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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the light source on the frame must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the mirror glass reflects one or more teeth of a patient” is being interested as -the mirror glass is configured to reflect one or more teeth of a patient-. It is noted that the applicant is claiming an apparatus and not a method, therefore, the limitation is functional. 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 15-16 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.
With respect to claim 15, the applicant claims “a second angle”, however, it is noted that a first angle has not been claimed, therefore, it is unclear how there is a second angle, but not a first. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as an angle, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify. It is noted that a first angle is claimed in claim 13, however, claim 15 depends from claim 11 and does not require the claimed first angle.
Claim 16 is rejected for depending from claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (673,019) in view of Harlan (2018/0153641).
With respect to claim 1, Gilbert teaches a mirror assembly (see fig. 1) for use in dental applications, the mirror assembly comprising a mirror D providing a reflective surface (pg. 1, col. 2, ll. 62, 71-79), a frame (see figs. 1-3, such that the frame is elements C1, C2, C, c, F, f ) connected to the mirror D (see fig. 1, pg. 1, col. 2, ll. 62-67), and one more teeth (the teeth being the teeth on denture G) positioned on the frame (see fig. 1, such that the teeth are positioned on portion F/f of the frame, pg. 1, col. 2, ll. 79-92), whereby the one or more teeth may be used as a reference (pg. 2, col. 1, ll. 3-29). It is noted that the limitation “used as a reference” is functional. It is noted that since the teeth of the prior art are capable of being used as a reference, such as allowing a dentist or use to compare the teeth to other teeth, the claimed limitations are met by the prior art. Gilbert teaches that the one or more teeth comprise a three-dimensional shape, but is silent as to the method of making the teeth. The claimed phrase “molded” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the one or more teeth are made by molding. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Gilbert is silent as to the process used to make the one or more teeth, it appears that the product in Gilbert would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product is a three-dimensional product made to replicate the natural teeth. Gilbert teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the mirror is a mirror glass and the frame surround the mirror glass, thereby framing the mirror glass.
Harlan teaches a mirror assembly for use in dental applications (see abstract, figs 3-5), the mirror assembly comprising a mirror glass 19 providing a reflective surface (pars. 27-28) and a frame 29 surrounding the mirror glass (see fig. 11. Par. 20), thereby framing the mirror glass (see figs. 5, 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the frame of the mirror assembly of Gilbert to surround the mirror, thereby framing the mirror as taught by Harlan in order to protect the mirror. Such that the frame surrounding the mirror would protect the mirror from getting scratched. Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the mirror of Gilbert to be a glass mirror as taught by Harlan since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching wherein the mirror is capable of reflecting one or more teeth of a patient, thereby allowing the patient to compare a reflected one or more teeth of the patient with the one or more molded teeth. As discussed above in detail, the limitation of the mirror reflecting the users’/patient’s teeth is functional. Such that the apparatus taught by Gilbert is capable of functioning as claimed, such that a user/patient can position themselves in front of the mirror so that the mirror reflects their teeth and then compare their teeth with the one or more teeth positioned on the frame.
With respect to claim 3, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching wherein the mirror allows the patient to compare the reflected one or more teeth of the patient with a reflection of the one or more teeth on the frame. As discussed above in detail, the limitation of the mirror allowing the patient to compare the reflected teeth of the patient with a reflection of the teeth of the frame is functional. Such that the device is capable of reflecting both a patient’s teeth and the teeth on the frame (see pg. 2, col. 1, ll. 3-17 regarding the reflection of the teeth on the frame and above with respect to claim 2 regarding reflection of a user’s/patient’s teeth) and therefore the mirror functions as claimed such that the reflected images are capable of being compared by a user/patient.
With respect to claim 4, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching wherein the one or more teeth extends away from the mirror (see fig. 1, such that the teeth are attached to portion F/f the frame element, and portion F of the frame element extends away from the glass).
With respect to claim 5, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching the one or more teeth are positioned adjacent to an outer edge of the mirror (see fig. 1, such that the teeth are “adjacent” the edge of the mirror the frame is connected to, such that they are nearby).
With respect to claim 6, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching wherein the one or more teeth each comprise an inner surface that may be reflected by the mirror glass for viewing by a patient (pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 17-21, col. 2, ll. 72-79, pg. 2, col. 1, ll. 3-17, such that the inner surface is the lingual surface).
With respect to claim 8, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching herein the one or more teeth comprise at least one arch of teeth (see fig. 1, see claim 1 above regarding the limitation of molded).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (673,019) in view of Harlan (2018/0153641) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fishburne, Jr. (2010/0129767).
Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the mirror glass has magnification, thereby allowing the mirror glass to magnify at least one of the one or molded teeth of a patient and the one or more molded teeth.
Fishburne teaches a mirror assembly for use in dental applications (see abstract, figs. 2a-2b) comprising a mirror glass 26 (par. 83), Fishburne further teaches wherein the mirror glass has magnification (see par 83). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the mirror glass taught by Gilbert/Harlan to include magnification as taught by Fishburne in order to allow the user to see the details of the teeth in greater detail.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (673,019) in view of Harlan (2018/0153641) as evidenced by Fang (2004/0137405).
With respect to claim 9, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Gilbert further teaching the one or more teeth comprise a full set of teeth (see fig. 1). A complete upper arch of teeth is a full set of teeth as evidenced by Fang (see par. 26, fig. 3).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (673,019) in view of Harlan (2018/0153641) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gholmai-Kordkheili (DE 102005017861).
With respect to claim 10, Gilbert/Harlan teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the frame comprises a light source to illuminate the mirror glass.
Gholmai-Kordkheili teaches a mirror assembly for use in dental application (see use in translation), the mirror assembly comprising a mirror 2 providing a reflective surface (see fig. 1, see novelty of translation such that it includes a mirror which obviously includes a reflective surface), a frame 4/5 surrounding the mirror, thereby framing the mirror (see fig. 1). With respect to claim 10, Gholmai-Kordkheili further teaches the frame comprises a light source 1/6 to illuminate the mirror (see novelty and advantage in translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the frame of Gilbert/Harlan to include a light source as taught by Gholmai-Kordkheili in order to allow the user to see the reflection in the mirror more clearly. Such that by providing the illumination would allow the user to see the reflected image better especially when used in darker setting.
With respect to claim 11, Gilbert/Harlan/Gholmai-Kordkheili teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Gilbert further teaching at least one handle A’/A extending from the frame.
With respect to claim 13, Gilbert/Harlan/Gholmai-Kordkheili teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Gilbert further teaching wherein a first angle between the frame and the at least one handle is within the range of 15 degrees to 45 degrees (see fig. 1, pg. 1, col. 2, ll. 59-61, pg. 2, col. 1, ll. 13-17). It is noted that the angle between the frame and the at least one handle is adjustable as taught by Gilbert, therefore, it is noted that the angle is capable of being within the claimed range since it is adjustable. For example the angle appears to be close to 45 degrees in fig. 1, however, it is noted that it is capable of being adjusted to be within the claimed range, therefore, the claimed limitations are met.
With respect to claim 14, Gilbert/Harlan/Gholmai-Kordkheili teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, including Gilbert further teaching wherein the first angle is 22 degrees (see detailed discussion above with respect to claim 14 regarding the angle being adjustable, such that it is capable of being 22 degrees.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert (673,019) in view of Harlan (2018/0153641) in view of Gholmai-Kordkheili (DE 102005017861) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of de Josselin de Jong et al. (2004/0023184).
With respect to claim 12, Gilbert/Harlan/Gholmai-Kordkheili teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the at least one handle comprises at least one push button to activate the light source.
de Josselin de Jong teaches a mirror assembly for use in dental applications (see abstract, fig. 3) comprising a mirror 15 providing a reflective surface (par. 29), a frame 16 surrounding the mirror, thereby framing the mirror (see fig. 3, par. 23), the frame comprises a light source 17a and at least one handle 12. With respect to claim 12 de Josselin de Jong further teaches the at least on one handle 12 comprises at least one push button 25 to activate the light source (par. 25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Gilbert/Harlan/Gholmai-Kordkheili to include a push button on the handle to allow the user to quickly and easily active the light source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the claimed mirror assembly comprising two handles extending from the frame, wherein an angle between the two handles is within the range of 10 degree to 80 degrees in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Price which teaches teeth 9 mounted to a mirror.
The prior art of Ostler which teaches pictures of sample teeth attached to a mirror.
The prior art of Garfinkel which teaches images of teeth attached to a mirror.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 11/6/2025