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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, readable on claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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 limitation “with respect to the optically transparent shielding window” in Lines 13-14, wherein it’s unclear how this limitation impacts the scope of the claim since the limitation does not further positionally define the relationship of the working end and the air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube. Additional claim language is required if Applicant meant to define the position of the working end and/or the air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube in relation to the optically transparent shielding window. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “with respect to the optically transparent shielding window” in Line 17, wherein it’s unclear how this limitation impacts the scope of the claim since the limitation does not further positionally define the relationship of the backlight and the air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube. Additional claim language is required if Applicant meant to define the position of the backlight and/or the air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube in relation to the optically transparent shielding window. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the elastic leading-in piece is realized in a ductile metal” in Line 2, wherein the use of the phrase “is realized” is not clear as to what’s required for the limitation following the phrase. The examiner suggests using the phrasing of --is formed of a ductile metal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the elastic leading-in piece is able to hold a weight of the intraoral endoscope in any position” in Lines 4-5, wherein the recitation of “in any position” is indefinite since it’s not clear how the elastic leading-in piece would be able to hold the weight of the intraoral endoscope in every conceivable orientation and shape. The examiner suggests removing the language of “in any position” from the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger et al. (DE10043749A1, hereinafter Henninger) in view of Harada (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0361145) and Poll et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0319266, hereinafter Poll).
In regard to claim 1, Henninger discloses an intraoral endoscope (1, Fig. 1) including:
a housing (5, 6) elongated along a longitudinal axis and comprising an optically transparent shielding window (14) located at a working end (distal end of housing) of the housing, the housing being designed with the capability to be located intraorally (Figs. 1-2, Par. 27),
an optical sensor (9) connected to a microprocessor, the optical sensor being disposed inside the housing (Figs. 1-2), in front of the optically transparent shielding window, the optically transparent shielding window being adapted to shield the optical sensor (Figs. 1-2),
a backlight (21) disposed inside the housing (Figs. 1-2),
wherein
the housing is connected by an air supply tube (4) to a compressed air supply source disposed outside the housing along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, Par. 27),
the working end of the housing is located along the longitudinal axis downstream of an air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube, with respect to the optically transparent shielding window, the working end and the air supply tube being opposite each other along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-2),
the backlight is located along the longitudinal axis upstream of the air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube, with respect to the optically transparent shielding window (Figs. 1-2),
the housing comprises an opening (19b) for supplying compressed air to an outer surface of the optically transparent shielding window, the opening cooperating with the compressed air supply source via the air supply tube (Figs. 1-2, Par. 34-35),
the opening (19b) designed to generate an air jet which forms an air curtain in front of the optically transparent shielding window, the air jet forming an angle with a plane of the optically transparent shielding window, the angle being in a range of from 0° to 15°, and a plane of the optically transparent shielding window being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing (Figs. 1-2),
the opening is located at a working end of the housing, the opening being designed to direct the air jet away from the working end of the housing longitudinally towards the housing, along the outer surface of the optically transparent shielding window, and the optically transparent shielding window is located between the opening and the backlight along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1-2).
Henninger does not expressly teach a diffuser is located inside the opening.
Harada teaches an endoscope having a distal end portion (30) comprising an optical system (76) and illumination system (74) facing a direction generally orthogonal a longitudinal axis of the distal end portion. Air and liquid tubes (42, 44) extending through the endoscope and connect to a nozzle (58, i.e. diffuser) mounted within the distal end portion (30) best illustrated in Fig. 4.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the opening (19b) of Henninger with the nozzle (58) of Harada as a matter of design choice as a known means in the art for directing a pressurized fluid towards an observation window for maintaining a clear field of view during a surgical procedure. There being no unexpected results in modifying the opening of Henninger with the nozzle of Harada.
Henninger and Harada does not expressly teach the velocity of the outflow being in a range of from 6 m/s to 50 m/s.
Poll teaches an analogous endoscope system in which fluid is delivered at a velocity of between 1 and 25 m/s and any 1 m/s increment therebetween to form a gas screen over an observation window of the endoscope to maintain a clear field of view during a surgical procedure (Par. 90).
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the endoscope of Henninger to deliver fluid at a rate of between 6 and 25 m/s as taught by Poll as a matter of design choice for maintaining a gas screen over the observation window for maintaining a clear field of view during a surgical procedure.
In regard to claim 2, Henninger teaches wherein the air jet away from the working end of the housing air jet generated by the diffuser is flat (Figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 3, Henninger teaches wherein the optically transparent shielding window is flat (Figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 4, Henninger teaches wherein the optically transparent shielding window is flat (Figs. 1-2) .
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henninger et al. (DE10043749A1, hereinafter Henninger) in view of Harada (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0361145) and Poll et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0319266, hereinafter Poll), as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Guenier et al. (FR 2974721 A1, hereinafter Guenier).
In regard to claim 5, Henninger does not expressly teach wherein the intraoral endoscope additionally includes a dental rigid-type jaw wedge comprising: a rigid frame, an antislip soft cover, an elastic leading-in piece, and a fixer of the optical sensor.
Guenier teaches an analogous intraoral endoscope (1) in which an articulated and compensated arm (16, dental rigid-type jaw wedge, see annotated Fig. 1 below) is used to support the intraoral endoscope during a dental operation. A distal end of the compensated arm comprises a distal part (23) to fixedly hold the intraoral endoscope. The arm (16) is fixedly mounted to a floor, dental chair or ceiling via part (48). The articulated and compensated arm contains a source of compressed air and comprises a lumen for airflow from the compressed air to reach the intraoral endoscope. The arm (16) additionally allows the intraoral endoscope to be rotated and pivoted for better positioning of the endoscope with respect to the patient.
It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the endoscope of Henninger with the articulated and compensated arm of Guenier thereby providing a support structure for holding and positioning the intraoral endoscope with respect to a patient. There being no unexpected results in providing the intraoral endoscope of Henninger with the articulated and compensated support of Guenier.
PNG
media_image1.png
715
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, Guenier teaches wherein the elastic leading-in piece is realized in a ductile metal selected from the group consisting of copper, aluminum (the sections of the articulated arm are formed of metal), and steel, and the elastic leading-in piece is able to hold a weight of the intraoral endoscope in any position (the leading-in part as shown in Fig. 1 above is configured to be strong enough to hold an intraoral endoscope).
In regard to claim 7, Guenier teaches wherein the fixer is adapted to allow a rotation of the housing around the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 8, Guenier teaches wherein the fixer is adapted to allow a rotation of the housing around the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 9, Henninger teaches wherein the microprocessor, the backlight, the optical sensor are heat-generating elements located inside the housing, the air supply tube, the heat-generating elements and the diffuser are located in relation to each other along longitudinal axis so as the air flow entering the housing through the air supply tube and passing inside the housing along the longitudinal axis cools all these heat-generating elements (the air flow entering the housing would act to provide some degree of cooling to the heat-generating elements).
In regard to claim 10, Henninger teaches wherein the backlight comprises a light-emitting diode (Par. 31), and the optical sensor comprises a digital camera (Par. 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN N HENDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-5pm (PST).
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/RYAN N HENDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3795 May 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights