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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
After further consideration and search the previous Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn. A new rejection is now made based on newly found references.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (US 6,095,811; pub. Aug. 1, 2000) in view of Lonsinger et al. (US 2017/0303833 A1; pub. Oct. 26, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Stearns discloses: A method, the method comprising: coupling a flexible sleeve (fig.3 item 50) over a removable protective endpiece (fig.3 item 24) that is attached to a distal end (fig.3 item 14) of a probe of an intraoral scanner (fig.1 item 10) allowing transmission of an optical signal between the probe and an external environment (col.3 L41-62) so that the flexible sleeve at least partially encloses a handle of (fig.1 item 30) the intraoral scanner, wherein the removable protective endpiece is formed of a first material (col.4 L33-40). Stearns is silent about: sealing a distal end region of the flexible sleeve to an engagement region on an outer surface of the removable protective endpiece to form a hermetic seal between the removable protective endpiece and the flexible sleeve.
In a similar field of endeavor Lonsinger et al. disclose: sealing a distal end region of the flexible sleeve to an engagement region on an outer surface of the removable protective endpiece to form a hermetic seal (para. [0007], [0037], [0063]-[0064] teaches the sleeve constitutes a barrier for liquid/contamination) between the removable protective endpiece and the flexible sleeve (para. [0107]-[0112]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
In light of the benefits for preventing contamination as taught by Lonsinger et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stearns with the teachings of Lonsinger et al.
Regarding claim 2, Lonsinger et al. disclose: bonding the distal end region of the flexible sleeve to the engagement region on the outer surface of the removable protective endpiece (para. [0111] teaches using adhesive for joining sleeve panels) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Lonsinger et al. disclose: removably coupling the removable protective endpiece to the distal end of the probe (para. [0111] teaches using adhesive for joining sleeve panels) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the flexible sleeve is formed of a second material different than the first material (para. [0064], [0067]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the flexible sleeve is formed of a second material that is more flexible than the first material (para. [0064], [0067]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the first material comprises a polycarbonate or a polymethyl methacrylate material (para. [0065]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, Stearns and Lonsinger et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising:
a removable protective endpiece configured to removably couple to a distal end of a probe of an intraoral scanner configured to collect optical data of a subject's dentition; and
a flexible sleeve having a distal end opening configured to be inserted over the removable protective endpiece and to engage with an outer surface of the removable protective endpiece to form a hermetic seal therewith (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Stearns and Lonsinger et al. disclose: the removable protective endpiece is bonded to the flexible sleeve (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 9).
Regarding claim 11, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the flexible sleeve is formed of a material different than a material forming the removable protective endpiece (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the flexible sleeve is welded to a proximal portion of the removable protective endpiece at an interface region (para. [0064], [0067]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the flexible sleeve is more flexible than the removable protective endpiece (para. [0064], [0067]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the removable protective endpiece comprises a polycarbonate or a polymethyl methacrylate material (para. [0087]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Lonsinger et al. disclose: the removable protective endpiece comprises an inner surface including one or more engagement features configured to removably engage with corresponding engagement features of the probe (para. [0108], [0111]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination (Lonsinger et al. para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 19, Stearns and Lonsinger et al. disclose: the intraoral scanner including the hand held probe configured to collect the optical data of the subject's dentition (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, Stearns and Lonsinger et al. disclose: An apparatus comprising:
a removable protective endpiece configured to removably couple to a distal end of a probe of an intraoral scanner configured to collect optical data of a subject's dentition, the removable protective endpiece comprising a window for transmission of an optical signal between the probe and an external environment; and
a flexible sleeve having a distal end opening configured to be inserted over the removable protective endpiece and to engage with an outer surface of the removable protective endpiece to form a hermetic seal therewith (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Claims 4, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (US 6,095,811; pub. Aug. 1, 2000) in view of Lonsinger et al. (US 2017/0303833 A1; pub. Oct. 26, 2017) and further in view of Karazivan et al. (US 2012/0040305 A1; pub. Feb. 16, 2012).
Regarding claim 4, the combined references are silent about: coupling the removable protective endpiece to the distal end of the probe so that a window on the removable protective endpiece is aligned with optics on the probe.
In a similar field of endeavor karazivan et al. disclose: coupling the removable protective endpiece to the distal end of the probe so that a window on the removable protective endpiece is aligned with optics on the probe (para. [0036], [0044]) motivated by the benefits for preventing contamination.
In light of the benefits for preventing contamination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stearns and Lonsinger et al. with the teachings of karazivan et al.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Stearns, Lonsinger et al. and karazivan et al. disclose: the removable protective endpiece comprises at least one window for imaging therethrough (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (US 6,095,811; pub. Aug. 1, 2000) in view of Lonsinger et al. (US 2017/0303833 A1; pub. Oct. 26, 2017) and further in view of Elbaz et al. (US 2018/0028065 A1; pub. Feb. 1, 2018).
Regarding claim 5, the combined references are silent about: coupling the flexible sleeve comprises covering one or more input controls on the handle so that the input controls may be operated through the flexible sleeve.
In a similar field of endeavor Elbaz et al. disclose: coupling the flexible sleeve comprises covering one or more input controls on the handle so that the input controls may be operated through the flexible sleeve (para. [0264]) motivated by the benefits for preventing cross contamination thereby improving patient safety.
In light of the benefits for preventing cross contamination thereby improving patient safety, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stearns and Lonsinger et al. with the teachings of Elbaz et al.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (US 6,095,811; pub. Aug. 1, 2000) in view of Lonsinger et al. (US 2017/0303833 A1; pub. Oct. 26, 2017) and further in view of Abramovich et al. (US 2013/0022175 A1; pub. Jan. 24, 2013).
Regarding claim 15, the combined references are silent about: the flexible sleeve comprises a thermoplastic elastomer material.
In a similar field of endeavor Abramovich et al. disclose: the flexible sleeve comprises a thermoplastic elastomer material (para. [0035]) motivated by the benefits for a cost-effective stretchable material.
In light of the benefits for a cost-effective stretchable material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Stearns and Lonsinger et al. with the teachings of Abramovich et al.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stearns (US 6,095,811; pub. Aug. 1, 2000) in view of Lonsinger et al. (US 2017/0303833 A1; pub. Oct. 26, 2017) in view of Karazivan et al. (US 2012/0040305 A1; pub. Feb. 16, 2012) and furtherin view of Kippelen et al. (US 2015/0378243A1; pub. Dec. 31, 2015).
Regarding claim 18, the combined references are silent about: the at least one window has a refractive index of ranging from 1.4 and 1.8.
In a similar field of endeavor Kippelen et al. disclose: the at least one window has a refractive index of ranging from 1.4 and 1.8 (para. [0105], [0219]) motivated by the benefits for optimized light transmission.
In light of the benefits for preventing contamination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stearns, Lonsinger et al. and karazivan et al. with the teachings of Kippelen et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights