DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025, 09/10/2025 and 07/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 01/27/2025 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1–5 and 10–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meah (U.S. Patent No. 6,257,238 B1).
Regarding Claim 1:
An intraoral imaging aid comprising:
a main body that is tubular-shaped (Meah discloses an intraoral imaging aid comprising a tubular main body (bite block 30 and body 32)), wherein the main body comprises:
a first end part having an opening through which an imaging device is inserted into the opening (Meah discloses a first end with an opening receiving an imaging device (proximal end 34 and channel 38 receiving endoscope 70));
a second end part at an opposite end of the first end part, the second end part configured to provide a visual field from an inside to an outside of the main body (Meah discloses an opposite second end providing an optical passage (distal end 36 of the open channel). See col. 1, the paragraph describing the endoscope lens and fiber optic transmission path; col. 2, lines 1-6 and 45-58; and Figs. 2-4); and
an inner circumferential surface extending from the first end part to the second end part, the imaging device configured to move axially relative to the inner circumferential surface (Meah’s wall of channel 38 supplies the inner circumferential surface extending between the two ends. Advancement of endoscope 70 through the channel supplies axial movement relative to that surface (col. 3, the paragraph beginning “Heretofore when the endoscope”; Fig. 3)); and
a depressing piece having a one end connected to the main body and another end positioned on the outside of the second end part, the depressing piece extending along a longitudinal direction of the main body (Meah further discloses the depressing piece as tongue depressor 50, connected to the lower edge 58 at distal end 36, with its free end extending distally beyond that end along the body’s longitudinal direction. See col. 3, lines 6-18; Figs. 2-3; and Meah claims 2-3. Thus, the identified components are present in the claimed arrangement).
Regarding Claim 2:
Meah further discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, wherein the depressing piece is configured to depress a tongue of a predetermined person into which the intraoral imaging aid is inserted when the intraoral imaging aid is inserted into the oral cavity (Meah further discloses tongue depressor 50 pressing the patient’s tongue when the bite block is placed in the mouth. See col. 3, lines 19-27, and Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3:
Meah further discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, wherein the depressing piece is formed so that the other end is spaced farther apart from an axial center of the longitudinal direction of the main body than the one end (Meah further discloses that depressor 50 curves downward from its connection at lower edge 58, placing its free end farther from the tubular body’s longitudinal axis than its connected end. See col. 3, lines 6-18, and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4:
Meah further discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, wherein the depressing piece protrudes from the second end part along a protruding direction that extends outwards from the second end part (Meah further discloses the depressor projecting beyond distal end 36 in an outward, distal direction. See Figs. 2-3, col. 3, lines 6-18, and Meah claims 2-3).
Regarding Claim 5:
Meah further discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 4, wherein the depressing piece has a shape that is convexly curved with respect to the protruding direction (Meah further discloses the convex proximal to distal curvature of upper surface 52. See col. 3, lines 6-18, and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10:
Meah further discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, wherein the first end part comprises a flange portion partially formed on an outer circumferential surface of the main body, the flange portion protruding from the main body toward an outside of the main body in a radial direction thereof (Meah further discloses lateral wings 42 and 44 of proximal shield 40, extending radially outside body 32 from limited lateral circumferential regions. Each identifiable wing supplies the claimed flange portion. See col. 2, lines 45-58, and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11:
Meah further discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 10, wherein the flange portion comprises a through hole passing therethrough along the longitudinal direction of the main body (Meah’s Fig. 2 shows a large, fully bounded opening in each lateral wing of shield 40. The openings penetrate the wings from the proximal side to the distal side).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
14. 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.
15. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meah (U.S. Patent No. 6,257,238 B1) in view of Tsunoda et al. (US 2009/0171155 A1) and further in view of Araki (US 2019/0029494 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Meah discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the second end part comprises a window portion, the window portion being covered by a transparent member integrally molded with the main body.
Tsunoda discloses wherein the second end part comprises a window portion (Tsunoda discloses an oral imaging aid with tubular cover 31 and bore 311; a proximal receiving opening at attachment portion 33; an opposite distal opening 311a closed by transparent member 34, providing the viewing field; See paragraphs [0086], [0092], [0095-0099], [0102], [0109-0110], [0115], and Figs. 8-11),
Meah in view of Tsunoda do not expressly disclose the window portion being covered by a transparent member integrally molded with the main body.
Araki discloses the window portion being covered by a transparent member integrally molded with the main body (Araki teaches integral two-color injection molding of transparent resin member 52 and surrounding resin member 53 (paragraph [0026]; Figs. 3-4). Paragraph [0039] identifies reducing separate parts and assembly steps as benefits. Araki’s window serves illumination, and its molded cover is subsequently attached to the endoscope).
Meah, Tsunoda & Araki are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., all references concern medical optical instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the second end part comprises a window portion, the window portion being covered by a transparent member integrally molded with the main body.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to reduce separately handled parts and assembly operations while retaining the already-required transparent distal barrier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meah, Tsunoda & Araki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
16. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meah (U.S. Patent No. 6,257,238 B1) in view of Cant (US 2011/0282152 A1).
Regarding Claim7:
Meah discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first end part comprises a deformable portion configured to support an insertion of the imaging device into the main body.
Cant discloses wherein the first end part comprises a deformable portion configured to support an insertion of the imaging device into the main body (Cant discloses a proximal resilient clamp 4 whose slot 13 opens when squeezed to admit a probe, then returns to grip it while permitting further axial insertion. See paragraphs [0016-0017], [0060-0063], and Figs. 3-8).
Meah & Cant are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., both references concern medical optical instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the first end part comprises a deformable portion configured to support an insertion of the imaging device into the main body.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is so that the user can enlarge the receiving opening for axial insertion and then retain the scope by releasing the clamp. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meah & Cant to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
17. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meah (U.S. Patent No. 6,257,238 B1) in view of Tsunoda et al. (US 2009/0171155 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Meah discloses the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first end part comprises a notch configured to position the imaging device by engaging with a protrusion provided on the imaging device.
Tsunoda discloses wherein the first end part comprises a notch configured to position the imaging device by engaging with a protrusion provided on the imaging device (Tsunoda’s proximal notches 332a and 332b engage pins 242 and 243 on the imaging apparatus to locate and retain the aid. See paragraphs [0075], [0111-0118] and Figs. 9 and 11).
Meah & Tsunoda are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor; e.g., both references concern medical optical instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the first end part comprises a notch configured to position the imaging device by engaging with a protrusion provided on the imaging device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to help locate and retain the aid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Meah & Tsunoda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
18. Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 8:
The prior art cited does not disclose or suggest the intraoral imaging aid according to claim 7, wherein the deformable portion is formed by a plurality of slits extending from the opening to the second end part, the plurality of slits being arranged along a circumferential direction of the main body at predetermined intervals.
Relevant Prior Art
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hefez et al. discloses a portable handheld system for imaging of a throat of a patient, including: a mouthpiece including at least one bite guide for stabilizing the mouthpiece with respect to teeth of the patient when the patient bites on the at least one bite guide; intraoral optics operable to collect light from the throat of the patient and to direct the light towards an imaging sensor; and an imaging sensor operable to capture light directed by the intraoral optics to provide an image of the throat; wherein a mechanical connection between the mouthpiece and the intraoral optics constrains a spatial relationship of the intraoral optics with respect to the mouthpiece so that when the patient bites on the at least one bite guide: the intraoral optics is stabilized by the mouthpiece inside a mouth of the patient having a FOV which includes at least part of a tonsil of the patient.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, 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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights