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 .
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 12-14 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 12, the claimed “a first extendible joint” and “a second extendible joint” is unclear in view of the claimed “extendible joint” connecting the upper and lower frame of the independent claim. It is unclear if either the first or second extendible joints connecting the claimed sides of the upper and lower arms are the claimed extendible joint of the independent claim, such as there are a total of 2 claimed extendible joints, or if they are in addition to the claimed extendible joint, such that there are three total extendible joints claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations of the first and second extendible joints are being interpreted as further defining the claimed extendable joint of the independent claim. Such that one of the first or second extendible joints is the claimed extendable joint of the independent claim so that there are only 2 total extendable joints claimed. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for depending claim 12 and including the same issue with respect to the claimed first extendible joint. It is noted that the claim is being interpreted as discussed above in detail and the applicant should amend the claims to clarity what is being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Littauer (1,089,653).
With respect to claim 15, Littauer discloses a speculum comprising an upper frame 10 comprising a front side, a rear side, a left side, and a right side and wherein the front side is connected to an upper tooth plate 13 (see annotated figure, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 21-17, specifically that there are two pairs of jaw members 10/11, each being a duplicate. It is noted that one of the pairs is the left side and the other of the pair is the right side, see fig. 1 in which you can see both sides of the lower frame 11); a lower frame 11 comprising a front side, a rear side, a left side, and a right side and wherein the front side is connected to a lower tooth plate 14 (see annotated figure, see detailed explanation above regarding the pair of members 10/11 such that they are duplicates to be placed on either side of the head); and at least one extendible joint 19/18/21/22 connected to one of the upper frame right side or left side and the corresponding lower frame left side or lower frame right side (see fig. 1, such that it shows the joint connected to the right upper and lower frame, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 48-56, col. 2, ll. 48-63, specifically that each of the members includes the joint, i.e. one on each of the left and right frames).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16, Littauer further discloses a ratchet (23 and protrusion on arm 21 that interacts with the teeth 23) configured to operate the at least one extendible joint to extend into an open position (col. 1, ll. 48-56, col. 2, ll. 48-63).
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) 1-2 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littauer (1,089,653) in view of Van Abel et al. (2021/0228072) in view of Messine (2,505,056).
With respect to claim 1, Littauer teaches a speculum comprising an upper frame 10, a lower frame 11, an extendible joint 19/18/22/21 connecting the upper frame and the lower frame (see fig. 1), an upper tooth plate 13 connected to the upper frame with a first joint, and a lower tooth plate 14 connected to the lower frame with a second joint (pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 27-30, such that the joint the connection between the plates and the frame member). Littauer teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the first joint is a first swivel ball joint and the second joint is a second swivel ball joint.
Van Abel teaches a speculum comprising an upper frame 114a, a lower frame 114b and a joint 120 connected the upper and lower frame 114a, an upper tooth plate 150a connected to the upper frame with a first swivel joint 122a (pars. 34-35, such that the joint is pivoting or hinged, such that it would swivel) and a lower tooth plate 150a connected to the lower frame 114b with a second swivel joint 122b (pars. 34-35, such that the joint is pivoting or hinged, such that it would swivel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first and second joints taught by Littauer with the first and second swivel joints taught by Van Abel in order to allow adjustability of the upper and lower tooth plates when inserting into the mouth to provide a better fit depending on the user’s anatomy and the amount of opening needed for treatment. Littauer/Van Abel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the first and second swivel joints are swivel ball joints.
Messine teaches a speculum device comprising a plate 11 connected to a frame 10 with a first swivel ball joint 18 (col. 1, ll. 30-34. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second swivel joint taught by Littauer/Van Abel to both be a ball swivel joint taught by Messine in order to allow for greater adjustability. Such that a ball joint would allow for more degrees of adjustability than a simple hinge swivel joint.
With respect to claim 2, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches a ratchet (23 and protrusion on arm 21 that interacts with the teeth 23) configured to operate the extendible joint to extend into an open position (col. 1, ll. 48-56, col. 2, ll. 48-63).
With respect to claim 6, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches the upper frame further comprises a first upper side arm, and a second upper side arm, and wherein, in use, the first upper side arm is configured to be positioned on a first side of an animal’s head and the second upper side arm is configured to be positioned on a second side of an animal’s head (see annotated figure above, regarding the left and right sides, each being the claimed first and second side arms, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 21-17, specifically that there are two pairs of jaw members 10/11, each being a duplicate. It is noted that one of the pairs is the first side arm and the other of the pair is the second side arm, see fig. 1 in which you can see both sides of the lower frame 11 and an end of the other side of the upper frame connected to the other side of the tooth plate such that each side arm is positioned on opposite sides of the user’s head).
With respect to claim 7, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches the upper tooth plate is connected between the first upper side arm and the second upper side arm (see detailed explanation above with respect to claim 6, fig. 1 and the annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 8, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the upper tooth plate is connected to the first upper side arm with the first swivel ball joint (see detailed rejection above, such that the joint of Littauer which connects the upper tooth plate to the first upper side arm is modified to be the claimed first swivel ball joint). Littauer further teaches the upper tooth plate is connected to the second upper side arm with another joint (see fig. 1, annotated figure above, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 21-30) and that the combination of Littauer/Van Abel/Messine would teach the other joint of Littauer as being another swivel ball joint such that all the joints of Littauer are modified to be swivel ball joints to provide the increased adjustability.
With respect to claim 9, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches wherein the lower frame further comprises a first lower side arm, and a second lower side arm, and wherein, in use, the first lower side arm is configured to be positioned on a first side of an animal’s head and the second lower side arm is configured to be positioned on a second side of the animal’s head (see annotated figure above, such that the left and right sides are the first and second lower side arms, such that in use, they are on a first and second side of the animal’s head).
With respect to claim 10, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches the lower tooth plate is connected between the first lower side arm and the second lower side arm (see detailed explanation above with respect to claim 6, fig. 1 and the annotated figure above).
With respect to claim 11, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including the lower tooth plate is connected to the first lower side arm with the first swivel ball joint (see detailed rejection above, such that the joint of Littauer which connects the lower tooth plate to the first lower side arm is modified to be the claimed first swivel ball joint). Littauer further teaches the lower tooth plate is connected to the second lower side arm with another joint (see fig. 1, annotated figure above, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 21-30) and that the combination of Littauer/Van Abel/Messine would teach the other joint of Littauer as being another swivel ball joint such that all the joints of Littauer are modified to be swivel ball joints to provide the increased adjustability.
With respect to claim 12, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches the first upper side arm and the first lower side arm are connected through the extendible joint and the second upper side arm and the second lower side arm are connected through a second extendible joint (see fig. 1, such that it shows the joint connected to the first side of the upper and lower frame, pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 48-56, col. 2, ll. 48-63, specifically that each of the members includes the joint, i.e. one on each of the frames on either side of the user’s head).
Claim(s) 3 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littauer (1,089,653) in view of Van Abel et al. (2021/0228072) in view of Messine (2,505,056) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 202012000017.
Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the extendible joint comprises a scissor joint.
DE teaches a speculum comprising an upper frame 30/26, a lower frame 30/26 (see fig. 3 such that there are two frames and as orientated in fig. 3, one is an upper frame and one is a lower frame), an extendible joint 42/70 connecting the upper frame and the lower frame (see fig. 3, par. 28 of translation).
With respect to claim 3, DE further teaches the extendible joint comprises a scissor joint (see par. 28 of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the single armed extendible joint taught by Littauer/Van Abel/Messine to be a scissor joint as taught by DE in order to provide a stronger joint.
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that Littauer teaches a first and second extendable joint as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Further, with respect to claim 13, DE further teaches the first extendible joint comprises a scissor joint (see par. 28 of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the single armed extendible joint taught by Littauer/Van Abel/Messine to be a scissor joint as taught by DE in order to provide a stronger joint.
With respect to claim 14, Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, Littauer further teaches a ratchet (23 and protrusion on arm 21 that interacts with the teeth 23) configured to operate the first extendible joint to extend into an open position (col. 1, ll. 48-56, col. 2, ll. 48-63, specifically each side has a ratchet). It is further noted that DE teaches a ratchet to extend the first extendable joint into an open position (see par. 34 of translation).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littauer (1,089,653) in view of Van Abel et al. (2021/0228072) in view of Messine (2,505,056) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosa et al (5,564,922).
Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Messine teaching a locking nut 19 to secure the first and second swivel ball joint in a desired position (see fig. 5, such that it is capable of securing the ball joint in a desired position, such that it can be tightened to a point that there is no movement as evidenced by Rosa, see below), however, does not specifically teach the locking nut is tapered.
Rosa teaches a dental device comprising a swivel ball joint 42 and further with respect to claims 4-5, a tapered locking nut 46 to secure the swivel ball joint in a desired position (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 30-38, figs. 1-6 such that the upper surface of the locking nut is tapered). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the locking nut taught by Littauer/Van Abel/Messine to be tapered as taught by Rosa as a matter of obvious design choice since such a modification would have involves a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). It is noted that the applicant does not provide any explanation as to the tapered shape providing an unexpected result or advantage and that the locking nut disclosed by the applicant and taught by the prior art severe the same purpose of locking a ball joint in a desired position. Further it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the locking nut of Littauer/Van Abel/Messine with the locking nut of Rosa in order to ensure that the ball joint is locked in a desired position to prevent unwanted movement during treatment. It is noted that the combination would teach each joint having a locking nut.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littauer (1,089,653) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Van Abel et al. (2021/0228072) in view of Messine (2,505,056).
Littauer teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including with respect to claims 18-19, the upper tooth plate is connected to the upper frame with at least one joint and the lower tooth plate is connected to the lower frame with at least one joint (pg. 1, col. 1, ll. 27-30, such that the joint the connection between the plates and the frame member), however, does not specifically teach the joint is a swivel ball joint.
Van Abel teaches a speculum comprising an upper frame 114a, a lower frame 114b and a joint 120 connected the upper and lower frame 114a, an upper tooth plate 150a connected to the upper frame and a lower tooth plate 150a connected to the lower frame 114b.
Van Abel further teaches with respect to claims 18-19, the upper tooth plate 150a is connected to the upper frame with a first swivel joint 122a (pars. 34-35, such that the joint is pivoting or hinged, such that it would swivel) and the lower tooth plate 150a is connected to the lower frame 114b with a second swivel joint 122b (pars. 34-35, such that the joint is pivoting or hinged, such that it would swivel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first and second joints taught by Littauer with the first and second swivel joints taught by Van Abel in order to allow adjustability of the upper and lower tooth plates when inserting into the mouth to provide a better fit depending on the user’s anatomy and the amount of opening needed for treatment. Littauer/Van Abel teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the first and second swivel joints are swivel ball joints.
Messine teaches a speculum device comprising a plate 11 connected to a frame 10 with a first swivel ball joint 18 (col. 1, ll. 30-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second swivel joints taught by Littauer/Van Abel to both be a ball swivel joint taught by Messine in order to allow for greater adjustability. Such that a ball joint would allow for more degrees of adjustability than a simple hinge swivel joint.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littauer (1,089,653) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of DE 202012000017.
Littauer teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the extendible joint compress a scissor joint.
DE teaches a speculum comprising an upper frame 30/26, a lower frame 30/26 (see fig. 3 such that there are two frames and as orientated in fig. 3, one is an upper frame and one is a lower frame), an extendible joint 42/70 connecting the upper frame and the lower frame (see fig. 3, par. 28 of translation).
With respect to claim 3, DE further teaches the extendible joint comprises a scissor joint (see par. 28 of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the single armed extendible joint taught by Littauer to be a scissor joint as taught by DE in order to provide a stronger joint.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littauer (1,089,653) in view of Van Abel et al. (2021/0228072) in view of Messine (2,505,056) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rosa et al (5,564,922).
Littauer/Van Abel/Messine teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above including Messine teaching a locking nut 19 to secure the first and second swivel ball joint in a desired position (see fig. 5, such that it is capable of securing the ball joint in a desired position, such that it can be tightened to a point that there is no movement as evidenced by Rosa, see below), however, does not specifically teach the locking nut is tapered.
Rosa teaches a dental device comprising a swivel ball joint 42 and further with respect to claim 20, a tapered locking nut 46 to secure the swivel ball joint in a desired position (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 30-38, figs. 1-6 such that the upper surface of the locking nut is tapered). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the shape of the locking nut taught by Littauer/Van Abel/Messine to be tapered as taught by Rosa as a matter of obvious design choice since such a modification would have involves a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). It is noted that the applicant does not provide any explanation as to the tapered shape providing an unexpected result or advantage and that the locking nut disclosed by the applicant and taught by the prior art severe the same purpose of locking a ball joint in a desired position. Further it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the locking nut of Littauer/Van Abel/Messine with the locking nut of Rosa in order to ensure that the ball joint is locked in a desired position to prevent unwanted movement during treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 12/17/2025