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 § 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 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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 28, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210321864A1 (hereinafter Bloembergen), and in view of US20010026315A1 (hereinafter Ooshima).
Regarding claim 1, Bloembergen teaches a device (32) (fig. 4) for optically detecting biofilm in the oral cavity (para [0045] lines 7-9), wherein at least one sensor unit (1) (para [0038] lines 1-3) is provided, wherein the sensor unit (1) has a camera unit (332) (para [0038] lines 1-3), which points with its optical detection region into a receiving space (19) of the device (32) (this is shown in fig. 4) and serves to record surfaces that are to be detected (this is shown in fig. 4),
wherein an LED (3) (para [0039] lines 1-5), a circuit board (2) (LED is connected to a circuit hardware and well known in the art, para [0034] line 7; fig. 4 shows wires connected between elements 342 and 318 correspond the circuit board), and, wherein an optical long-pass filter (10) (para [0042] lines 1-2), which has a cut-off wavelength of 480 nm to 530 nm and cuts off signals below this (para [0043] lines 1-3), is placed in front of the camera unit (11) (this is shown in fig. 4) or a diffuser or a polarizer is positioned between the circuit board (2) and the protective glass (9) or the polarizer and diffuser are both present; or the optical long-pass filter (10) is placed in front of the camera unit (11) and a diffuser or a polarizer is positioned between the circuit board (2) and the protective glass (9) or the polarizer and diffuser are both present.
Ooshima teaches a protective glass (9) are provided in the device (fig. 2 element 4, para [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have a protective glass (9) are provided in the device in order to protect the optical components of the device from foreign matters.
Regarding claim 2, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the optical long-pass filter (10), is placed directly in front of the camera unit (11) (this is shown in fig. 4 element 334, para [0042] lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the sensor unit (1) has at least one LED (3) configured to illuminate a surface to be detected (this is shown in fig. 4 element 342, para [0039] lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that a band- pass filter or short-pass filter is placed in front of the at least one LED (3) in order to limit/focus the wavelength spectrum of the at least one LED (3) (para [0039] lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 5, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 3, characterized in that the at least one LED has a spectrum of 450-500 nm (para [0039] lines 12).
Regarding claim 6, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 5, characterized in that at least one other LED (3) is present, which has a different spectrum (para [0039] line 5).
Regarding claim 7, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that a diffuser or a polarizer is positioned in front of optics of the camera unit (11) and configured to avoid reflections between a protective glass (9) and a circuit board (2) that supports the camera unit (11) and/or the at least one LED (3) (para [0038] lines 17-18, the polarizer corresponds to the anti-glare or polarizing lens or coating).
Regarding claim 8, Bloembergen teaches “the device according to claim 1,characterized in that a camera base housing (4) (fig. 4, the two walls enclosed by element 332) is positioned on the circuit board (2) (fig. 4 circuit board on top of elements 342 and 318) in a region of the at least one LED (3) (this is shown in fig. 4) and reaches through the circuit board (2) (this is shown in fig. 4) in a region of a through opening (5) (fig. 4, space between elements 342 and 318), wherein the camera base housing (4) is embodied as tubular (the two walls enclosed by element 332 are shaped like a tube), with a first opening (6) (the spaces inside element 318 as shown in fig. 4) facing a surface to be detected (fig. 4 element 34b) and with a diametrically opposite second opening (7) (the space on top of element 318 as shown in fig. 4).
Bloembergen does not teach wherein the camera base body (4) is embodied as resting against the protective glass (9) with an end wall (8) that delimits the first opening (6).
Ooshima teaches wherein the camera base body (4) is embodied as resting against the protective glass (9) with an end wall (8) that delimits the first opening (6) (fig. 2 element 4, para [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have wherein the camera base body (4) is embodied as resting against the protective glass (9) with an end wall (8) that delimits the first opening (6) in the device in order to protect the optical components of the device from foreign matters.
Regarding claim 9, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the device (32) comprises a handpiece (33) and a detection attachment (34) with an elongated cylindrical support (35) arranged in succession, wherein a receiving region (37) for a detection head (15) is positioned at a free end (36) and supports the detection head in rotary fashion. Regarding claim 10, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 9, characterized in that the detection head (15) is embodied in an approximately inverted U-shaped, bridge-like manner, with a base region (16) and two legs (17) extending from it. Regarding claim 11, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the detection head (15) is formed in one piece and in particular, the base region (16) and the legs (17) are formed in one piece by means of common walls (22, 23, 25, 26). Regarding claim 12, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the base region (16) and the legs (17) are embodied as hollow and form one or more chambers (18) for accommodating one or more sensor units (1). Regarding claim 13, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the base region (16) and the legs (17) define a receiving space (19) between themselves that serves to accommodate teeth, wherein the receiving space (19) has an opening (20) appropriately oriented toward a tooth that is to be recorded and has an opening (21) in each side.
Ooshima, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the device (32) comprises a handpiece (33) and a detection attachment (34) with an elongated cylindrical support (35) arranged in succession, wherein a receiving region (37) for a detection head (15) is positioned at a free end (36) and supports the detection head in rotary fashion” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 1, col 4 lines 25-44), “the device according to claim 9, characterized in that the detection head (15) is embodied in an approximately inverted U-shaped, bridge-like manner, with a base region (16) and two legs (17) extending from it” (this entire limitation is are shown in figs. 1-2), “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the detection head (15) is formed in one piece and in particular, the base region (16) and the legs (17) are formed in one piece by means of common walls (22, 23, 25, 26)” (this is shown in fig. 2), “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the base region (16) and the legs (17) are embodied as hollow and form one or more chambers (18) for accommodating one or more sensor units (1)” (this is shown in fig. 2), “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the base region (16) and the legs (17) define a receiving space (19) between themselves that serves to accommodate teeth, wherein the receiving space (19) has an opening (20) appropriately oriented toward a tooth that is to be recorded and has an opening (21) in each side” (this is shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 1, characterized in that the device (32) comprises a handpiece (33) and a detection attachment (34) with an elongated cylindrical support (35) arranged in succession, wherein a receiving region (37) for a detection head (15) is positioned at a free end (36) and supports the detection head in rotary fashion”, “the device according to claim 9, characterized in that the detection head (15) is embodied in an approximately inverted U-shaped, bridge-like manner, with a base region (16) and two legs (17) extending from it”, “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the detection head (15) is formed in one piece and in particular, the base region (16) and the legs (17) are formed in one piece by means of common walls (22, 23, 25, 26)”, “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the base region (16) and the legs (17) are embodied as hollow and form one or more chambers (18) for accommodating one or more sensor units (1)”, “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that the base region (16) and the legs (17) define a receiving space (19) between themselves that serves to accommodate teeth, wherein the receiving space (19) has an opening (20) appropriately oriented toward a tooth that is to be recorded and has an opening (21) in each side” in order to provide a simple, easy-to-use video scope capable of picking up an object from at least two directions at the same time, picking up an image in a short time, easily identifying the picked up data, and easily picking up a crack (col 1 lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 15, Bloembergen teaches “the device according to claim 10, characterized in that facing away from the legs (17) or facing away from the receiving space (19), the base region (16) has a cylindrical connection region (27) on or in its outer wall (26), wherein the cylindrical connection region (27) has a substantially round opening (28) that is delimited by a circumferential edge (29), wherein a projection (30) is embodied on the circumferential edge (29) and forms a rotary stop” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 2, where in fig. 1 element 3 forms the rotary stop, col 5 lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 16, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 15,characterized in that on an opposite side from the cylindrical connection region (27), an opening (31) is formed facing the receiving space (19), wherein a sensor unit (1) is positioned in the opening (31) inside the chamber (18), wherein the sensor unit (1) is positioned in such a way that the protective glass (9) covers the opening (31) and a detection region of the camera correspondingly projects into the receiving space (19).
Ooshima, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 15,characterized in that on an opposite side from the cylindrical connection region (27), an opening (31) is formed facing the receiving space (19), wherein a sensor unit (1) is positioned in the opening (31) inside the chamber (18), wherein the sensor unit (1) is positioned in such a way that the protective glass (9) covers the opening (31) and a detection region of the camera correspondingly projects into the receiving space (19)” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 2, there is a sensor unit near element 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 15,characterized in that on an opposite side from the cylindrical connection region (27), an opening (31) is formed facing the receiving space (19), wherein a sensor unit (1) is positioned in the opening (31) inside the chamber (18), wherein the sensor unit (1) is positioned in such a way that the protective glass (9) covers the opening (31) and a detection region of the camera correspondingly projects into the receiving space (19)” in order to provide a simple, easy-to-use video scope capable of picking up an object from at least two directions at the same time, picking up an image in a short time, easily identifying the picked up data, and easily picking up a crack (col 1 lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 21, Bloembergen does not explicitly teach the device according to claim 1, characterized in that optionally interchangeable storage media are present in the device (32) (note that Bloembergen has a storage device because it can transfer the image via Bluetooth or Wi-fi, para [0034] lines 1-8).
MPEP 2144.04 VI-B In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), states “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”, this means having an “optionally interchangeable storage media” is simply duplication of parts.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the inclusion of an optionally interchangeable storage medium in the device in order to increase the image data stored in the device.
Regarding claim 28, Bloembergen teaches the device according to claim 1, characterized in that a band-pass filter or short-pass filter is placed in front of the LED (3) and configured to limit/focus the wavelength spectrum of the LED (para [0039] lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 29, Bloembergen teaches a method for detecting biofilm in the oral cavity, comprising: obtaining a device according to claim 1; and using the device to detect a surface in the oral cavity (para [0045] lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 30, Bloembergen teaches the method according to claim 29, characterized in that at least one LED (3) is used to illuminate the surface to be detected (para [0045] lines 7-9).
Claim(s) 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloembergen and Ooshima as applied to claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of DE102006041020B4 (hereinafter Frank).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 13,characterized in that the receiving space (19) is delimited by inner walls (22) of the legs (17) and an inner wall (23) of the base region (16) extending at an angle thereto, wherein the legs (17) also have outer walls (25) that extend from outer edges (24) of the inner walls (22) delimiting the openings (20, 21) and transition into an outer wall (26) of the base region (16), wherein the outer wall (26) is curved so that the inner walls (22, 23) and outer walls (25, 26) form or delimit the one or more chambers (18).
Frank, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 13,characterized in that the receiving space (19) is delimited by inner walls (22) of the legs (17) and an inner wall (23) of the base region (16) extending at an angle thereto, wherein the legs (17) also have outer walls (25) that extend from outer edges (24) of the inner walls (22) delimiting the openings (20, 21) and transition into an outer wall (26) of the base region (16), wherein the outer wall (26) is curved so that the inner walls (22, 23) and outer walls (25, 26) form or delimit the one or more chambers (18)” (this entire limitation is shown in figs. 5-7, p. 8 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Frank to Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 13,characterized in that the receiving space (19) is delimited by inner walls (22) of the legs (17) and an inner wall (23) of the base region (16) extending at an angle thereto, wherein the legs (17) also have outer walls (25) that extend from outer edges (24) of the inner walls (22) delimiting the openings (20, 21) and transition into an outer wall (26) of the base region (16), wherein the outer wall (26) is curved so that the inner walls (22, 23) and outer walls (25, 26) form or delimit the one or more chambers (18)” in order to optimize the quality of the images of the teeth (p. 3 para 2).
Regarding claim 17, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 14, characterized in that the legs (17) have openings (31), which are oriented toward the receiving space (19), and a sensor unit (1) is correspondingly positioned in each of them, wherein respective panes of protective glass (9) close the openings (31) into the receiving space (19) and the sensor units are positioned inside the chamber (18). Regarding claim 18, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 17, characterized in that detection regions of the sensor units (1) in the legs (17) point into the receiving space (19) in opposite directions and the detection region of the sensor unit (1) in the base region (16) points into the receiving space (19) orthogonally thereto and toward the opening (20).
Ooshima, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 14, characterized in that the legs (17) have openings (31), which are oriented toward the receiving space (19), and a sensor unit (1) is correspondingly positioned in each of them, wherein respective panes of protective glass (9) close the openings (31) into the receiving space (19) and the sensor units are positioned inside the chamber (18)” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 2, there two sensor units on the sides), “the device according to claim 17, characterized in that detection regions of the sensor units (1) in the legs (17) point into the receiving space (19) in opposite directions and the detection region of the sensor unit (1) in the base region (16) points into the receiving space (19) orthogonally thereto and toward the opening (20)” (this is shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 14, characterized in that the legs (17) have openings (31), which are oriented toward the receiving space (19), and a sensor unit (1) is correspondingly positioned in each of them, wherein respective panes of protective glass (9) close the openings (31) into the receiving space (19) and the sensor units are positioned inside the chamber (18)”, “the device according to claim 17, characterized in that detection regions of the sensor units (1) in the legs (17) point into the receiving space (19) in opposite directions and the detection region of the sensor unit (1) in the base region (16) points into the receiving space (19) orthogonally thereto and toward the opening (20)” in order to provide a simple, easy-to-use video scope capable of picking up an object from at least two directions at the same time, picking up an image in a short time, easily identifying the picked up data, and easily picking up a crack (col 1 lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 20, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 17,characterized in that the sensor units (1) have electrical lines (40) that are routed through the chambers (18) of the legs (17) and base region (16) and through a cylindrical connection region (27), wherein the electrical lines (40) are configured to connect the sensor units (1) to a power source inside the handpiece (33) and also to transmit acquired image data or coordinates or other data that are recorded by the cameras (11) and that can be transmitted through these lines and either stored in the handpiece (33) or supplied for further processing via transmission means, or via a conductive connection when the handpiece is inserted into a base station.
Ooshima, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 17, characterized in that the sensor units (1) have electrical lines (40) that are routed through the chambers (18) of the legs (17) and base region (16) and through a cylindrical connection region (27), wherein the electrical lines (40) are configured to connect the sensor units (1) to a power source inside the handpiece (33)” (this is shown in fig. 2, electrical wires are connected to the sensor units and goes to element 11 to the power source supply, col 4 last para) and “also to transmit acquired image data or coordinates or other data that are recorded by the cameras (11) and that can be transmitted through these lines and either stored in the handpiece (33) or supplied for further processing via transmission means, or via a conductive connection when the handpiece is inserted into a base station” (the image is displayed by a TV monitor, Abstract last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 17,characterized in that the sensor units (1) have electrical lines (40) that are routed through the chambers (18) of the legs (17) and base region (16) and through a cylindrical connection region (27), wherein the electrical lines (40) are configured to connect the sensor units (1) to a power source inside the handpiece (33) and also to transmit acquired image data or coordinates or other data that are recorded by the cameras (11) and that can be transmitted through these lines and either stored in the handpiece (33) or supplied for further processing via transmission means, or via a conductive connection when the handpiece is inserted into a base station” in order to provide a simple, easy-to-use video scope capable of picking up an object from at least two directions at the same time, picking up an image in a short time, easily identifying the picked up data, and easily picking up a crack (col 1 lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 22, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 20, characterized in that the electrical lines (40) are dimensioned so that it is possible to rotate the detection head (15) in the device (32) without overstretching the lines. Regarding claim 23, Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 17, characterized in that spacer and guide elements (42) are provided in order to set a sufficient distance of the sensor units (1) in the legs (17) from the surface to be detected and also to ensure favorable guidance of the user when detecting the surfaces, wherein the spacer and guide elements (42) are particularly positioned in the transition region from the inner walls (22, 23) to the outer walls (25, 26).
Ooshima, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 20, characterized in that the electrical lines (40) are dimensioned so that it is possible to rotate the detection head (15) in the device (32) without overstretching the lines” (the wires are shown in fig. 2 and it can rotate to 180 degrees; col 4 lines 40-43; this means the wirings are not overstretching), “the device according to claim 17, characterized in that spacer and guide elements (42) are provided in order to set a sufficient distance of the sensor units (1) in the legs (17) from the surface to be detected and also to ensure favorable guidance of the user when detecting the surfaces, wherein the spacer and guide elements (42) are particularly positioned in the transition region from the inner walls (22, 23) to the outer walls (25, 26)” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 2, the sensor units 7, 5 are properly aligned at the distance of element 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ooshima to Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 20, characterized in that the electrical lines (40) are dimensioned so that it is possible to rotate the detection head (15) in the device (32) without overstretching the lines”, “the device according to claim 17, characterized in that spacer and guide elements (42) are provided in order to set a sufficient distance of the sensor units (1) in the legs (17) from the surface to be detected and also to ensure favorable guidance of the user when detecting the surfaces, wherein the spacer and guide elements (42) are particularly positioned in the transition region from the inner walls (22, 23) to the outer walls (25, 26)” in order to provide a simple, easy-to-use video scope capable of picking up an object from at least two directions at the same time, picking up an image in a short time, easily identifying the picked up data, and easily picking up a crack (col 1 lines 63-67).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloembergen and Ooshima as applied to claim(s) 15 above, and further in view of JP 2011050441 A (hereinafter Atsushi).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Bloembergen does not teach the device according to claim 15, characterized in that the receiving region (37) has a cylindrical opening (38) which, in a mounted state, is oriented toward a row of teeth to be examined, wherein a pivot bearing (39) is positioned in the opening (38) in such a way that the cylindrical connection region (27) is thus rotatably mounted in the cylindrical opening (38), wherein the opening (28) of the cylindrical connection region (27) projects into the opening (38).
Atsushi, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 15, characterized in that the receiving region (37) has a cylindrical opening (38) which, in a mounted state, is oriented toward a row of teeth to be examined, wherein a pivot bearing (39) is positioned in the opening (38) in such a way that the cylindrical connection region (27) is thus rotatably mounted in the cylindrical opening (38), wherein the opening (28) of the cylindrical connection region (27) projects into the opening (38)” (this entire limitation is shown in figs. 2-3, where a bearing 44 connects elements 20 and 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Atsushi to the modified device of Bloembergen to have “the device according to claim 15, characterized in that the receiving region (37) has a cylindrical opening (38) which, in a mounted state, is oriented toward a row of teeth to be examined, wherein a pivot bearing (39) is positioned in the opening (38) in such a way that the cylindrical connection region (27) is thus rotatably mounted in the cylindrical opening (38), wherein the opening (28) of the cylindrical connection region (27) projects into the opening (38)” in order to provide a dental observation apparatus easily acquiring information on teeth along a tooth row, and a dental observation system easily and minutely observing teeth along the tooth row (Abstract lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 24, 25, 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloembergen, Ooshima, and Frank as applied to claim(s) 23 above, and further in view of US 20110188086 A1 (hereinafter Lehmann).
Regarding claim 24, Bloembergen, when modified by Ooshima and Frank, does not teach the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) extend into the receiving space (19) so that the guide elements (42) are configured to rest against outsides and insides of tooth surfaces to be detected. Regarding claim 25, Bloembergen, when modified by Ooshima and Frank, does not teach the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are made of a material that is biologically harmless. Regarding claim 26, Bloembergen, when modified by Ooshima and Frank, does not teach the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are interchangeable. Regarding claim 27, Bloembergen, when modified by Ooshima and Frank, does not teach the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are positioned adjacent to the receiving space (19) or to the outer edges (24) of the legs (17) on outer walls (25) of the legs (17) and extend either a little outward from these and then into the region of the receiving space (19) or extend with free ends (43) directly from the outer walls (25) into the receiving space (19).
Lehmann, from the same field of endeavor as Bloembergen, teaches “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) extend into the receiving space (19) so that the guide elements (42) are configured to rest against outsides and insides of tooth surfaces to be detected” (fig. 11 element 125, para [0105] lines 1-9), the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are made of a material that is biologically harmless (para [0118] last sentence; it indicates the sleeve is biologically harmless), “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are interchangeable” (para [0118] last sentence), “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are positioned adjacent to the receiving space (19) or to the outer edges (24) of the legs (17) on outer walls (25) of the legs (17) and extend either a little outward from these and then into the region of the receiving space (19) or extend with free ends (43) directly from the outer walls (25) into the receiving space (19)” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 11, the sleeve 125 extends to the wall 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Lehmann to Bloembergen, when modified by Ooshima and Frank, to have “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) extend into the receiving space (19) so that the guide elements (42) are configured to rest against outsides and insides of tooth surfaces to be detected”, “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are made of a material that is biologically harmless”, “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are interchangeable”, “the device according to claim 23, characterized in that the guide elements (42) are positioned adjacent to the receiving space (19) or to the outer edges (24) of the legs (17) on outer walls (25) of the legs (17) and extend either a little outward from these and then into the region of the receiving space (19) or extend with free ends (43) directly from the outer walls (25) into the receiving space (19)” in order to reduce the variation in distance and orientation of the camera from the subject, and secondly, to remove unwanted ambient light contamination (para [0105] lines 1-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights