DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 21-23 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salah 2020/0334813 hereinafter referred to as Salah.
In regards to claim 1, Salah teaches:
“A foldable dental scope that is configured to transform between an unfolded configuration and a folded configuration”
Salah paragraph [0189] teaches the imaging device 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes a support 12, taking the form of an, optionally telescopic, box, a dental retractor 14. Salah paragraph [0103] teaches manufacturing of a precursor of the support, and optionally of the dental retractor, in a first place, and providing said precursor to an operator, preferably to a patient or an orthodontist. Salah paragraph [0104 teaches transformation of said precursor into said support, and optionally into said dental retractor. Salah paragraph [0106] teaches the operator cuts the precursor along said cutting lines, and/or folds the precursor along said folding lines.
“wherein in said unfolded configuration, the dental scope comprises a sheet comprising one or more distinct regions separated by scoring”
Salah paragraph [0105] teaches the precursor is in a cellulosic material and has the shape of at least a sheet, preferably is a sheet of cardboard. Salah paragraph [0106] teaches If said precursor represents folding lines and/or cutting lines and/or comprising tearable weakening lines, at step B), the operator cuts the precursor along said cutting lines, and/or folds the precursor along said folding lines.
“and wherein in said folded configuration, said sheet forms an intraoral adapter comprising a viewing channel configured to define a field of view of an intraoral region of a subject's mouth”
Salah paragraph [0360] teaches the image acquisition apparatus includes a processing module 59 configured to guide the operator during the imaging operation, in particular so that he or she adjusts the length of the support 12 appropriately and/or so that he or she correctly positions his or her mouth on the dental retractor 14. Figure 3 illustrates images of the subjects mouth.
In regards to claim 2, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein in said folded configuration, said intraoral adapter comprises an elongated housing, and wherein said viewing channel is located between a proximal end and a distal end of said elongated housing”
Salah Figure 7 and paragraph [0192] teaches the support 12 defines a chamber 20, the length of which along the X axis depends on the relative position of the male and female portions of the support 12 when the box is telescopic, or is constant. Salah paragraph [0194] teaches the chamber 20 is in communication with the outside at two opposite end faces of the support 12, via a retractor opening 24 and an acquisition opening 26, respectively.
In regards to claim 3, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“wherein said proximal end of said elongated housing is configured to couple the intraoral adapter to the subject's mouth”
Salah Figure 7. The Examiner interprets that one side holds the image acquisition apparatus and the other side has the retractor which adapts to the subjects mouth.
In regards to claim 4, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“wherein said distal end of said elongated housing foldable comprises an attachment element configured to couple said intraoral adapter to a mobile imaging device”
Salah Figure 7. The Examiner interprets that one side holds the image acquisition apparatus and the other side has the retractor which adapts to the subjects mouth.
In regards to claim 5, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches:
“wherein said attachment element comprises a sticker, an adhesive, Velcro, a strap, or a magnet, or any combination thereof”
Salah paragraph [0201] teaches the fastening means 18 of the acquisition apparatus are chosen from the group consisting of clip-fastening means, self-gripping strips of Velcro® type, clamping jaws, screws, magnets, elastic members, and complementarity of shape between the support and the acquisition apparatus.
In regards to claim 6, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein a first distinct region of said one or more distinct regions comprises a notch or slit, and wherein a second distinct region of said one or more distinct regions comprises a tab or rim configured to be inserted in said notch or slit to prevent said folded configuration from unfolding”
Salah paragraph [0106] teaches if said precursor represents folding lines and/or cutting lines and/or comprising tearable weakening lines, at step B), the operator cuts the precursor along said cutting lines, and/or folds the precursor along said folding lines, and/or tears the precursor along said weakening lines, and/or rigidly fixes different parts of the precursor on each other, by insertion of tabs, or lugs, into corresponding slots or with glue or with staples or clips or with a loops and hooks fasteners, as Velcro®.
In regards to claim 21, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and further teaches:
“wherein said elongated housing comprises one or more walls”
Salah paragraph [0032] teaches the support is preferably in the form of a box, and has a lateral wall defining a chamber.
In regards to claim 22, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and further teaches:
“wherein said one or more walls of said elongated housing in said folded configuration correspond to said one or more discrete regions in said unfolded configuration”
Salah paragraph [0032] teaches the support is preferably in the form of a box, and has a lateral wall defining a chamber. Salah paragraph [0277] teaches the lateral wall comprises predetermined folding lines acting as hinges to modify said dimension. The lateral wall is preferably foldable along its length. The folding lines are preferably extending in at least one transversal plane.
In regards to claim 23, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 22 and further teaches:
“wherein said one or more distinct regions each comprise a first end and a second end”
The Examiner interprets all regions of a box shape will have at least a first end and a second end.
In regards to claim 34, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 22 and further teaches:
“wherein when in said unfolded configuration, said foldable dental scope is flat”
Salah paragraph [0105] teaches the precursor is in a cellulosic material and has the shape of at least a sheet, preferably is a sheet of cardboard. The Examiner interprets this as flat.
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) 24-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah in view of Dorodvand et al. US 2019/0167115 hereinafter referred to as Dorodvand.
In regards to claim 24, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 23 and further teaches:
“wherein said first ends of said one or more distinct regions [are shaped to adapt to the subjects mouth]”
Salah Figure 7. The Examiner interprets that one side holds the image acquisition apparatus and the other side has the retractor which adapts to the subjects mouth.
Salah does not explicitly teach:
“[regions that adapt to the subjects mouth] are curved”
Dorodvand Figure 2 illustrates the portion that adapts to the subjects mouth is curved. The Examiner draws attention to the shape of Figure 2 in Dorodvand and that of Figure 3 in the instant application. The Examiner contends that creating a precursor as taught by Salah in the shape of that known from Dorodvand would produce the claimed features. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “[regions that adapt to the subjects mouth] are curved” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 25, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 23 and further teaches:
“wherein said first ends of said one or more distinct regions are [shaped to attach to the subjects mouth]”
Salah Figure 7. The Examiner interprets that one side holds the image acquisition apparatus and the other side has the retractor which adapts to the subjects mouth.
Salah does not explicitly teach:
“[distinct regions that attach to the subjects mouth are] concave or convex”
Dorodvand Figure 2 illustrates the portion that adapts to the subjects mouth are concave and convex. The Examiner draws attention to the shape of Figure 2 in Dorodvand and that of Figure 3 in the instant application. The Examiner contends that creating a precursor as taught by Salah in the shape of that known from Dorodvand would produce the claimed features. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “[distinct regions that attach to the subjects mouth are] concave or convex” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 26, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 23 and further teaches:
“wherein said first ends of said one or more discrete regions in said unfolded configuration correspond to said proximal end of said elongated housing in said folded configuration”
The Examiner interprets that one end is necessary proximal and one end is distal. This features is merely a statement of something having two ends.
In regards to claim 27, Salah/Dorodvand teaches all the limitations of claim 26 and further teaches:
“wherein said proximal end of said elongated housing is configured to couple the intraoral adapter to the subject's mouth”
Salah Figure 7. The Examiner interprets that one side holds the image acquisition apparatus and the other side has the retractor which adapts to the subjects mouth.
In regards to claim 28, Salah/Dorodvand teaches all the limitations of claim 26 and further teaches:
“wherein said first ends of said one or more discrete regions in said unfolded configuration [are shaped to attach to the subjects mouth]”
Salah Figure 7. The Examiner interprets that one side holds the image acquisition apparatus and the other side has the retractor which adapts to the subjects mouth.
Salah does not explicitly teach:
“[shaped regions] alternate between a concave and convex shape”
Dorodvand Figure 2 illustrates the portion that adapts to the subjects mouth are alternating concave and convex. The Examiner draws attention to the shape of Figure 2 in Dorodvand and that of Figure 3 in the instant application. The Examiner contends that creating a precursor as taught by Salah in the shape of that known from Dorodvand would produce the claimed features. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “[shaped regions] alternate between a concave and convex shape” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 29, Salah/Dorodvand teaches all the limitations of claim 28 and further teaches:
“wherein said concave shape is configured to contact a top and bottom lip of said subject's mouth”
Dorodvand Figure 2. The Examiner draws attention to the shape of Figure 2 in Dorodvand and that of Figure 3 in the instant application. The Examiner contends that creating a precursor as taught by Salah in the shape of that known from Dorodvand would produce the claimed features. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “wherein said concave shape is configured to contact a top and bottom lip of said subject's mouth” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 30, Salah/Dorodvand teaches all the limitations of claim 29 and further teaches:
“wherein said concave shape is configured to hold a lip of said subject outside of said field of view of said intraoral region of said subject's mouth”
Dorodvand Figure 5A, inter alia, illustrates the filed of view of the subjects mouth which is clearly not imaging a region of the lip in the inside the field of view of the subjects mouth. Therefore, the lip is outside the field of view of the subjects mouth. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “wherein said concave shape is configured to hold a lip of said subject outside of said field of view of said intraoral region of said subject's mouth” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 31, Salah/Dorodvand teaches all the limitations of claim 28 and further teaches:
“wherein said convex shape is configured to contact a side of said subject's mouth”
Dorodvand Figure 2. The Examiner draws attention to the shape of Figure 2 in Dorodvand and that of Figure 3 in the instant application. The Examiner contends that creating a precursor as taught by Salah in the shape of that known from Dorodvand would produce the claimed features. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “wherein said convex shape is configured to contact a side of said subject's mouth” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 32, Salah/Dorodvand teaches all the limitations of claim 31 and further teaches:
“wherein said convex shape is configured to hold a cheek of said subject outside of said field of view of said intraoral region of said subject's mouth”
Dorodvand Figure 5A, inter alia, illustrates the field of view of the subjects mouth which is clearly not imaging a region of the lip in the inside the field of view of the subjects mouth. Therefore, the lip is outside the field of view of the subjects mouth. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “wherein said convex shape is configured to hold a cheek of said subject outside of said field of view of said intraoral region of said subject's mouth” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
In regards to claim 33, Salah teaches all the limitations of claim 23 and further teaches:
“in said folded configuration”
Salah paragraph [0104 teaches transformation of said precursor into said support, and optionally into said dental retractor. Salah paragraph [0106] teaches the operator cuts the precursor along said cutting lines, and/or folds the precursor along said folding lines. The Examiner interprets this as a folded configuration.
“wherein one or more of said second ends are configured to be folded outward, and wherein ..., said one or more of said second ends extend outward from said viewing channel”
Dorodvand Figure 2 illustrates the end that does not attach the subjects mouth has folds outward. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Salah in view of Dorodvand to have included the features of “wherein one or more of said second ends are configured to be folded outward, and wherein ..., said one or more of said second ends extend outward from said viewing channel” because there further exists a need for an efficient digital processing method which reduces the processing requirement to provide a quick, and reliable method which may be applied to images collected by an untrained user on a low cost imaging device (Dorodvand [0016]).
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
Prosecution Insights