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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last line ended with a preposition “of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 states “wherein said data received from said external network comprises information related to a position of said teeth cleaning”; however, applicant specification appears does not have the support the connection between “data received from external network comprises information related to a position”.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 17 limitation “means for emitting light and mean for capturing, ” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “configured to emit/configured to capture” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “means for emitting light and mean for capturing” has corresponding structure in Fig. 26, items 318 and 320, if [0049 and 0051].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 etseq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beckman US 2019/0357667.
In regarding to claim 1 Beckman teaches:
1. (Currently Amended) A teeth cleaning system comprising: a handle assembly that is configured to be connected to a tray that is configured to be inserted into a user's mouth;
Beckman, 0044-0045,
a display screen within said handle assembly that is configured to be viewed by a user;
Beckman, 0070, 0073,
a flash within said handle assembly that is configured to emit light when activated;
Beckman, 0080, 0081
a camera within said handle assembly that is configured to capture an image of said user's mouth;
Beckman, 0083
and at least one processor that is configured to control said flash and said camera to capture a first set of images of said user's mouth and a second set of images of said user's mouth, and is configured to process said first set of images and said second set of images.
Beckman, 0083, 0087
In regarding to claim 7 Beckman teaches:
7. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said at least one processor is further configured to control said display screen that is configured to display information to said user.
Beckman, 0070, 0073,
In regarding to claim 8 Beckman teaches:
8. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said at least one processor is further configured to assist in obtaining a processed representation of said user's mouth using at least said first set of images.
Beckman, 0083, 0087
In regarding to claim 11 Beckman teaches:
11. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 1, wherein said display screen is further configured to provide information to said user.
Beckman, 0044-0045,
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.
Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-15, 17-19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman US 2019/0357667 further in view of Richter et al. US 10,064,711.
In regarding to claim 2 Beckman teaches:
2. (Original) The teeth cleaning system of claim 1, however, Beckman fails to explicitly teach but Richter teaches: wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a transmitter for transmitting data related to said first set of images and said second set of images to an external network.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Richter with the system of Beckman in order wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a transmitter for transmitting data related to said first set of images and said second set of images to an external network, as such, the smartphone application can process the data and provide the user feedback about the quality of the brushing..—col. 10 lines 36-48.
Note: The motivation that was applied to claim 2 above, applies equally as well to claims 3-6 and 9-10 as presented blow.
In regarding to claim 3 Beckman and Richter teaches:
3. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 2, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said at least one processor is further configured to display information to a user on said display screen related to said capture of said first set of images.
Richter, col. 12 lines 45-50
In regarding to claim 4 Beckman and Richter teaches:
4. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 1, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a receiver for receiving data from an external network.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48
In regarding to claim 5 Beckman and Richter teaches:
5. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 4, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said data received from said external network is at least configured to assist with displaying information on said display screen.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 45-50
In regarding to claim 6 Beckman and Richter teaches:
6. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 4, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said data received from said external network comprises information related to a position of said teeth cleaning system with respect to said mouth of said user.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
In regarding to claim 9 Beckman teaches:
9. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 8, furthermore, Richter teaches: said teeth cleaning system further comprises a transmitter for transmitting data related to said processed representation of said user's mouth to an external network.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
In regarding to claim 6 Beckman and Richter teaches:
10. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 9, furthermore, Beckman teaches: wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a memory for storage of data related to said processed representation.
Beckman, 0057, 0060
In regarding to claim 12 Beckman teaches:
12. (Currently Amended) A system for cleaning teeth comprising: a handle assembly that is configured to be connected to a tray that is configured to be inserted into a user's mouth;
Beckman, 0044-0045,
a pulsed radiation emitter within said handle assembly that is configured to emit light when activated;
Beckman, 0079, 0085, 0092
a camera within said handle assembly that is configured to capture an image inside said user's mouth;
Beckman, 0083, 0087
at least one processor that is configured to control said flash and said camera to capture a first set of images of said user's mouth and a second set of images of said user's mouth, and is configured to process said first set of images and said second set of images;
Beckman, 0083, 0087
however, Beckman fails to explicitly teach but Richter teaches: and at least one transceiver that is configured to transmit data related to said first set of images and said second set of images to an external network.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Richter with the system of Beckman in order wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a transmitter for transmitting data related to said first set of images and said second set of images to an external network, as such, the smartphone application can process the data and provide the user feedback about the quality of the brushing..—col. 10 lines 36-48.
Note: The motivation that was applied to claim 12 above, applies equally as well to claims 13-16 as presented blow.
In regarding to claim 13 Beckman and Richter teaches:
13. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 12, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said external network is connected to an app that is configured to be used through a mobile device of said user.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
In regarding to claim 14 Beckman and Richter teaches:
14. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 13, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said transceiver is configured for receiving data from an app that is at least configured to be used through said mobile device.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
In regarding to claim 15 Beckman and Richter teaches:
15. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 14, furthermore, Richter teaches: wherein said data received from said external network is at least configured to assist in controlling said flash and said camera to capture said images of said user's mouth.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
In regarding to claim 17 Beckman teaches:
17. (Currently Amended) A teeth cleaning system comprising: a handle assembly that is configured to be connected to a tray that is configured to be inserted into a user's mouth and clean said user's teeth;
Beckman, 0044-0045,
a means for emitting light within said handle assembly that is configured to emit light when activated;
Beckman, 0080, 0081
a means for capturing an image within said handle assembly that is configured to capture an image of said user's mouth in response to said light;
Beckman, 0083, 0087
at least one processor that is configured to control said means for emitting light and said means for capturing an image to capture a first set of images of said user's mouth and a second set of images of said user's mouth, and is configured to process said first set of images and said second set of images;
Beckman, 0083, 0087
however, Beckman fails to explicitly teach but Richter teaches: and at least one transmitter that is configured to transmit data related to a processed representation of at least a portion of said user's mouth that is prepared using at least said first set of images to an external network.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Richter with the system of Beckman in order wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a transmitter for transmitting data related to said first set of images and said second set of images to an external network, as such, the smartphone application can process the data and provide the user feedback about the quality of the brushing..—col. 10 lines 36-48.
Note: The motivation that was applied to claim 17 above, applies equally as well to claims 18-20 as presented blow.
In regarding to claim 18 Beckman and Richter teaches:
18. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of Claim 17, furthermore, Beckman teaches: wherein said teeth cleaning system further comprises a display screen for displaying information about use of the teeth cleaning system to said user.
Beckman, 0070, 0073,
In regarding to claim 19 Beckman and Richter teaches:
19. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 17, furthermore, Beckman teaches: wherein said processor prepares a second processed representation of at least a portion of said user's mouth using of said second set of images.
Beckman, 0083, 0087
In regarding to claim 20 Beckman and Richter teaches:
20. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 17, furthermore, Richter teaches: said teeth cleaning system further comprises a receiver for receiving data from said external network, and a display screen for displaying information to said user.
Richter, col. 4 line 1-26, col. 10 lines 36-48, col. 12 lines 31-50.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman US 2019/0357667 and Richter et al. US 10,064,711.
In regarding to claim 16 Beckman and Richter teaches:
16. (Currently Amended) The teeth cleaning system of claim 13, however, Beckman and Richter. fail to explicitly teach wherein data received from said external network controls a display screen that is configured to display information to said user. Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantage of wherein data received from said external network controls a display screen that is configured to display information to said user are well known and expected in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize said feature within said system taught by Beckman and Richter, because such incorporation would result expedite work by accessing data remotely.
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 DANIEL T TEKLE whose telephone number is (571)270-1117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/DANIEL T TEKLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights