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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/117,340, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed application fails to teach or disclose the recited flange, the recited slot, any disposable tongue depressors, nor any clip or attachment to clothing.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “orientated” should apparently read --oriented--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 and 12-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the first end" in line 7 and “the second end” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim; only first and second ends of the portable medical device main body have been previously recited, not of the tongue depressor apparatus main body.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “can comprise wood or polymer based” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that these materials are merely exemplary, or that these materials are an intended use, or that these materials are required.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation “wherein the disposable tongue depressor can comprise wood or polymer based disposable tongue depressors.” It is not clear if this is intended to recite that there must be multiple disposable tongue depressors.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a user” at the end of the last line. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the user previously recited earlier in the claim or to a separate user. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the user--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the recording" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wirelessly transmitted on a user device” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to recite “wirelessly transmitted to a user device” or that the recording may be shown or replayed on the user device.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the user device could be” in line 1. It is not clear if the limitations following this are merely exemplary, or an intended use, or are required.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "the same room" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the aperture is configured to detachably couple to a portable medical device adjacent to a handle.” It is not clear what the handle is part of (e.g., is it part of the tongue depressor apparatus or the portable medical device or its own component?).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a user” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the user previously recited earlier in the claim or to a separate user. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the user--.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “can comprise wood or polymer based” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that these materials are merely exemplary, or that these materials are an intended use, or that these materials are required.
Claim 17 also recites the limitation “wherein the disposable tongue depressor can comprise wood or polymer based disposable tongue depressors.” It is not clear if this is intended to recite that there must be multiple disposable tongue depressors.
Claims 13-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a portable medical device” in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the portable medical device previously recited in line 2 or to a separate device. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the portable medical device--.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation “a patient” in line 6. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the user previously recited earlier in the claim or to a separate person.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sagalovich et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0338590 A1; hereinafter known as “Sagalovich”).
Regarding claim 1, Sagalovich discloses an oral examination camera system (Abstract; 14A-M, 30), the oral examination camera system comprising: a portable medical device including a portable medical device main body 101, a camera 106, and a button 103/104/105, the portable medical device main body extending from a first end to a second end, the camera disposed at the first end, the button configured to control a parameter of the camera (Fig. 1A; [0078]-[0081]); and a tongue depressor apparatus 115 configured to removably couple to the portable medical device, the tongue depressor apparatus including a main body 115c extending from the first end to the second end, an aperture 115d disposed through the main body from the first end to the second end, the aperture defining a longitudinal axis, a flange 115f extending axially from the second end of the main body and away from the first end of the main body, and a slot 146 extending from the first end to the second end, the slot disposed radially outward from the flange relative to the longitudinal axis, the slot defining a centerline that is parallel to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 2A-2B, 3, 14A-F; [0085]-[0087]; [0126]-[0127]; slot is radially outward from at least a portion of the flange).
Regarding claim 2, Sagalovich discloses that the slot is configured to allow a disposable tongue depressor 145 to be inserted into the tongue depressor apparatus ([0126]-[0127]).
Regarding claim 3, Sagalovich discloses that the disposable tongue depressor can comprise wood or polymer based disposable tongue depressors ([0126]-[0127]; standard disposable tongue depressor; capable of such).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sagalovich discloses the aperture is configured to detachably couple the tongue depressor apparatus to the portable medical device, wherein the aperture is configured to detachably couple the tongue depressor apparatus to the portable medical device by surrounding the camera (capable of such; e.g., Figs. 4, 5F, 7-8; [0088]-[0089], [0102]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 6, Sagalovich discloses that the tongue depressor apparatus is configured where the flange is orientated in a direction from the first end of the portable medical device to the second end (Figs. 14A-G).
Regarding claim 11, Sagalovich discloses a tongue depressor apparatus 115 (Abstract; 14A-M, 30), comprising: a main body 115c extending from a first end to a second end; an aperture 115d disposed through the main body from the first end to the second end, the aperture defining a longitudinal axis; a flange 115f extending axially from the second end of the main body and away from the first end of the main body; and a slot 146 extending from the first end to the second end, the slot disposed radially outward from the flange relative to the longitudinal axis, the slot defining a centerline that is parallel to the longitudinal axis (Figs. 14A-F; [0126]-[0127]; slot is radially outward from at least a portion of the flange).
Regarding claim 12, Sagalovich discloses that the aperture is configured to detachably couple to a portable medical device 101/106 adjacent to a handle (capable of such; e.g., Figs. 4, 5F, 7-8; [0088]-[0089], [0102]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 13, Sagalovich discloses that the flange has a length of at least three times a width of the flange (Figs. 14A, 14F).
Regarding claim 14, Sagalovich discloses that the flange has a radiused distal end (e.g., Figs. 14L-M).
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.
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 7-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagalovich as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, and further in view of Ritter (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0132970 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sagalovich discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the flange is configured to allow a user to clip the oral examination camera system to an article of clothing of a user. Ritter discloses a similar system (Abstract) comprising a flange 712a that is configured to allow a user to clip an oral examination system to an article of clothing of a user in order to allow a provider to easily attach and detach the system to/from their clothing ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sagalovich so that the flange is configured to allow a user to clip the oral examination camera system to an article of clothing of a user, as taught by Ritter, in order to allow a provider to easily attach and detach the system to/from their clothing.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the button is configured to control the recording of the camera after being pressed by the user ([0080]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the recording of the camera is configured to be wirelessly transmitted on a user device ([0256]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the user device could be locally in the same room as the oral examination camera system or in a remote location ([0256]).
Regarding claim 15, Sagalovich discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the flange is configured to allow a user to clip the portable medical device to an article of clothing of a user when the tongue depressor apparatus is detachably coupled to the portable medical device. Ritter discloses a similar system (Abstract) comprising a flange 712a that is configured to allow a user to clip a portable medical device to an article of clothing of a user in order to allow a provider to easily attach and detach the device to/from their clothing ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sagalovich so that the flange is configured to allow a user to clip the portable medical device to an article of clothing of a user when the tongue depressor apparatus is detachably coupled to the portable medical device, as taught by Ritter, in order to allow a provider to easily attach and detach the portable medical device to/from their clothing.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the slot is configured to hold a disposable tongue depressor 145 during an oral examination ([0126]-[0127]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the disposable tongue depressor can comprise wood or polymer based disposable tongue depressors ([0126]-[0127]; standard disposable tongue depressor; capable of such).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagalovich, in view of Ritter.
Regarding claim 18, Sagalovich discloses a method for using an oral examination camera system (Abstract; Figs. 14A-M, 30), the method comprising: inserting a disposable tongue depressor 145 into a tongue depressor apparatus 115; coupling the tongue depressor apparatus to a portable medical device 101/106; using the tongue depressor apparatus in conjunction with the disposable tongue depressor and the portable medical device to depress a tongue of a patient and visually record a portion of an oral examination of the patient simultaneously with the depressing of the tongue of the patient; and removing the disposable tongue depressor from the tongue depressor apparatus after the oral examination of the patient is complete ([0085]; [0126]-[0128]; [0256]). Sagalovich fails to disclose removing a portable medical system from a user’s clothing. Ritter discloses a similar method for using an oral examiner system (Abstract) comprising removing/attaching a portable medical system from/to a user’s clothing (using a flange 712a) in order to allow a provider to easily attach and detach the device to/from their clothing ([0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sagalovich by removing a portable medical system from a user’s clothing, as taught by Ritter, in order to allow a provider to easily detach the portable medical device from their clothing to use the device.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the disposable tongue depressor is wood or polymer based ([0126]-[0127]; standard disposable tongue depressor).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sagalovich and Ritter discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Sagalovich further discloses that the recording of the oral examination can be wirelessly transmitted to a user device ([0256]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references teach tongue depressor apparatuses for remote medical examination of a patient: U.S. Pub. Nos. 2024/0315545 A1; 2023/0301502 A1; 2022/0133141 A1; 2017/0027432 A1; 2015/0087926 A1; U.S. No. 6,350,235 B1; DE 19808419 B4; and KR 20230136574 A. Rodriguez (WO 2007117656 A2) teaches a similar apparatus for illuminating an oral cavity and throat with a tongue depressor, wherein the apparatus may include clips that allow attachment to/from a medical apparatus or clothing. The following references are videos that show a similar system comprising an apparatus with a slot that can receive a tongue depressor, along with a portable medical device including a camera, wherein in the apparatus may be removably coupled to the portable medical device via an aperture: "GlobalMed Telemedicine - Pediatric Consult," 13 April 2016, retrieved from internet 22 July 2026, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xOJOm393eU; "GlobalMedia TotalExam Cam for Telemedicine," 10 June 2009, retrieved from internet 22 July 2026, URL: https://youtu.be/3yZ1wz26qGM.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights