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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are amended. Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al., JP2020054646A.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an oral state evaluation system (fig. 1; para 0014; an intraoral state determination system) comprising:
at least one processor (fig. 1, element 10; para 0014; an intraoral state determination device capable of having a processor); and
at least one memory storing instructions (para 0059; a memory storing a program),
wherein the at least one processor executes the instructions to:
acquire an oral cavity image including at least a first specific site in an oral cavity as input information from an interface unit (para 0016; the intraoral image OP is an image of the mouth of the operator of the terminal device 20 captured by the camera CAM of the terminal device 20. In the intraoral image OP, one or more teeth T and the gums G around the teeth T are imaged);
analyze a state of the first specific site based on the input information (para 0020; the first determination unit 140 determines the state of the gums G of the portions corresponding to the teeth T identified by the identification unit 130 among the gums G captured in the intraoral image OP for each tooth T identified by the identification unit 130. In the case of the above-described example, the first determination unit 140 determines the state of the gums G1 corresponding to the teeth T1 for the teeth T1. In addition, the first determination unit 140 determines the states of the gums G2, the gums G3, and the gums GG1 corresponding to the respective teeth T with respect to the teeth T2, the teeth T3, and the teeth T18); and
estimate estimation information regarding a state of a second specific site in the oral cavity different from the first specific site from analysis information of the state of the first specific site (para 0021; the second determination unit 150 determines the state of the entire gum G captured in the intraoral image OP on the basis of the tooth-by-tooth determination result RS1 of the first determination unit 140. In the example described above, the tooth-by-tooth determination result RS1 includes information indicating the state of each of the gums G1 to G8 (i.e., a state of the first specific site). The second determination unit 150 determines the state of the entire gum G (i.e., a state of a second specific site) on the basis of information indicating the state of each of the gums G1 to G8).
Regarding claim 2, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 1, Suzuki further discloses wherein the oral cavity image includes a tooth image and a gum image in the oral cavity (para 0016).
Regarding claim 3, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 2, Suzuki further discloses wherein the tooth image includes a central incisor image, a lateral incisor image, and a canine image in the oral cavity (figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 1, Suzuki further discloses wherein the second specific site includes at least one of a premolar and a molar in the oral cavity, and the estimation information includes at least one of information regarding the premolar and information regarding the molar in the oral cavity (para 0019-0021; identification result of the teeth T1 to T18).
Regarding claim 5, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 1, Suzuki further discloses wherein the estimation information includes at least one of information regarding presence or absence or a degree of interdental space, gingival recession, teeth crowding, gingival inflammation, insufficient brushing, bruxism, caries, hyperesthesia, bad breath, and coloring at the second specific site, information regarding whether periodontal disease is present, information regarding whether chewing function is normal, information regarding whether occlusion is normal, information regarding whether swallowing function is normal, and information regarding a state of teeth, gums, and oral mucosa corresponding to the second specific site (para 0021).
Regarding claim 6, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 1, Suzuki further discloses wherein the at least one memory stores a learning model in which the oral cavity image is learned in advance to evaluate a state in the oral cavity, and wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to analyze the input information with the learning model (para 0037 and 0039).
Regarding claim 7, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 1, Suzuki further discloses wherein the input information further includes at least one of information regarding a lifestyle of a user, information regarding an intraoral endocrine of the user, information regarding an intraoral bacterial flora of the user, information regarding an attribute of the user, and information obtained by a sensor that detects a state in the oral cavity (para 0016).
Regarding claim 8, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 1, Suzuki further discloses wherein the at least one processor further executes the instructions to output information corresponding to the analysis information and the estimation information, and wherein the information is output to at least the interface unit (para 0043).
Regarding claim 9, the oral state evaluation system according to claim 8, Suzuki further discloses wherein the output information includes at least one of information regarding a current oral state of a user, information regarding prediction of a future oral state of the user, information regarding an oral care method for the user, and information regarding a health state of the user affected by the oral state of the user (para 0021 and 0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Suzuki does not disclose “estimate estimation information regarding a state of a second specific site in the oral cavity different from the first specific site from analysis information of the state of the first specific site” as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, Suzuki discloses the second determination unit 150 determines the state of the entire gum G captured in the intraoral image OP on the basis of the tooth-by-tooth determination result RS1 of the first determination unit 140. In the example described above, the tooth-by-tooth determination result RS1 includes information indicating the state of each of the gums G1 to G8 (i.e., a state of the first specific site). The second determination unit 150 determines the state of the entire gum G (i.e., a state of a second specific site) on the basis of information indicating the state of each of the gums G1 to G8 (para 0021).
The MPEP 2111 states that the USPTO must employ the “broadest reasonable interpretation" of the claims. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the claimed “estimate estimation information regarding a state of a second specific site in the oral cavity different from the first specific site from analysis information of the state of the first specific site”, in light of the specification, as the second determination unit 150 determines the state of the entire gum G (i.e., a state of a second specific site) on the basis of information indicating the state of each of the gums G1 to G8 (i.e., a state of the first specific site), without directly analyzing the second specific site.
Therefore, the claimed “estimate estimation information regarding a state of a second specific site in the oral cavity different from the first specific site from analysis information of the state of the first specific site” reads on the disclosure of Suzuki.
In view of the above arguments, the Examiner believes all rejections are proper and should be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights