DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the “AMENDMENT UNDER 37 CFR §1.111” filed 20 May 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 12, as well as the addition of new claims 13-14. Claims 1-5 7-9 and 11-14 are pending.
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 .
Previously Presented Drawing Objections
The Examiner has withdrawn the previously presented Drawing Objections for reference characters being used to refer to different elements in Figs. 1 and 2 and in Figs. 1 and 5B. As such, the Specification amendments filed 20 May 2026 are not entered [see attached Specification Amendments filed 20 May 2026 annotated as DO NOT ENTER]. The Examiner notes that the amendments presented to the Specification filed 20 May 2026 are considered to be not acceptable in light of the amendments as presented [Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled (See 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(1))] and the withdrawn Drawing Objections. The Examiner further notes that the Specification as filed 23 June 2022 with respect to reference characters “0” to “67”, as used to designate 68 feature points in a face and with respect to reference characters (1), (2), (3),…, as used to designate chewings, are considered to be acceptable [reference to reference characters “0” to “67” by use of quotation marks, and reference to reference characters (1), (2), (3),… by use of parentheses].
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s Note Regarding § 112(f): The interpretations under § 112(f) applied in the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 March 2025 [p. 2-8] are maintained.
Examiner’s Note Regarding Conditional Language: The interpretations regarding conditional language applied in the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 March 2025 [p. 8] are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner’s Note Regarding Machine Learning: The Examiner’s note regarding sufficient written description support for the machine learning mechanism as presently claimed applied in the Final Rejection dated 25 July 2025 [p. 2-3] is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 1 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A chewing assistance system comprising an information processing device that includes:
chewing information storage means that stores information about chewing quality;
moving image obtaining means that obtains a moving image of a region including at least a mouth or a peripheral portion of the mouth in a face during chewing;
analysis means, operably coupled to the moving image obtaining means, that receives the moving image of the region from the moving image obtaining means and analyzes a chewing action that includes an action based on the moving image of the region during the chewing obtained by the moving image obtaining means, to determine a chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides;
quality determination means, operably coupled to the analysis means, that receives information of the chewing action from the analysis means and determines chewing quality of the chewing action, the chewing quality being whether or not chewing behavior is proper, based on information of the chewing action analyzed by the analysis means; and
extraction means, operably coupled to the quality determination means, that extracts and receives assistance information corresponding to the chewing quality that is whether or not the chewing behavior is proper determined by the quality determination means, from the chewing information storage means to determine an improving state of the chewing quality.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 1 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“obtains a moving image of a region including at least a mouth or a peripheral portion of the mouth in a face during chewing” – may be performed by merely observing a moving image or collecting previously collected images [The moving image obtaining unit21 obtains two-dimensional or three-dimensional moving image information, of a region including at least a mouth or a peripheral portion of the mouth in a face of a user, which is obtained and transmitted by the imaging means4 (Applicant’s Specification ¶0028)], wherein the Examiner notes that the claim as presently written fails to positively recite any step of data gathering or use of any particular sensor
“receives the moving image of the region from the moving image obtaining means and analyzes a chewing action that includes an action based on the moving image of the region during the chewing obtained by the moving image obtaining means, to determine a chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides” – may be performed by merely observing previously collected images and drawing conclusions therefrom [the action analysis processing unit 22c can more directly analyze mouth opening behavior during chewing, for example, analyze motion of the mouth which represents a size or a shape of the opened mouth, or the like (Applicant’s Specification ¶0038)]
“receives information of the chewing action from the analysis means and determines chewing quality of the chewing action, the chewing quality being whether or not chewing behavior is proper, based on information of the chewing action analyzed by the analysis means” – may be performed by merely observing previously collected images and drawing conclusions therefrom based on known or previously derived metrics [quality based on determination as to whether the number of chewing times is large or small, whether or not chewing rhythm is proper, whether or not mouth opening behavior is proper, whether or not chewing balance between the left side and the right side is proper, whether or not eating behavior (motion of a mouth) is proper, and whether or not use of masseter is proper (Applicant’s Specification ¶0044)]; wherein the Examiner further notes that the information of the chewing action being defined as being from the analysis means is merely considered to define the type of data observed
“extracts and receives assistance information corresponding to the chewing quality that is whether or not the chewing behavior is proper determined by the quality determination means, from the chewing information storage means to determine an improving state of the chewing quality” – may be performed by merely observing previously collected or known information [extracts information such as age-based oral cavity function information, and information about a device for growing/improving purpose and a medical specialist based on a residence of the user (Applicant’s Specification ¶0046)]
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) [i.e., Furthermore, the motions of the respective feature points are defined as patterns based on position coordinates, of mouth corners, the jaw, the vertexes of the upper lip and the lower lip, and the like, calculated by the feature quantity calculation] to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts [Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 1 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, extra-solution activity [generic computer function] – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed extra-solution activity, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-8, and 13-14 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Dependent claim(s) 11 encounter substantially the same issues as the independent claim(s) from which they depend in that they encompass further generic extra-solutionary activity [generic data gathering] and/or generic computer elements [storage, memory per se].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 12 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer functions] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps [acquiring, transmitting, storing signals, etc.] as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [information processing device, information storage means, each recited at a high level of generality and generic functions therein], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the information processing device and information storage means and generic functions therein, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claim 9 recites “a machine learning mechanism”. Such a machine learning mechanism is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Hu (“Intelligent Sensor Networks”, NPL previously presented) [In supervised learning, the learner is provided with labeled input data. This data contains a sequence of input/output pairs of the form xi, yi, where xi is a possible input and yi is the correctly labeled output associated with it. The aim of the learner in supervised learning is to learn the mapping from inputs to outputs. The learning program is expected to learn a function f that accounts for the input/output pairs seen so far, f (xi) = yi, for all i. This function f is called a classifier if the output is discrete and a regression function if the output is continuous. The job of the classifier/regression function is to correctly predict the outputs of inputs it has not seen before (Hu, Page 5)]
Huang (“Kernel Based Algorithms for Mining Huge Data Sets”, NPL previously presented) [In supervised learning, the learner is provided with labeled input data. This data contains a sequence of input/output pairs of the form xi, yi, where xi is a possible input and yi is the correctly labeled output associated with it. The aim of the learner in supervised learning is to learn the mapping from inputs to outputs. The learning program is expected to learn a function f that accounts for the input/output pairs seen so far, f (xi) = yi, for all i. This function f is called a classifier if the output is discrete and a regression function if the output is continuous. The job of the classifier/regression function is to correctly predict the outputs of inputs it has not seen before (Huang, Page 1)]
Mitchell (“The Discipline of Machine Learning”, NPL previously presented) [For example, we now have a variety of algorithms for supervised learning of classification and regression functions; that is, for learning some initially unknown function f : X [Calibri font/0xE0] Y given a set of labeled training examples {xi; yi} of inputs xi and outputs yi = f(xi) (Mitchell, Pages 3-4)]
Examiner’s Note Regarding Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim(s) 1, 8, and 12 recite subject matter regarding “determines chewing quality of the chewing actions, the chewing quality being whether or not chewing behavior is proper… and… extracts and receives assistance information corresponding to the chewing quality that is whether or not the chewing behavior is proper determined by the quality determination means, from the chewing information storage means to determine an improving state of the chewing quality” and “determines whether the chewing action has improved”, which the Examiner notes is not considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as none of the identified claims positively recite or include language that is considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)].
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (WO-2019225243-A1, previously presented) in view of Bourdiol (“Only severe malocclusion correlates with mastication deficiency”, NPL previously presented) and Trench (“Dentofacial deformities: orofacial myofunctional characteristic”, NPL previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima teaches
A chewing assistance system comprising an information processing device [the swallowing function evaluation apparatus 100 is, for example, a personal computer, but may be a server apparatus (Nakajima Translated p. 4)] that includes:
chewing information storage means that stores information about chewing quality [The storage unit 160 includes reference data 161 that indicates the relationship between the feature amount and the person’s swallowing function, proposal data 162 that indicates the relationship between the evaluation result of the swallowing function and the proposed content… The storage unit 160 is realized by, for example, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), a semiconductor memory, an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), or the like (Nakajima p. 5)];
moving image obtaining means that obtains a moving image of a region including at least a mouth or a peripheral portion of the mouth in a face during chewing [The acquisition unit 110 acquires an image obtained by imaging the face or neck of the person to be evaluated U in a non-contact manner (Nakajima p. 4); The feature amount indicates a feature such as a face movement of the evaluated person U calculated from an image used by the evaluation unit 130 to evaluate the eating and swallowing function of the evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 5), wherein the image being evaluated based on the facial movement of the evaluated person is considered to define obtaining a “moving image”, as defined by the Applicant’s Specification ¶0010];
analysis means, operably coupled to the moving image obtaining means, that receives the moving image of the region from the moving image obtaining means and analyzes a chewing action based on the moving image of the region during the chewing obtained by the moving image obtaining means [The calculation unit 120 calculates a feature amount from the image acquired by the acquisition unit 110. The feature amount indicates a feature such as a face movement of the evaluated person U calculated from an image used by the evaluation unit 130 to evaluate the eating and swallowing function of the evaluated person U or a position of a laryngeal protuberance on the neck. It is a numerical value (Nakajima p. 5, Fig. 2), wherein the system 200 encompassing the acquisition unit 110 and calculation unit 120 is considered to define operable coupling];
quality determination means, operably coupled to the analysis means, that receives information of the chewing action from the analysis means and determines chewing quality of the chewing action, the chewing quality being whether or not chewing behavior is proper, based on the information of the chewing action analyzed by the analysis means [The evaluation unit 130 compares the feature amount calculated by the calculation unit 120 with the reference data 161 stored in the storage unit 160, and evaluates the eating / swallowing function of the person to be evaluated U (Nakajima p. 5, Fig. 2), wherein the system 200 encompassing the calculation unit 120 and evaluation unit 130 and further defining communication between the two is considered to define operable coupling; Since the motor function of facial muscles declines during the preparation period, the symptoms of spilled food appear during swallowing. Decline in the motor function of the tongue and masticatory muscles during the preparation period leads to symptoms that the food cannot be chewed correctly(cannot chew or crush food) during swallowing… Since it is known that such a symptom is observed when the swallowing function in each stage is lowered, the swallowing function of the subject U can be set in any stage of the preparation stage, the oral stage and the pharyngeal stage. It is possible to make detailed countermeasures for each corresponding symptom by evaluating after distinguishing whether or not it is a swallowing function. Moreover, although mentioned later for details, the proposal part 150 can propose the countermeasure according to evaluation result to the to-be-evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 9)]; and
extraction means, operably coupled to the quality determination means, that extracts and receives assistance information corresponding to the chewing quality that is whether or not the chewing behavior is proper determined by the quality determination means [The proposing unit 150 makes a proposal regarding swallowing to the person to be evaluated U by collating the evaluation result output by the output unit 140 with predetermined proposal data 162. In addition, the suggestion unit 150 may collate the personal information acquired by the acquisition unit 110 with the proposal data 162 and make a proposal regarding swallowing to the evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 5), wherein determining a proposal or suggestion based on the evaluated eating/swallowing function is considered to read on the BRI of “extracting assistance information” based on chewing quality], from the chewing information storage means to determine an improving state of the chewing quality [The proposal data 162 is referred to by the suggestion unit 150 when a proposal related to swallowing for the person to be evaluated U is made (Nakajima p. 5)] to determine an improving state of the chewing quality [For example, the reference data 161 is predetermined data, but may be updated based on an evaluation result obtained when an expert actually diagnoses the swallowing function of the person to be evaluated U. Thereby, the evaluation precision of a swallowing function can be improved (Nakajima p. 14), wherein evaluating a person over time or with reference to previous data of the same person in order to provide updated evaluations is considered to be equivalent to determining “an improving state”].
However, while Nakajima does acknowledge that the occlusal state of the subject’s teeth affect masticatory function [Tongue recognition function, or tongue movement function to push food to teeth or mix finely mixed food with saliva, occlusal state of teeth to chew and crush food, tooth and The cheek movement function that prevents food from entering between the cheeks, the movement function of the masticatory muscles (such as the masseter and temporal muscles), which is the generic name of the muscles used for mastication, and the fine food For example, the saliva secretion function. The masticatory function is affected by the occlusal state of the teeth, the function of the masticatory muscles, the function of the tongue, and the like (Nakajima p. 2)], Nakajima fails to explicitly disclose wherein the analysis of the chewing action is to determine a chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides.
Bourdiol discloses methods for assessing chewing kinematics and mastication efficiency using moving images of a subject [Video recording was used to evaluate the kinematic parameters (Nicolas, Veyrune, Lassauzay, Peyron, & Hennequin, 2007). A digital camera (SONY DCR-PC330E, Japan) positioned in front of the subject recorded a video of facial movements. The subjects were first asked to chew until deglutition three replicates of the model foods of each hardness level presented in a random order (Bourdiol p. 16)], wherein Bourdiol discloses that malocclusions of overbite and underbite result in quantifiable differences in a number of chewing times, chewing rhythm [Values (mean ± sd) of cycle number (or chewing stroke number) at deglutition and values of duration in second and frequency (cycle number/sequence duration in hertz) at deglutition and after 15 cycles when chewing raw carrots in the three groups: NoDFD (no treatment need), ModDFD (indication for orthodontic treatment alone), SevDFD (indication for surgical treatment) (Bourdiol p. 17, Table 2)], and visibly observable lower chewing quality based on measured chewing kinematics [The SevDFD group comprised 15 skeletal class III (among them 5 open-bites, 4 deep-bites, 6 normal-bites), with hypomaxilla (n = 3), mandible prognathism (n = 6) and maxilla-mandible prognathism (n = 6) (Bourdiol p. 15), wherein the Examiner notes that hypomaxilla, mandible prognathism, and maxilla-mandible prognathism are considered to define different types of malocclusions that affect occlusal balance in at least anterior and posterior directions; This study confirms that SevDFD subjects are unable to compensate for their deficient occlusion during mastication. The SevDFD subjects had clearly impaired mastication as shown by two main criteria: (i) the individual d50 of SevDFD subjects was always above MNI cut-off and (ii) the cycle frequency when chewing either carrots or gelatines was significantly lower in SevDFD than in NoDFD. The SevDFD subjects appear similar to patients or subjects displaying severe mastication impairment… Impaired mastication in our SevDFD subjects was not due to having fewer teeth, tooth number being similar in all the groups, but rather to interarch discrepancy, as indicated by the significantly reduced functional area (Bourdiol p. 18)].
Trench discloses methods for assessing chewing function using moving images of a subject [The characteristics of masticatory function were assessed by examining the ability to chew French bread by each individual, who was instructed to proceed as usual with daily life. The performance of this function was filmed with a SONY DSC – W 620 digital camera; the obtained results were evaluated by counting the number of chewing cycles, and the vertical or lateral mandibular movements were analyzed (Trench p. 1203)], wherein Trench discloses that malocclusions of crossbite result in visibly observable lower chewing quality based on measured chewing motions [In patients with skeletal bilateral posterior cross bite DFD, the unilateral left chewing pattern was observed in 80% of subjects, which was followed by unilateral right (20%)… there was inefficient chewing in 80% of subjects evaluated (Trench p. 1209, Table 8)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nakajima to employ wherein the analysis of the chewing action is to determine a chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides, so as to further assess chewing quality, as chewing kinematics are considered to be indicative of chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides, which are further indicative of a measure of chewing quality [Bourdiol p. 17-18, Table 2; Trench p. 1209, Table 8].
Regarding claim 2, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the analysis means includes
feature detection means that detects at least one feature point in the face from the image of the region [the calculation unit 120 calculates the continuous image (moving image). The movement of the mouth at is calculated as a feature amount. Specifically, the calculation unit 120 calculates a difference between the movement amount on the left side of the mouth and the movement amount on the right side(referred to as a mouth left / right difference) as a feature amount (Nakajima p. 6)], and
action analysis means that analyzes an action based on change of the at least one feature point detected by the feature detection means [Nakajima p. 6].
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the action analysis means determines, in a case where a quantity of change of the feature point indicates a value that exceeds a predetermined threshold value, that the change is caused by chewing, and analyzes the action of the chewing [A large difference between the left and right mouths (greater than or equal to the threshold value)indicates, for example, that there is paralysis on the left or right side of the mouth, that is, an expression for taking food into the oral cavity without spilling food during the preparation period (Nakajima p. 6)].
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the feature point includes at least one of a nasal tip, a nasion, a corner of the mouth, a vertex of an upper lip, a vertex of a lower lip, a vertex of a jaw, and a point along an outline of a cheek near masseter [in the case where the image acquired by the acquisition unit 110 is a plurality of continuous images obtained by imaging the cheek when the person to be evaluated U closes his mouth and expands his cheek, the calculation unit 120 The cheek movement in a continuous image(moving image) is calculated as a feature amount. Specifically, the calculation unit 120 calculates whether or not the cheek bulge can be maintained as a feature amount (Nakajima p. 7)].
Regarding claim 5, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the change of the feature point includes at least one of change of a position of the feature point [in the case where the image acquired by the acquisition unit 110 is a plurality of continuous images obtained by imaging the cheek when the person to be evaluated U closes his mouth and expands his cheek, the calculation unit 120 The cheek movement in a continuous image(moving image) is calculated as a feature amount. Specifically, the calculation unit 120 calculates whether or not the cheek bulge can be maintained as a feature amount (Nakajima p. 7)], change of a distance between two feature points, and change of an area surrounded by three or more feature points.
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the quality of the chewing action determined by the quality determination means includes quality based on at least one of determinations as to whether a total number of chewing times is large or small [Bourdiol p. 17, Table 2], whether chewing rhythm is proper [Bourdiol p. 17, Table 2], whether mouth opening behavior is proper [Small mouth openness (below the threshold), that is, not opening the mouth wide, for example, during the preparation period, the facial muscle function and masseter muscles for taking food into the mouth without spilling It shows that the occlusal function of temporal muscles (masticatory muscles) is reduced. That is, by evaluating the degree of opening of the person to be evaluated U, the motor function of the facial muscles and the motor function of the masticatory muscles in the preparation period can be evaluated (Nakajima p. 7); In the evaluation results shown in FIG. 8, all swallowing functions are NG. In this case, the swallowing function may be reduced in the preparation period, the oral period, and the pharyngeal period. For example, the muscular strength of the lips declines due to the decline in the motor function of the facial muscles during the preparation period, the masseter muscles decline due to the decline in the movement function of the masticatory muscles during the preparation period (Nakajima p. 10); the preparation period, for example, recognizes the motor function of facial muscles (such as lip muscles and cheek muscles) that take food into the oral cavity without spilling it (Nakajima p. 2)], whether chewing balance between a left side and a right side is proper [the calculation unit 120 calculates a difference between the movement amount on the left side of the mouth and the movement amount on the right side (referred to as a mouth left / right difference) as a feature amount (Nakajima p. 6)], whether eating behavior (motion of a mouth) is proper [Nakajima p. 6], and whether use of masseter is proper [Nakajima p. 7], wherein the eating behavior is at least a motion of the mouth [Nakajima p. 7].
Regarding claim 8, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the quality determination means compares the chewing action with a previous chewing action of the same person and determines whether the chewing action has improved [For example, the reference data 161 is predetermined data, but may be updated based on an evaluation result obtained when an expert actually diagnoses the swallowing function of the person to be evaluated U. Thereby, the evaluation precision of a swallowing function can be improved (Nakajima p. 14)].
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the quality determination means has a machine learning mechanism, which processes and provides a learning result [the evaluation result of the swallowing function may be stored as big data together with personal information and used for machine learning. Moreover, the proposal content regarding swallowing may be accumulated as big data together with personal information and used for machine learning (Nakajima p. 14)], and
the chewing quality of the chewing action is determined by the quality determination means with reference to the learning result processed and provided by the machine learning mechanism [Nakajima p. 14].
Regarding claim 11, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
A computer-readable recording medium for use in an information processing device, the recording medium having a control program recorded thereon for causing the information processing device to function as the chewing assistance system according to claim 1, the control program including a chewing assistance program causing the information processing device to function as the moving image obtaining means, the analysis means, the quality determination means, and the extraction means [Note that the swallowing function evaluation apparatus 100 is, for example, a personal computer, but may be a server apparatus…The swallowing function evaluation apparatus100 includes an acquisition unit 110, a calculation unit 120, an evaluation unit 130, an output unit 140,a suggestion unit 150, and a storage unit 160 (Nakajima p. 4)].
Regarding claim 12, Nakajima teaches
A chewing assistance system comprising an information processing device [the swallowing function evaluation apparatus 100 is, for example, a personal computer, but may be a server apparatus (Nakajima Translated p. 4)] that includes:
chewing information storage means that stores information about chewing quality [The storage unit 160 includes reference data 161 that indicates the relationship between the feature amount and the person’s swallowing function, proposal data 162 that indicates the relationship between the evaluation result of the swallowing function and the proposed content… The storage unit 160 is realized by, for example, a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), a semiconductor memory, an HDD (Hard Disk Drive), or the like (Nakajima p. 5)];
moving image obtaining means that obtains a moving image of a region including at least a mouth or a peripheral portion of the mouth in a face during chewing [The acquisition unit 110 acquires an image obtained by imaging the face or neck of the person to be evaluated U in a non-contact manner (Nakajima p. 4); The feature amount indicates a feature such as a face movement of the evaluated person U calculated from an image used by the evaluation unit 130 to evaluate the eating and swallowing function of the evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 5), wherein the image being evaluated based on the facial movement of the evaluated person is considered to define obtaining a “moving image”, as defined by the Applicant’s Specification ¶0010];
analysis means, operably coupled to the moving image obtaining means, that receives the moving image of the region from the moving image obtaining means and analyzes a chewing action based on the moving image of the region during the chewing obtained by the moving image obtaining means [The calculation unit 120 calculates a feature amount from the image acquired by the acquisition unit 110. The feature amount indicates a feature such as a face movement of the evaluated person U calculated from an image used by the evaluation unit 130 to evaluate the eating and swallowing function of the evaluated person U or a position of a laryngeal protuberance on the neck. It is a numerical value (Nakajima p. 5, Fig. 2), wherein the system 200 encompassing the acquisition unit 110 and calculation unit 120 is considered to define operable coupling], to determine a motion of the mouth, a motion of a jaw, and a motion of masseter [in the case where the image acquired by the acquisition unit 110 is a plurality of continuous images obtained by imaging the cheek when the person to be evaluated U closes his mouth and expands his cheek, the calculation unit 120 The cheek movement in a continuous image(moving image) is calculated as a feature amount. Specifically, the calculation unit 120 calculates whether or not the cheek bulge can be maintained as a feature amount (Nakajima p. 7), wherein analysis of movement of the evaluated person’s mouth and cheek is considered to read on each of motion of the mouth, jaw, and masseter];
quality determination means, operably coupled to the analysis means, that receives information of the chewing action from the analysis means and determines chewing quality of the chewing action, the chewing quality being whether or not chewing behavior is proper, based on information of the chewing action analyzed by the analysis means [The evaluation unit 130 compares the feature amount calculated by the calculation unit 120 with the reference data 161 stored in the storage unit 160, and evaluates the eating / swallowing function of the person to be evaluated U (Nakajima p. 5, Fig. 2), wherein the system 200 encompassing the calculation unit 120 and evaluation unit 130 and further defining communication between the two is considered to define operable coupling; Since the motor function of facial muscles declines during the preparation period, the symptoms of spilled food appear during swallowing. Decline in the motor function of the tongue and masticatory muscles during the preparation period leads to symptoms that the food cannot be chewed correctly(cannot chew or crush food) during swallowing… Since it is known that such a symptom is observed when the swallowing function in each stage is lowered, the swallowing function of the subject U can be set in any stage of the preparation stage, the oral stage and the pharyngeal stage. It is possible to make detailed countermeasures for each corresponding symptom by evaluating after distinguishing whether or not it is a swallowing function. Moreover, although mentioned later for details, the proposal part 150 can propose the countermeasure according to evaluation result to the to-be-evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 9)]; and
extraction means, operably coupled to the quality determination means, that extracts and receives assistance information corresponding to the chewing quality that is whether or not the chewing behavior is proper determined by the quality determination means, from the chewing information storage means [The proposing unit 150 makes a proposal regarding swallowing to the person to be evaluated U by collating the evaluation result output by the output unit 140 with predetermined proposal data 162. In addition, the suggestion unit 150 may collate the personal information acquired by the acquisition unit 110 with the proposal data 162 and make a proposal regarding swallowing to the evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 5), wherein determining a proposal or suggestion based on the evaluated eating/swallowing function is considered to read on the BRI of “extracting assistance information” based on chewing quality], from the chewing information storage means to determine an improving state of the chewing quality [The proposal data 162 is referred to by the suggestion unit 150 when a proposal related to swallowing for the person to be evaluated U is made (Nakajima p. 5)] to determine an improving state of the chewing quality [For example, the reference data 161 is predetermined data, but may be updated based on an evaluation result obtained when an expert actually diagnoses the swallowing function of the person to be evaluated U. Thereby, the evaluation precision of a swallowing function can be improved (Nakajima p. 14), wherein evaluating a person over time or with reference to previous data of the same person in order to provide updated evaluations is considered to be equivalent to determining “an improving state”].
However, while Nakajima does acknowledge that the occlusal state of the subject’s teeth affect masticatory function [Tongue recognition function, or tongue movement function to push food to teeth or mix finely mixed food with saliva, occlusal state of teeth to chew and crush food, tooth and The cheek movement function that prevents food from entering between the cheeks, the movement function of the masticatory muscles (such as the masseter and temporal muscles), which is the generic name of the muscles used for mastication, and the fine food For example, the saliva secretion function. The masticatory function is affected by the occlusal state of the teeth, the function of the masticatory muscles, the function of the tongue, and the like (Nakajima p. 2)], Nakajima fails to explicitly disclose wherein the analysis of the chewing action is to further determine a total number of chewing times, a chewing rhythm, occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides.
Bourdiol discloses methods for assessing chewing kinematics and mastication efficiency using moving images of a subject [Video recording was used to evaluate the kinematic parameters (Nicolas, Veyrune, Lassauzay, Peyron, & Hennequin, 2007). A digital camera (SONY DCR-PC330E, Japan) positioned in front of the subject recorded a video of facial movements. The subjects were first asked to chew until deglutition three replicates of the model foods of each hardness level presented in a random order (Bourdiol p. 16)], wherein Bourdiol discloses that malocclusions of overbite and underbite result in quantifiable differences in a number of chewing times, chewing rhythm [Values (mean ± sd) of cycle number (or chewing stroke number) at deglutition and values of duration in second and frequency (cycle number/sequence duration in hertz) at deglutition and after 15 cycles when chewing raw carrots in the three groups: NoDFD (no treatment need), ModDFD (indication for orthodontic treatment alone), SevDFD (indication for surgical treatment) (Bourdiol p. 17, Table 2)], and visibly observable lower chewing quality based on measured chewing kinematics [The SevDFD group comprised 15 skeletal class III (among them 5 open-bites, 4 deep-bites, 6 normal-bites), with hypomaxilla (n = 3), mandible prognathism (n = 6) and maxilla-mandible prognathism (n = 6) (Bourdiol p. 15), wherein the Examiner notes that hypomaxilla, mandible prognathism, and maxilla-mandible prognathism are considered to define different types of malocclusions that affect occlusal balance in at least anterior and posterior directions; This study confirms that SevDFD subjects are unable to compensate for their deficient occlusion during mastication. The SevDFD subjects had clearly impaired mastication as shown by two main criteria: (i) the individual d50 of SevDFD subjects was always above MNI cut-off and (ii) the cycle frequency when chewing either carrots or gelatines was significantly lower in SevDFD than in NoDFD. The SevDFD subjects appear similar to patients or subjects displaying severe mastication impairment… Impaired mastication in our SevDFD subjects was not due to having fewer teeth, tooth number being similar in all the groups, but rather to interarch discrepancy, as indicated by the significantly reduced functional area (Bourdiol p. 18)].
Trench discloses methods for assessing chewing function using moving images of a subject [The characteristics of masticatory function were assessed by examining the ability to chew French bread by each individual, who was instructed to proceed as usual with daily life. The performance of this function was filmed with a SONY DSC – W 620 digital camera; the obtained results were evaluated by counting the number of chewing cycles, and the vertical or lateral mandibular movements were analyzed (Trench p. 1203)], wherein Trench discloses that malocclusions of crossbite result in visibly observable lower chewing quality based on measured chewing motions [In patients with skeletal bilateral posterior cross bite DFD, the unilateral left chewing pattern was observed in 80% of subjects, which was followed by unilateral right (20%)… there was inefficient chewing in 80% of subjects evaluated (Trench p. 1209, Table 8)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nakajima to employ wherein the analysis of the chewing action is to further determine a chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides, so as to further assess chewing quality, as chewing kinematics are considered to be indicative of chewing rhythm and occlusal balance between anterior and posterior sides and between left and right sides, which are further indicative of a measure of chewing quality [Bourdiol p. 17-18, Table 2; Trench p. 1209, Table 8].
Regarding claim 13, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the moving image obtaining means obtains a moving image of feature points located on the face, substantially in its entirety, during chewing [The swallowing function evaluation system 200 is a system for evaluating the swallowing function of the evaluation subject U by analyzing an image obtained by imaging the face or neck of the evaluation subject U (Nakajima p. 3, Figs. 1, 4b)].
Regarding claim 14, Nakajima in view of Bourdiol and Trench teaches
The chewing assistance system comprising the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the moving image obtaining means obtains a moving image of feature points located on the face, substantially in its entirety, during chewing [Nakajima p. 3, Figs. 1, 4b].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 14, filed 20 May 2026, with respect to the previously presented Specification Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 14-15, with respect to the previously presented Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections for the same reference characters being used to designate different elements have been withdrawn [see Previously Presented Drawing Objections section above].
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 15-16, with respect to the previously presented Claim Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1-2 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 16-20, with respect to the previously applied rejections of claims 1, 12, and those dependent therefrom under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that [first] the Office Action dated 12 March 2026 improperly states that despite the argued improvements of the claimed invention, the claimed invention remains non-patentable subject matter under § 101 because the improvements are deemed by the Examiner to be WURC, such that the argued improvement does not improve technology or a technical field, wherein the Applicant further directs attention to updates to the MPEP regarding consideration of the claimed invention as a whole, including any described technological advance, as well as Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which states that if it is simply established that the applicant’s claimed invention improves another technology, such improvement should be sufficient to overcome a non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101; and such improvement cannot be rejected as ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ in rejecting the claimed invention as non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101”. The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s first argument regarding the previously applied § 101 rejections [see Applicant’s Remarks p. 16-17] are almost entirely the same as the Applicant’s previously presented § 101 argument as presented in the Applicant’s Remarks filed 19 December 2025 [p. 10] [the Examiner notes that the Applicant cites the same USPTO announcement and Aatrix Software Inc. v. Green Shades Software Inc. and merely prefaces the same previously presented argument by noting that the corresponding response to argument in the Office Action dated 12 March 2026 is “improper” without providing any additional remarks (for this specific argument)]. As such, the Examiner notes that the previously presented response to § 101 arguments on p. 27-29 of the Office Action dated 12 March 2026 are maintained.
The Applicant asserts that [second] in response to the Examiner’s response to arguments on p. 28 of the Office Action dated 12 March 2026, the Examiner’s reference to MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), the Applicant again directs attention to Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., as well as MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), as evidence of the claimed invention providing an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to another technology or technical field. However, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s cited portion of MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) was considered in the previously presented response to § 101 arguments on p. 27-29 of the Office Action dated 12 March 2026, as the cited December Memorandum and corresponding analysis, wherein the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s noted improvements as recited in the Specification are not considered to be directed towards the functioning of a computer or technology and are considered conclusory, as the Applicant fails to provide necessary details as to how the alleged improvement improves the functioning of a computer or technology [the Examiner notes ¶0029 refers to the use of a well-understood, routine, and conventional smartphone for imaging; ¶0031 refers to the use of well-known methods for detecting a face feature point; and at least ¶¶0042-0043, 0045 fail to describe to how the Applicant’s invention may improve computer technology, functionality, or training the disclosed machine learning model in any particular way beyond mere input and output of information]. The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s arguments fail to describe how the alleged improvements improve the functioning of a computer or technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
The Applicant asserts that [third] in response to the Examiner’s response to arguments on p. 28 of the Office Action dated 19 December 2025 and the Examiner’s argued distinction between the instant invention the Aatrix Software case and allegations of the Applicant’s Specification as setting forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner, the Applicant directs attention to the various structural elements and respective functions of claim 1 and corresponding written description support [¶¶0025-0031, 0047-0051, Fig. 16]. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the cited portions of the Aatrix Software patents are considered to describe particularities directed towards improvements towards the functioning of a computer or technology, whereas the Applicant’s cited structural elements are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on the Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B analysis above.
The Applicant asserts that [fourth] in light of the above noted various structural elements of claim 1, the Applicant asserts that the claims include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification to meet the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). However, the Examiner notes that as responded to in the above response to arguments, the Applicant’s structural elements are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional, such that the structural elements cannot provide the argued improvement(s) [Specifically, the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)); The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.05(a))].
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 20-30, with respect to the previously applied rejections of claims 1, 12, and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that with respect to the Bourdiol reference, Table 2 of Bourdiol compares “deglutition” numbers for subjects needing treatment, orthodontic treatment, or surgical treatment, which has no relevance to the Applicant’s claimed analysis means for determining chewing quality because “deglutition” as referenced by Bourdiol is the physiological act or process of swallowing (and not chewing) involving coordinated muscle contractions to move food or liquids from the mouth the stomach. Furthermore, the Applicant directs attention to the cited portion of Bourdiol p. 18, which the Applicant notes concludes that “the larger the functional area the better the masticatory efficiency” has no relevance to the instant invention for determining chewing quality and determining state of the chewing quality. As such, the Applicant asserts that the Office Action has impermissibly taken the alleged teachings of Bourdiol out of context for supplementing Nakajima’s acknowledged deficiencies or drawbacks. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that Bourdiol has no relevance due to Bourdiol discussing deglutition, as the Examiner notes that Bourdiol does analyze chewing/mastication and references deglutition with respect to an amount time taken to chew before deglutition [Values (mean±sd) of cycle number (or chewing stroke number) at deglutition and values of duration in second and frequency (cycle number/sequence duration in hertz) at deglutition and after 15 cycles when chewing raw carrots in the three groups (Bourdiol p. 17), wherein the Examiner notes that the cited portion is the description of Table 2 as cited by the Applicant]. Furthermore, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that Bourdiol has no relevance based on the cited portion of Bourdiol p. 18, as the Examiner notes that the emphasized portion of Bourdiol is directed towards a citation of separate NPLs, and that Bourdiol explicitly discloses assessing mastication quality to provide suggestions of treatment [Patients with impaired mastication were characterized by a high IOTN, decreased interarch functional areas and decreased quality of life. Subjects with a low level of masticatory impairment and/or moderate malocclusion were able to adapt. Though characterized by a high level of IOTN, these subjects expressed a near-satisfactory quality of life, which is probably why they were not seeking treatment (Bourdiol p. 19)]. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Applicant asserts that with respect to the Nakajima and Trench references, Nakajima’s acquisition unit 110 acquires images directed to “the cheek” and involves calculations and evaluations directed towards the evaluation of the cheek images acquired; whereas Trench discloses obtaining images with a digital camera to allow evaluators to count “the number of chewing cycles, and the vertical or lateral mandibular movements”. As such, the Applicant asserts that the Office Action improperly relies on hindsight reconstruction of the Applicant’s claimed invention, and, is thus impermissible. However, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s argument is considered unclear, as it is not clear what specifically the Applicant is arguing against in the modification of Nakajima based on the disclosure of Trench. The Examiner notes that Nakajima discloses proposing countermeasures based on evaluation results of masticatory function [Since the motor function of facial muscles declines during the preparation period, the symptoms of spilled food appear during swallowing. Decline in the motor function of the tongue and masticatory muscles during the preparation period leads to symptoms that the food cannot be chewed correctly(cannot chew or crush food) during swallowing… Since it is known that such a symptom is observed when the swallowing function in each stage is lowered, the swallowing function of the subject U can be set in any stage of the preparation stage, the oral stage and the pharyngeal stage. It is possible to make detailed countermeasures for each corresponding symptom by evaluating after distinguishing whether or not it is a swallowing function. Moreover, although mentioned later for details, the proposal part 150 can propose the countermeasure according to evaluation result to the to-be-evaluated person U (Nakajima p. 9)] and Trench is directed towards assessing mastication efficiency [Trench p. 1209, Table 8]; and Nakajima and is directed towards analysis of moving images of a subject’s face [The swallowing function evaluation system 200 is a system for evaluating the swallowing function of the evaluation subject U by analyzing an image obtained by imaging the face or neck of the evaluation subject U (Nakajima p. 3, Figs. 1, 4b)]. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, the Applicant notes that claims 1 and 12 have been amended to recite “the chewing quality being whether or not chewing behavior is proper”, wherein the Applicant notes that none of Nakajima, Bourdiol, or Trench determine whether or not the chewing behavior is proper and are instead directed towards determining whether or not a chewing function unique to the user is proper. The Applicant also asserts that the cited references, singly or in combination, are not concerned with the advantages or benefits derived from the Applicant’s claimed invention, wherein the Applicant notes that the Examiner points out that Nakajima discloses providing information regarding improvements, but the information relates to matters such as protein intake and rehabilitation, and wherein the Applicant further notes that Nakajima does not provide information on improvements regarding chewing behaviors. The Applicant also notes that in the cited references the user is not a user who can freely adjust his or her chewing behavior, and that each of the cited references is intended for users with characteristics such as reduced muscle strength, and therefore does not propose improvements to chewing behaviors. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that Nakajima discloses proposing countermeasures based on evaluation results of masticatory function [Nakajima p. 9], Bourdiol explicitly discloses assessing mastication quality to provide suggestions of treatment [Bourdiol p. 19, wherein without additional specific claim language regarding “proper” and “improper” chewing quality, determining a level of impaired mastication is considered to be equivalent to determining proper or improper chewing quality], and Trench is directed towards assessing mastication efficiency [Trench p. 1209, Table 8]. The Examiner additionally notes that in arguendo the cited reference are directed towards users with characteristics such as reduced muscle strength, does not preclude the references from being applied to teach “proper” or “improper” chewing quality. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., application of the claimed system(s) to users who can freely adjust his or her chewing behavior) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant further asserts that the cited references cannot be combined in the manner alleged in the Office Action by structurally relating the claimed elements with the term “operably coupled”; and that new claims 13-14 refer to obtaining “a moving image of feature points located on the face, substantially in its entirety”, which the Applicant notes fails to be taught by Nakajima. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that the amendments to recite operable coupling between elements prevents the cited references from being combined, as the Examiner notes that the system as described by Nakajima discloses operable coupling between the corresponding elements taken to read on the claimed structural elements [the swallowing function evaluation device 100 and the mobile terminal 300 are provided. In addition, the swallowing function evaluation system 200 may evaluate the eating / swallowing function of the person to be evaluated U by analyzing not only a still image but also a moving image (Nakajima p. 3, Fig. 2), wherein analyses, evaluations, and determinations being performed using a system operably coupled to moving image obtaining means is considered to read on the claimed “operable coupling”] and wherein Nakajima does further disclose obtaining “a moving image of feature points located on the face, substantially in its entirety” [Nakajima p. 3, Figs. 1, 4b].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights