DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 5-8, 10-15, 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont US 2016/0367120 hereinafter referred to as Dupont in view of Andreiko et al. US 2014/0272766 hereinafter referred to as Andreiko in view of Su US 2016/0213250 hereinafter referred to as Su in view of Gebhart et al. US 2014/0275765 hereinafter referred to as Gebhart.
In regards to claim 2, Dupont teaches//:
“A disposable sheath for a tip of an [intracardiac] device, wherein the sheath is adapted for single-use, the sheath comprising: a rigid hollow body obtained by injection-molding, wherein the body is made of one or more polymers adapted to be of single-use”
DuPont Figure 2 and paragraph [0097] teaches the optical window 110 of the cardio scope 200 is a solid window formed of a transparent, compliant, biocompatible material, such as a polymer (e.g., silicone, silicone rubber, castable resins such as acrylic resins or polyurethanes, or another polymer), glass, transparent crystals, or another transparent, compliant material. DuPont paragraph [0134] teaches in some embodiments, the tool and optical window are designed to be disposable. In some embodiments, the tool is designed to be sterilized and reused with only the optical window being disposable. Dupont paragraph [0115] teaches the optical window 110 is formed by molding. A mold, for instance a polymer mold, of the optical window 110, including the tool channel 120, the flushing channel 130, and a hollow for the camera 112 and illumination device, can be created, for instance, by three-dimensional printing, injection molding, extrusion, or other molding processes. The Examiner interprets that the optical window 110 is equivalent to the claimed “sheath” because it possesses the required features such as single use, injection molded and made of one or more polymers.
“the hollow body comprising a distal sheath-end a proximal sheath-end, wherein the proximal sheath-end forms a sheath-opening that is dimensioned with respect to the tip, such that the sheath is configured to replaceably fit around the tip of the scanning device”
Dupont Figure 2 inter alia, teaches the optical window 110 slides over the tool necessarily forming distal and proximal portions where the opening is in the proximal portion. Dupont Figures 22A-B and paragraph [0163] teach the optical windows 858, 870 have generally the characteristics described above with respect to the optical window 110.
“and an optical window located in the body near the distal sheath-end such that when the sheath is replaceably mounted to the tip via the sheath-opening, the optical window covers at least a part of an optical aperture of the tip, wherein the optical window is injection-molded”
Dupont Figure 2 illustrates that the camera, which necessarily has an optical aperture is covered by the optical window 110. Dupont Figures 22A-B and paragraph [0163] teach the optical windows 858, 870 have generally the characteristics described above with respect to the optical window 110. The Examiner interprets the side port that is formed by optical window 870 is equivalent to being optical window located in the body.
Dupont does not explicitly teach:
“intraoral scanning [device]”
Andreiko teaches an intraoral imaging device in the title. Andreiko paragraph [0048] teaches the intra-oral imaging sensor 134 may be embedded within the tip 404 of the wand 130. The tip 404 of the wand 130 may include an optical window made of biocompatible, transparent material that may be either plastic or glass. Andreiko teaches in paragraph [0049] the intra-oral imaging sensor 134. In certain embodiments, the tip 404 of the wand 130 is covered with a disposable molded plastic sheath that snaps on and off the wand 130. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont in view of Andreiko to have included the features of “intraoral scanning [device]” because This allows the dental practitioner to discover certain types of details and defects of the teeth and. gums. The images captured by the intra-oral camera may be displayed on a display unit (Andreiko [0003]).
Dupont/Andreiko do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the optical window is made of a material configured for not substantially altering the polarization of the light that exits and enters the [imaging apparatus] device through the optical aperture of the tip”
According to applicant specification:
“Examples of one or more polymer(s) exhibiting low birefringence and at the same time also provide(s) high optical clarity, are: - Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (in cast quality it can be made with very low birefringence, in extruded quality the birefringence is higher but still acceptable); - Cellulose diacetate and/or cellulose triacetate; - low molecular weight polycarbonate resin (e.g. bisphenol-A polycarbonate), for example produced by a special processing equipment which reduces stress in the optical window to keep birefringence below 20nm; - Acrylate polymers with a tetraphenylethane skeleton in the side chain; - Cyclo Olefin Polymer (COP); - Polyester Containing Fluorene Side Chain; - poly(phenylene thioether)s with a fluorene-based cardo structure; - poly(methyl methacrylate) doped with trans-stilbene as an anisotropic molecule; - highly fluorinated acrylic macromers and/or monomers containing perfluoroalkyl, perfluorophenyl, and perfluorocyclohexyl pendant groups; - pullulan esters derivatives (PLEs). These materials have been found to not substantially alter the polarization of the light.”
Therefore, the Examiner considers these materials as materials that meet the requirement of “not substantially altering the polarization of the light” because the Applicant has indicated that these materials do not alter the polarization of light. PMMA is indicated by Applicant as a material with the claimed properties. Dupont teaches castable resins such as acrylic resins in paragraph [0097] and PMMA is an acrylic resin. However, Dupont does not explicitly disclose the use of PMMA.
However, Su paragraph [0084] teaches by selecting optically transparent material(s) for the optical window cover 322 that have a small birefringence, aberration of the images transmitted therethrough can be minimized. Su explicitly teaches in paragraph [0097] the optical window cover 322 can comprise optical transparent materials with low birefringence. In some embodiments, the optical window cover 322 can be made of thermal plastic materials, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE, PETG) or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), Polyethylene (or polyethene, polythene, PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Teflon, etc. The Examiner interprets from the above cited portion that it is known to us the material PMMA as an optical window and therefore meets the required limitations of being configured to not substantially alter the polarization, as indicated by Applicant. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko in view of Su to have included the features of “wherein the optical window is made of Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)” because cross-contamination is a concern for a medical imaging apparatus that is in direct contact with patients (Su [0004).
Dupont/Andreiko/Su do not explicitly teach:
“wherein the optical window is glued, or welded into the hollow body”
Gebhart paragraph [0064] teaches an optical adhesive 209 for holding the optical window in the distal housing. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko/Su in view of Gebhart to have included the features of “wherein the optical window is glued, or welded into the hollow body” because This design has the advantage of less parts and thus lower cost on the disposable cover with more parts and higher cost on the reusable probe (Gebhart [0075]).
In regards to claim 5, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window is an integrated part of the hollow body”
Dupont Figure 2.
In regards to claim 6, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window has a thickness of more than 400 microns”
However, designing the thickness of an optical window would be considered routine implementation. DuPont paragraph [0164] and Figure 22A teaches the distal optical window 858 can be thicker than the lateral optical window, e.g., about 3 mm thick, about 4 mm thick, about 5 mm thick, about 6 mm thick, or another thickness, in order to enable visualization of tools inserted into the tool channel 864 or to enable safe contact between the optical window 858 or tools and tissue at the surgical site.
In regards to claim 7, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window is larger than 10 mm by 10 mm”
Dupont paragraph [0122] teaches the diameter of the optical window 110 can taper from a large diameter d.sub.1 to a smaller diameter d.sub.2 within a distal region 304 of the optical window 110. The large diameter d.sub.1 can be, for instance, between about 1 mm and about 20 mm, or between about 3 mm and about 6 mm, e.g., about 3 mm, about 4 mm, about 5 mm, about 6 mm, about 7 mm, about 8 mm, about 9 mm, about 10 mm, about 11 mm, about 12 mm, about 13 mm, about 14 mm, about 15 mm, about 16 mm, about 17 mm, about 18 mm, about 19 mm, about 20 mm, or another diameter. The smaller diameter d.sub.2 can be, for instance, between about 2 mm and about 15 mm, e.g., about 2 mm, about 3 mm, about 4 mm, about 5 mm, about 6 mm, about 7 mm, about 8 mm, about 9 mm, about 10 mm, about 11 mm, about 12 mm, about 13 mm, about 14 mm, about 15 mm, or another diameter.
In regards to claim 10, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the refractive index of the optical window differ less than 1 % along two optical directions, corresponding to a birefringence of less than 100.000 nm/cm”
According to applicant specification:
“Examples of one or more polymer(s) exhibiting low birefringence and at the same time also provide(s) high optical clarity, are: - Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (in cast quality it can be made with very low birefringence, in extruded quality the birefringence is higher but still acceptable); - Cellulose diacetate and/or cellulose triacetate; - low molecular weight polycarbonate resin (e.g. bisphenol-A polycarbonate), for example produced by a special processing equipment which reduces stress in the optical window to keep birefringence below 20nm; - Acrylate polymers with a tetraphenylethane skeleton in the side chain; - Cyclo Olefin Polymer (COP); - Polyester Containing Fluorene Side Chain; - poly(phenylene thioether)s with a fluorene-based cardo structure; - poly(methyl methacrylate) doped with trans-stilbene as an anisotropic molecule; - highly fluorinated acrylic macromers and/or monomers containing perfluoroalkyl, perfluorophenyl, and perfluorocyclohexyl pendant groups; - pullulan esters derivatives (PLEs). These materials have been found to not substantially alter the polarization of the light.”
PMMA is indicated by Applicant as a material with the claimed properties. Dupont teaches castable resins such as acrylic resins in paragraph [0097] and PMMA is an acrylic resin.
Su paragraph [0084] teaches by selecting optically transparent material(s) for the optical window cover 322 that have a small birefringence, aberration of the images transmitted therethrough can be minimized. Su teaches in paragraph [0097] the optical window cover 322 can comprise optical transparent materials with low birefringence. In some embodiments, the optical window cover 322 can be made of thermal plastic materials, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE, PETG) or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), Polyethylene (or polyethene, polythene, PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Teflon, etc. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko in view of Su to have included the features of “wherein the refractive index of the optical window differ less than 1 % along two optical directions, corresponding to a birefringence of less than 100.000 nm/cm” because cross-contamination is a concern for a medical imaging apparatus that is in direct contact with patients (Su [0004).
According to the prior art it is known to use the material PMMA as an optical window for low birefringence. It is further known that low birefringence is desirable for optical windows so as not to affect the optical properties. These are the general conditions of the claim. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Based on this analysis the explicit claiming of the range does not provide a novel feature as it would appear to represent a normal workable range.
In regards to claim 11, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window has a birefringence of 10.000 nm/cm or less”
According to applicant specification:
“Examples of one or more polymer(s) exhibiting low birefringence and at the same time also provide(s) high optical clarity, are: - Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (in cast quality it can be made with very low birefringence, in extruded quality the birefringence is higher but still acceptable); - Cellulose diacetate and/or cellulose triacetate; - low molecular weight polycarbonate resin (e.g. bisphenol-A polycarbonate), for example produced by a special processing equipment which reduces stress in the optical window to keep birefringence below 20nm; - Acrylate polymers with a tetraphenylethane skeleton in the side chain; - Cyclo Olefin Polymer (COP); - Polyester Containing Fluorene Side Chain; - poly(phenylene thioether)s with a fluorene-based cardo structure; - poly(methyl methacrylate) doped with trans-stilbene as an anisotropic molecule; - highly fluorinated acrylic macromers and/or monomers containing perfluoroalkyl, perfluorophenyl, and perfluorocyclohexyl pendant groups; - pullulan esters derivatives (PLEs). These materials have been found to not substantially alter the polarization of the light.”
PMMA is indicated by Applicant as a material with the claimed properties. Dupont teaches castable resins such as acrylic resins in paragraph [0097] and PMMA is an acrylic resin.
Su paragraph [0084] teaches by selecting optically transparent material(s) for the optical window cover 322 that have a small birefringence, aberration of the images transmitted therethrough can be minimized. Su teaches in paragraph [0097] the optical window cover 322 can comprise optical transparent materials with low birefringence. In some embodiments, the optical window cover 322 can be made of thermal plastic materials, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE, PETG) or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), Polyethylene (or polyethene, polythene, PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Teflon, etc. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko in view of Su to have included the features of “wherein the refractive index of the optical window differ less than 1 % along two optical directions, corresponding to a birefringence of less than 10.000 nm/cm” because cross-contamination is a concern for a medical imaging apparatus that is in direct contact with patients (Su [0004).
According to the prior art it is known to use the material PMMA as an optical window for low birefringence. It is further known that low birefringence is desirable for optical windows so as not to affect the optical properties. These are the general conditions of the claim. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Based on this analysis the explicit claiming of the range does not provide a novel feature as it would appear to represent a normal workable range.
In regards to claim 12, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window is birefringent, whereby the optical window has two refractive indices, no and ne, wherein no and ne differ from each other by less than 1%.”
According to applicant specification:
“Examples of one or more polymer(s) exhibiting low birefringence and at the same time also provide(s) high optical clarity, are: - Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) (in cast quality it can be made with very low birefringence, in extruded quality the birefringence is higher but still acceptable); - Cellulose diacetate and/or cellulose triacetate; - low molecular weight polycarbonate resin (e.g. bisphenol-A polycarbonate), for example produced by a special processing equipment which reduces stress in the optical window to keep birefringence below 20nm; - Acrylate polymers with a tetraphenylethane skeleton in the side chain; - Cyclo Olefin Polymer (COP); - Polyester Containing Fluorene Side Chain; - poly(phenylene thioether)s with a fluorene-based cardo structure; - poly(methyl methacrylate) doped with trans-stilbene as an anisotropic molecule; - highly fluorinated acrylic macromers and/or monomers containing perfluoroalkyl, perfluorophenyl, and perfluorocyclohexyl pendant groups; - pullulan esters derivatives (PLEs). These materials have been found to not substantially alter the polarization of the light.”
PMMA is indicated by Applicant as a material with the claimed properties. Dupont teaches castable resins such as acrylic resins in paragraph [0097] and PMMA is an acrylic resin.
Su paragraph [0084] teaches by selecting optically transparent material(s) for the optical window cover 322 that have a small birefringence, aberration of the images transmitted therethrough can be minimized. Su teaches in paragraph [0097] the optical window cover 322 can comprise optical transparent materials with low birefringence. In some embodiments, the optical window cover 322 can be made of thermal plastic materials, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE, PETG) or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), Polyethylene (or polyethene, polythene, PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Teflon, etc. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko in view of Su to have included the features of “wherein the optical window is birefringent, whereby the optical window has two refractive indices, no and ne, wherein no and ne differ from each other by less than 1%.” because cross-contamination is a concern for a medical imaging apparatus that is in direct contact with patients (Su [0004).
According to the prior art it is known to use the material PMMA as an optical window for low birefringence. It is further known that low birefringence is desirable for optical windows so as not to affect the optical properties. These are the general conditions of the claim. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Based on this analysis the explicit claiming of the range does not provide a novel feature as it would appear to represent a normal workable range.
In regards to claim 13, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the hollow body and the optical window is made as a one-piece, injection-molded sheath”
Dupont paragraph [0115] teaches a mold, for instance a polymer mold, of the optical window 110, including the tool channel 120, the flushing channel 130, and a hollow for the camera 112 and illumination device, can be created, for instance, by three-dimensional printing, injection molding, extrusion, or other molding processes.
In regards to claim 14, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach:
“wherein the material has a hardness that is selected to withstand the impact of teeth in the intraoral cavity”
This feature would have been considered a routine implementation. Given the nature of the environment of the intraoral scanner it would be understood by engineers that teeth may inadvertently contact the scanner. Furthermore, the claim does not require a specific hardness at which the impact of teeth is not withstood. For instance the slight grazing if tooth as opposed to an accidental bite down on the scanner produce very different impacts. In addition, different people have different hardness teeth. The Examiner must assume utility of the invention and it would have been considered a routine implementation to use materials with a proper hardness for the environment with which they operate. This feature as claimed does not provide any unpredictable results. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 15, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window is made of Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)”
Su paragraph [0097] teaches the optical window cover 322 can comprise optical transparent materials with low birefringence. In some embodiments, the optical window cover 322 can be made of thermal plastic materials, for example, polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE, PETG) or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), Polycarbonate (PC), Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polybenzimidazole (PBI), Polyethylene (or polyethene, polythene, PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Teflon, etc. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko in view of Su to have included the features of “wherein the optical window is made of Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)” because cross-contamination is a concern for a medical imaging apparatus that is in direct contact with patients.
In regards to claim 22, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“further comprising: a sheath-side wall located between the distal sheath-end and the proximal sheath-end”
Dupont Figure 22A-B teaches a portion of the sheath between the distal and proximal portions and which contains a side port. The Examiner interprets this area as equivalent to the claimed sheath-side wall.
In regards to claim 24, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein: the optical window has a surface normal that deviates from an optical axis of the intraoral scanning device, whereby internal reflections of light that exits via the tip are guided away from the optical axis”
Dupont paragraph [0011] teaches A normal to the distal face of the solid optical window is disposed at an angle greater than 0° relative to a longitudinal axis of the solid optical window. Dupont paragraph [0012] teaches The normal to the distal face is disposed at an angle of between 20-25° relative to the longitudinal axis of the solid optical window.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Andreiko in view of Su in view of Gebhart in view of Ujihara et al. US 2016/0223714.
In regards to claim 16, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the hollow body is made of a [polymer material with low birefringence]”
DuPont Figure 2 and paragraph [0097] teaches the optical window 110 of the cardio scope 200 is a solid window formed of a transparent, compliant, biocompatible material, such as a polymer (e.g., silicone, silicone rubber, castable resins such as acrylic resins or polyurethanes, or another polymer), glass, transparent crystals, or another transparent, compliant material.
“polyester resin composition and a polycarbonate resin composition”
Ujihara teaches in the abstract an optical material which exhibits less change in birefringence due to external force and which is suitable for use in the production of an optical member; an optical film obtained by using the resin composition; and a liquid crystal display device using the same, provided is a resin composition containing a polycarbonate resin (X); and a polyester resin (Y). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart in view of Ujihara to have included the features of “polyester resin composition and a polycarbonate resin composition” because the resin composition which is inexpensive, easy to handle, and suitable for use in production of an optical member which exhibits little change in birefringence due to external force (Ujihara [0001]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Andreiko in view of Su in view of Gebhart and further in view of Karazivan et al. US 2012/0040305 hereinafter referred to as Karazivan.
In regards to claim 17, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window comprises a hydrophilic surface”
Karazivan paragraph [0022] teaches a method of protecting an optical window or camera using hydrophilic material to establish a liquid layer thus enhancing the quality of images captured. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart in view of Karazivan to have included the features of “wherein the optical window comprises a hydrophilic surface” to establish a liquid layer thus enhancing the quality of images captured (Karazivan [0022]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Andreiko in view of Su in view of Williams et al. US 2003/0107652 hereinafter referred to as Williams.
In regards to claim 18, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window is sealed and provides no entrance into the hollow body of the disposable sheath”
Williams Figure 13, inter alia, teaches the optical window at least sealed within the hollow portion of sheath 317. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart in view of Williams to have included the features of “wherein the optical window is glued, or sealed, or welded into the hollow body” in order to defog the optical window 19 and minimize heat build-up within housing 11 at the distal end 20 (Williams [0077]).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Andreiko in view of Su in view of Gebhart and further in view of Kopelman et al. US 2018/0206940 hereinafter referred to as Kopelman.
In regards to claim 19, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 2 and further teach:
“and a disposable sheath according to claim 2, wherein the sheath is configured to be replaceably mounted to cover at least a part of the tip of the ... scanning device.
See claim 2.
Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart do not explicitly teach:
“A scanning system comprising: an intraoral scanning device configured for forming a model of an intraoral object such as teeth and gingiva, the scanning device comprising a tip, said tip comprising an optical aperture” and “intraoral [scanning device]”
Kopelman paragraph [0037] teaches the surface topography data can be generated by directly scanning the intraoral cavity, a physical model (positive or negative) of the intraoral cavity, or an impression of the intraoral cavity, using a suitable scanning device (e.g., a handheld scanner, desktop scanner, etc.). Image data from the initial intraoral scan may be used to generate a virtual three-dimensional (3D) model or other digital representation of the initial or starting condition for the patient's upper and/or lower dental arches. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart in view of Kopelman to have included the features of “A scanning system comprising: an intraoral scanning device configured for forming a model of an intraoral object such as teeth and gingiva, the scanning device comprising a tip, said tip comprising an optical aperture” and “intraoral [scanning device]” because it may also be difficult for the orthodontist to identify other deviations from the orthodontic treatment plan during treatment, to determine why teeth are not moving, and to determine how to remedy the deviation from the treatment plan (Kopelman [0003]).
In regards to claim 20, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart/Kopelman teach all the limitations of claim 19 and further teach:
“wherein the optical window of the sheath covers the optical aperture of the tip such that the field-of-view is maintained”
The Examiner interprets that if images are captured then the field of view is maintained. Since functionality of prior art is assumed for examination purposes the Examiner interprets that Dupont teaches the ability to capture images. The field of view of these images is therefore maintained if the images are captured.
In regards to claim 21, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart/Kopelman teach all the limitations of claim 19 and further teach:
“wherein the tip further comprises a mirror located on an optical axis of the scanning device such that the optical axis is redirected inside the tip”
Andreiko paragraph [0049] teaches the disposable molded plastic sheath may be transparent and may have a mirror. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont in view of Andreiko to have included the features of “wherein the tip further comprises a mirror located on an optical axis of the scanning device such that the optical axis is redirected inside the tip” because This allows the dental practitioner to discover certain types of details and defects of the teeth and. gums. The images captured by the intra-oral camera may be displayed on a display unit (Andreiko [0003]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Andreiko in view of Su in view of Gebhart in view of Nadeau Jr. et al. US 6,549,794 hereinafter referred to as Nadeau..
In regards to claim 23, Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart teach all the limitations of claim 22 and further teach:
“wherein: the optical window is located in the sheath-side wall”
Dupont Figure 22A-B teaches a portion of the sheath between the distal and proximal portions and which contains a side port 870. The Examiner interprets this area as equivalent to the claimed sheath-side wall with optical window.
Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart do not explicitly teach:
“and the hollow body is made of a different material than the optical window”
However, it is known to have a disposable sheath/cap which has a different material optical window. For example Nadeau teaches in column 5 lines 10-15 cap 130 can be formed in two pieces. In this embodiment, probe body 240 is formed from plastic material or a rubber modified polymer. However, optically transparent face portion 212 is made from a clear plastic material. In an embodiment, optically transparent face portion 212 is an anti-reflective coated glass. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Dupont/Andreiko/Su/Gebhart in view of Nadeau to have included the features of “and the hollow body is made of a different material than the optical window” because that is needed, therefore, is a disposable probe cover that is easy to install and remove and cannot be accidentally reused (Nadeau column 2 lines 22-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
