange (protrusion) 222 to engage mouthpiece 210 to provide a less invasive way to image the mouth/throat of the user and provide the ability to move the light to provide different geometric points so that issues can be monitored and visualized remotely. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Jackson, with the light guide which comprises securing protrusions configured to interface with the mouthpiece, the light guide is attachable to a camera mount such as a cell phone as taught by Prakash et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a less invasive way to image the mouth/throat of the user and provide the ability to move the light to provide different geometric points so that issues can be monitored and visualized remotely.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (US Patent 5,174,284) in view of Min (US Publication 2016/0271415).
Referring to Claim 19, Jackson teaches the assembly of claim 15, wherein the wall defines a cross-section of the hollow light transmissive pathway (e.g. Column 2, lines 67-Column 3, line 3 discloses the channel is in other suitable forms). However, Jackson does not explicitly disclose hexagonal.
Min teaches that it is known to use hexagonal shaped slits for the light to pass as set forth in Paragraph [0052] to provide improved lighting with reduced shadowing to obtain a more precise diagnostic/monitoring of intraoral disorders. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Jackson, with hexagonal shaped slits for the light to pass as taught by Min, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improved lighting with reduced shadowing to obtain a more precise diagnostic/monitoring of intraoral disorders. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have a hexagonal cross-section, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Jackson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bass, Rr. et al (US Patent 5,533,523) discloses a medical mouth piece with a upper and lower biting surface in relation to a central hollow pathway along with a tongue depressor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796