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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument that the combined teachings of Piernitzki, White et al and Tanimoto et al fail to disclose amendments that call for wirelessly streaming audio to speech to text converter configured in a base station, the examiner disagrees. The White reference, used to teach the concept of speech recognizer that may be a speech-to-text converter is adaptable to translate voice waves, picked up by a client device (i.e. smart phone) into electronic text (White et al, para 0064) by sending the picked up voice waves to a client device speech recognizer and also to a general speech recognizer (White et al, para 0041, para 0081: speech recognizer (between the general speech recognizer/base station and client speech recognizer) being used is determined based on the needs of a given implementation), where sending to the general speech recognizer could be via wired or wireless connections (White et al, para 0128: wired or wireless connections can be used to communicate between components i.e. between client device and general speech recognizer), where the general speech recognizer is read as the base station.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 27-46 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27-31 & 33-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piernitzki, EP 1277432 A1, in view of White et al, US Patent Pub. 20150088499 A1, in view of Urakabe et al, WO 2012002564 A1, and further in view of Tanimoto et al, JP 2006309465 A.
Re Claim 27, Piernitzki et al discloses a method for collecting patient data (abstract), comprising: streaming audio, wherein the audio is captured by a microphone affixed to an intraoral mirror (abstract: microphone; Description section: para 0020: microphone integrated into intraoral camera) wherein the intraoral mirror comprises a memory and one or more processors coupled to the memory (abstract: intraoral mirror device; Description section: para 0002: images picked up by intraoral camera are stored in a memory device; wherein device includes processing unit (para 0015 of Description section)); analyzing the audio, wherein the speech is configured to determine if the audio comprises a keyword from a plurality of keywords that initiate a respective action, wherein the respective action comprises capturing patient data from the intraoral mirror (Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)); if the speech determines the audio includes the keyword from the plurality of keywords, capture, via the intraoral mirror, the patient data based on the respective action of the keyword (Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)); and transmitting the patient data from the intraoral mirror to a medical records server, wherein the medical records server is configured to store the patient data in a database (Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)); but fails to disclose wirelessly streaming audio to a speech to text converter configured in a base station. White et al discloses a system that teaches concept of speech recognizer that may be a speech-to-text converter is adaptable to translate voice waves, picked up by a client device (i.e. smart phone) into electronic text (White et al, para 0064) by sending the picked up voice waves to a client device speech recognizer and also to a general speech recognizer (White et al, para 0041, para 0081: speech recognizer (between the general speech recognizer/base station and client speech recognizer) being used is determined based on the needs of a given implementation), where sending to the general speech recognizer could be via wired or wireless connections (White et al, para 0128: wired or wireless connections can be used to communicate between components i.e. between client device and general speech recognizer), where the general speech recognizer is read as the base station. Since Piernitzki et al teaches the ability to determine trigger voice instructions (Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)), it would have been obvious to modify Piernitzki et al such that it can convert the picked up voice/speech signals, convert to text to determine trigger keywords as taught in White et al, where the picked up voice signals can be wirelessly transmitted to a general speech recognizer for speech-to-text processing as taught in White et al for the purpose of increasing efficiency and accuracy for keyword determination by maximizing all possible resources.
The combined teachings of Piernitzki et al and White et al fail to disclose wherein the intraoral mirror is configured to enable a healthcare provider to view a reflection of the interior of a patient’s mouth. Urakabe et al teaches the concept of a intraoral camera that includes a mirror (Urakabe et al, figs. 2(A),(B),(C): mirror surface 203; DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS section – 2nd paragraph of Intraoral radiography subsection starting with “202 is a mirror part in which a mirror surface part 203…” & 5th paragraph of Intraoral radiography subsection starting with “2 (C), the mirror unit 202 is attached to the tip of the grip unit 201. The tip of the mirror unit 202 is …”: mirror part is used to reflect particular locations inside of patients mouth to be captured and showed to a dentist/healthcare professional). It would have been obvious to modify the intraoral camera of Piernitzki et al to include a mirror as taught in Urakabe et al for the purpose of being able to view particular locations within a patient’s mouth.
The combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al and Urakabe fail to explicitly disclose transmitting the intraoral captured images to a server. However, Tanimoto et al discloses a system that teaches the concept of transmitting captured intraoral images to a dental database server (Tanimoto et al, TECH-SOLUTION section: paras 0004-0007: dental database server stores intraoral sensed information; BEST-MODE section: paras 0002-0003: intraoral device is connected to the database server via communication network where communication network could be wireless (para 0010), 0008). It would have been obvious to modify Piernitzki et al such that its memory device can be a cloud database as taught in Tanimoto et al for the purpose of supplying the captured intraoral images to platforms including a database server.
The combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al and Tanimoto et al fail to disclose the database being a patient database. It would have been the designer’s preference to designate the database as a patient database for the purpose of organizing the information appropriately for easy retrieval.
Re Claim 28, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 27, wherein the respective action comprises capturing, by an image sensor affixed to the intraoral mirror, an image of a patient's mouth (Piernitzki et al, Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)).
Re Claim 29, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 27, wherein the respective action comprises: capturing, by the microphone affixed to the intraoral mirror, an audio in text structured format; and converting, via the speech to text converter, the audio in text structured format to text (White et al, para 0064: concept of speech recognizer that may be any speech-to-text converter that is adaptable to translate a voice wave into electronic text, which may include keywords and phrases).
Re Claim 30, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 29, wherein the audio in text structured format is associated with a condition of a patient's mouth (White et al, para 0064: concept of speech recognizer that may be any speech-to-text converter that is adaptable to translate a voice wave into electronic text, which may include keywords and phrases).
Re Claim 31, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 27, wherein the respective action comprises capturing, by an image sensor affixed to the intraoral mirror, a video of a patient's mouth (Piernitzki et al, Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)).
Re Claim 33, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 27, wherein the patient data is transmitted to the medical records server through a wireless network (Tanimoto et al, TECH-SOLUTION section: paras 0004-0007: dental database server stores intraoral sensed information; BEST-MODE section: paras 0002-0003: intraoral device is connected to the database server via communication network where communication network could be wireless (para 0010), 0008).
Claim 34 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 27.
Re Claim 35, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 27, wherein the patient data may be displayed on a display device connected to the intraoral mirror (Piernitzki et al, Description section: para 0002: intraoral camera captures and records images from mouth of a patient and sends recorded images to a display and/or memory device based on voice trigger commands (abstract)).
Claim 36 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 27.
Claim 37 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 28.
Claim 38 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 29.
Claim 39 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 29-30.
Claim 40 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 31.
Claim 41 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 33.
Claim 42 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 27.
Claim 43 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 35.
Claim 44 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 27.
Claim 45 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 28.
Claim 46 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 29.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piernitzki, EP 1277432 A1, White et al, US Patent Pub. 20150088499 A1, Urakabe et al, WO 2012002564 A1, and Tanimoto et al, JP 2006309465 A as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Jung et al, ES 2389009 T3.
Re Claim 32, the combined teachings of Piernitzki et al, White et al, Urakabe et al and Tanimoto et al disclose the method of claim 27, but fail to disclose wherein the respective action comprises curing resin applied to a patient's tooth, wherein the curing is performed by a cure light affixed to the intraoral mirror. However, Jung et al discloses a curing dental material using lights affixed to an intraoral mirror (Jung et al, Detailed description of the preferred embodiments section: para 0107: paragraph beginning with “In yet another aspect of the present invention, a device and a measurement method (as described elsewhere herein)…”). It would have been obvious to affix a light curing to the intraoral mirror of Piernitzki et al as taught in Jung et al for the purpose of also being able to cure the tooth while using the intraoral mirror.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 4/21/2026