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 .
Examiner’s Note: Claim 15 is missing from the claim set. For examination
purposes, Examiner assumes that claim 15 has been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10, 14, 15-20 and 21 in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wireless transmitting device to transmit…” in claim 6, “processing device for receiving…” in claim 17 and “an additional processing device for receiving…” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For examination purposes, the “wireless transmittal device” has been interpreted as corresponding to a wireless transmitter, such as a RF transmitter, as set forth in paragraph [0140] of the corresponding PG-Pub 2025/0302313, and equivalents thereof.
The “processing device” has been interpreted as corresponding to a processor, as set forth in paragraph [0141] of Applicant’s PG-Pub specification, along with the corresponding algorithm for performing the respective functions as set forth in Applicant’s specification, and equivalents thereof.
The “additional processing device” has been interpreted as corresponding to a remote receiver and/or a processor, as set forth in paragraph [0141] of Applicant’s PG-Pub, along with the corresponding algorithm for performing the respective functions as set forth in Applicant’s specification, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 18, “and” should be replaced with “and/or” for consistency purposes.
In claim 18, in line 5, -- one or more—should be inserted before “photoacoustic”. Claim 20 should be similarly corrected (see 3rd line).
In claim 18, in the second to last line, “image data” should be replaced with --- imaging data --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 14-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 1, in lines 1-2, the preamble sets forth “A product of manufacture or a dental device for imaging…” and thus the claimed invention appears to be directed to either “a product of manufacture” or “a dental device for imaging…”. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the limitations should be interpreted due to differences between claiming a product of manufacture vs. a dental device for imaging (i.e. with regards to the limitation “wherein the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors generate imaging data when imaging…”, this limitation is more limiting for a dental device for imaging than for a “product of manufacture” which would not be limited by the particular function of generating imaging data when imaging the periodontium in the same manner as a “dental device for imaging”).
With regard to claim 1, in lines 14-15, the limitation “one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers” is recited. However, as is known in the imaging art, photoacoustic imaging “sensors” and “transducers” are viewed as synonymous/equivalent terms (i.e. an ultrasound sensor is using in photoacoustic imaging techniques for receiving the ultrasound echo/signals, wherein an ultrasound sensor is a transducer) and therefore it is unclear as to whether Applicant is using the term “photoacoustic sensor” to mean something other than a transducer, or further defining the “photoacoustic sensor” to comprise a transducer. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the latter (note that the specification does not provide further clarification as to what is the difference between a photoacoustic sensor and a transducer).
The term “substantially” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear to what degree the one or more ultrasonic transducers must align with the one or several teeth in order to be considered to be “substantially” aligned.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the acoustic transducers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claims 9, 14, 16, 17, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is assumed that the limitations following the phrase are not part of the claimed invention and thus are not addressed in the below rejection (note this includes the claimed “applicator for applying the [optional] photoacoustic imaging agent…” in claim 16 as claim 16 is dependent upon claim 14 which sets forth that the kit “optionally further comprising a photoacoustic imaging agent” and therefore the applicator for applying the optional photoacoustic imaging agent is considered optional as well).
The term “strong” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is unclear as to what would be considered a “strong” optical absorber. Claim 24 is similarly rejected.
With regards to claim 17, the claim is dependent upon claim 15 which does not exist. Claim 15 is assumed to be cancelled and therefore claim 17 is indefinite as being both incomplete, by its dependence on a cancelled base claim 15 and for lack of antecedent basis for its limitation (“The kit…”) which is not present in cancelled base claim 15. See MPEP 608.01(n)(V). For examination purposes, the claim is assumed to be dependent upon claim 14.
With regards to claim 19, it is unclear as to what is meant by “overlay one of the generate the at least one image…” For examination purposes, Examiner assumes Applicant meant to refer to --- overlay the at least one generated image ---.
With regards to claim 25, it is unclear as to what is meant by “the ultrasound and/or optical transducers are operatively linked to their corresponding ultrasound and optical imaging sensors are operatively linked to the wired or wireless transmittal device”. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes Applicant meant to set forth --- the ultrasound and/or optical transducers are operatively linked to the wired or wireless transmittal device---.
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) 1-3, 6, 8, 14, 16-20, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asch et al. (US Patent No. 6,638,219), as cited by Applicant.
With regards to claim 1, Asch et al. disclose a product of manufacture or a dental device for imaging a periodontal tissue or periodontium, comprising:
a mouthpiece or mold capable of fitting over one or several teeth, or all teeth in a maxillary or mandibular arch, or both (column 4, lines 35-39, referring to “In order to fit snugly over the tooth to be mapped, the open rim of the housing will be fitted with a gasket of soft, deformable material…developed to fit on the gum and around the tooth. It is desirable for the gasket to be relatively water tight….”, and therefore the fitted gasket that is molded (i.e. “fit snuggly over the tooth..”) over the tooth encompasses a “mold” that is capable of fitting over one or more teeth); and
one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers (i.e. “transducer array providing a plurality of transducers which will both emit and receive ultrasonic wave activity”), wherein the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors comprise ultrasound and/or optical imaging sensors capable of generating imaging data data (i.e. “two or three dimensional depiction of the structure”), and the ultrasound and optical imaging sensors are operatively linked to the corresponding ultrasound and optical transducers, and the ultrasound and/or optical transducer is capable of transmitting the imaging data to a remote receiver (column 3, line 48-column 4, line 3, referring to the transducer array which emits and receives ultrasound and thus corresponds to an ultrasound sensor [which is capable of receiving any ultrasonic waves, including those generated as a results of light absorption (i.e. photoacoustic waves); Note that photoacoustic imaging, as is known in the art, uses light to generate ultrasound waves which are then received by ultrasound transducers, and as such, the ultrasound transducer structures of Asch et al., which are configured to receive ultrasound waves, correspond to the claimed “photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers” as the claim does not set forth that the photoacoustic imaging sensors require further structure (i.e. such as light generating structures) beyond the ultrasound transducer/sensor structure that is capable of generating imaging data, as claimed, via receiving ultrasound waves generated by any means, including via a photoacoustic imaging technique; column 6, lines 17-21, referring to the acquired data being transmitted electronically to remote sites for further evaluation or archival; Figures 1-2),
wherein the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors can image the periodontium, periodontal tissue, or a periodontal pocket, and generate imaging data (column 3, line 57-column 4, line 1, referring to the transducer array detecting an echo pulse which is amplified and sent to an analog/digital converter to convert the reflected pulse signal to a digital code which is used to recreate and display a 2D or 3D depiction (i.e. image) of the structure).
With regards to claim 2, Asch et al. disclose that the mouthpiece or mold comprises an outer body (i.e. gasket body which is fitted in the open rim of the housing) shaped to fit over or cover the one or several teeth, or all teeth, or covers periodontium or gingiva in an arch (column 4, lines 34-39; Figure 2) and/or the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers comprises one or more ultrasonic transducers disposed within or on the outer body (column 4, lines 6-17, 29-51, referring to the arc-shaped, linear array of ultrasonic sensors which are contained in the housing, and thus are disposed on or within the outer body of the mold/gasket which is in the open rim of the housing; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 3, Asch et al. disclose that the one or more ultrasonic transducers are disposed within or on the outer body to substantially align with the one or several teeth, or all teeth, in an arch when the outer body is inserted into a patient’s mouth (column 4, lines 6-17, 28-51, referring to the arc-shaped, linear array of ultrasonic sensors being with a shell/housing and is rotated around and over the tooth, which would require the transducers to be aligned with the one or more teeth when the outer body (i.e. part of the housing) is inserted into a patient’s mouth; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 6, Asch et al. disclose that their product or dental device further comprises a wired (i.e. cable) or wireless transmittal device to transmit the imaging data to a computer and/or a database, or to an electronic medical record, or to a computer hard disk or computer memory, to a cloud-based storage source (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable to an electronic receiver; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 8, Asch et al. disclose that their product or device further comprises an acoustic coupling medium or a gel, to transmit acoustic pressure waves from an oral mucosa, a gum, a tooth or a periodontal pocket, to the acoustic transducers in the product of manufacture or dental device (column 4, lines 18-34, lines 38-39, 52-59, referring to the “couplant” which is a material which allows sound to be conducted from the transducer into the tooth and wherein the reflected sound waves would transmit through the couplant when they are detected by the sensor; Figure 2).
With regards to claims 14 and 16, Asch et al. disclose a kit comprising a product of manufacture or dental device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, wherein the claimed components of the mouthpiece/mold and photoacoustic imaging sensors/transducers form the “kit”; note that the “optionally” set forth limitations are not considered to be part of the claimed kit (see above 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 14 and 16), including the applicator for applying the “optionally” photoacoustic imaging agent as introduced in claim 14).
With regards to clam 17, Asch et al. disclose that kit further comprises a processing device for receiving the imaging data and generating at least one image of the periodontal tissue or periodontium (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the “computing means” which can recreate and display a two or three dimensional depiction (i.e. image) of the structure being studied; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 18, Asch et al. disclose that said processing device comprises: a processor (column 4, lines 59-65, referring to the computer); a wired or wireless interface for operably communicating, directly or indirectly, with the photoacoustic imaging sensors (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable (i.e. “wired”) to an electronic receiver; Figure 1); and executable instructions stored on a non-transitory memory for causing the processor to receive the image data and generate the at least one image of the periodontal tissue or periodontum (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the “computing means” which can recreate and display a two or three dimensional depiction (i.e. image) of the structure being studied; column 6, lines 17-21, referring to storing the acquired data; column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface below the gum line, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontum; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 19, Asch et al. disclose that said processing device is further configured to generate an additional ultrasound image of the periodontal tissue or periodontum, or portion thereof (column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface below the gum line, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontum; column 6, lines 9-16, referring to the multiple sagittal slices/images being acquired); and overlay one of the generate the at least one image of the periodontal tissue or periodontum or the generated additional ultrasound image, or vice versa, to produce a composite image (column 6, lines 9-16, referring to the acquired 2D sagittal slices being “combined” with other sagittal slices to form a three-dimensional phased tomographic reconstruction and a three-dimensional view of the dental structure being examined, and therefore the 3D reconstruction corresponds to a “composite image” as it is a result of overlaying/combining multiple images).
With regards to claim 20, Asch et al. disclose that the kit further comprises an additional processing device for receiving the imaging data directly from the photoacoustic imaging sensors, storing at least a portion of the receiving imaging data, and transmitting the stored imaging data, wired and/or wirelessly, to the processing device (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the reflected echo pulse signals being amplified by an amplification means and sent to an analog/digital converter, wherein the amplification means and/or analog/digital converter can be viewed as corresponding to the “additional processing device” and further referring to storing the acquired data; alternatively, see column 6, lines 16-21, referring to the acquired data can be stored as raw data and transmitted electronically to remote sites for further evaluation or archival, and therefore, alternatively, the inherent processing device for the evaluation at the remote site can be viewed as corresponding to the “processing device”, whereas the “computing means” set forth in column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1 can be viewed as corresponding to the “additional processing device”, or vice-a-versa; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable to an electronic receiver; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 22, Asch et al. disclose that (a) the periodontal tissue or periodontium comprises an oral mucosa or gingiva (column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface “below the gum line”, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontum comprising gingiva/gums) (b) the mouthpiece or mold fits over or covers at least part of a periodontal tissue or periodontium (column 4, lines 34-51, Figure 2, note that the mold/fitted gasket is within the open rim of the housing which is arc shaped and covers gums/periodontal tissue as seen in Fig. 2); (c) the mouthpiece or mold is manufactured to image and collect signals from a contrasting or imaging agent when the mouthpiece or mold is placed or fitted over the one or several or all teeth in the arch; (d) the mouthpiece or mold is manufactured to hold, carry and deliver to a contrasting agent or an imaging agent to a periodontal tissue or periodontium when the mouthpiece or mold is placed or fitted over the one or several or all teeth in the arch, or covers a periodontal tissue, periodontium or gingiva; or (e) the imaging data from the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors is capable of being converted to: an image of the periodontium or periodontal tissue, or an image of the periodontal pocket, a periodontal probing depth image or a periodontal probing measurement (column 3, line 60-column 4, line 1, referring to the “computing means” which can recreate and display a two or three dimensional depiction (i.e. image) of the structure being studied; column 3, lines 26-29, referring to the focused sound beam scanning over the available surface of each tooth, including surface “below the gum line”, and therefore the acquired images would be that of the periodontal tissue/periodontum comprising gingiva/gums).
With regards to claim 25, Asch et al. disclose that the ultrasound and/or optical transducers are operatively linked to their corresponding ultrasound and optical imaging sensors are operatively linked to the wired or wireless transmittal device (column 3, lines 60-64; column 4, lines 52-65, referring to downloading the converted echo signal to a computer; column 6, lines 9-21, referring to transmitting received echoes through a cable (i.e. “wired”) to an electronic receiver; Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asch et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent No. 10,799,210), as cited by Applicant. Note that the Provisional application No. 62/553,629 of Zhang et al. supports the below relied upon teachings (see the entire specification/drawings of the provisional application which appears to be a copy of the Zhang Patent).
With regards to claim 4, as discussed above, Asch et al. meet the above limitations of claim 2. However, though Asch et al. do disclose that the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers are disposed within or on the outer body (column 4, lines 6-17, 29-51, referring to the arc-shaped, linear array of ultrasonic sensors which are contained in the housing, and thus are disposed on or within the outer body of the mold/gasket which is in the open rim of the housing; Figure 2), Asch et al. do not specifically disclose that the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers further comprise one or more light generators.
Zhang et al. disclose an intraoral scanning device including a scan head sized and shaped to be placed inside a patient’s mouth, wherein a scan head (58) of the intraoral scanning device has one or more sensors (i.e. ultrasonic array (74)) for generating images of tissue inside the patient’s mouth, including ultrasound images and/or optical images (Abstract; column 6, line 43-64; Figures 6-7). The scan head (58) can further include a separate pulse generator electrically connected to LED’s 76 and/or 78 to produce ultrasonic images via photoacoustic imaging without ultrasonic transmitters (column 8, lines 33-36). The LED’s produce short optical pulse signals on the surface of tissue inside the mouth (teeth or gum tissue), wherein the short optical pulse signals generate ultrasound waves via photacoustic effect that travel through tissue in the mouth (column 8, lines 36-42). The ultrasound waves that are reflected from the internal structures of the tissue are received by piezoelectric transducers and converted into electrical signals, which can be processed and converted into viewable ultrasonic images (column 8, lines 42-50; Figure 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the one or more photoacoustic imaging sensors and corresponding transducers further comprise one or more light generators, as taught by Zhang et al., in order to be provide an alternative technique for producing ultrasonic images via photoacoustic imaging without ultrasonic transmitters (column 8, lines 33-36).
With regards to claim 5, Zhang et al. disclose that the one or more light generators (76, 78) are received within a plurality of openings in a gum-facing surface of the outer body (column 8, lines 19-50; see Figures 6-7, note that the LEDs (76,78) are within openings in a surface of the probe that is capable of facing gums).
With regards to claim 23, Zhang et al. disclose that the one or more light generators (76, 78) comprise light emitting diodes (LEDs) (column 8, lines 19-39, 46-50, referring to the LEDs (76, 78); Figure 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imran (US Pub No. 2012/0180788), as cited by Applicant.
With regards to claim 7, as discussed above, the above combined references meet the limitations of claim 1. Asch et al. further disclose that the mouthpiece or mold comprises an outer body shaped to fit over or cover the one or several teeth, or all teeth, or fit over or covering periodontium or gingiva, in an arch (column 4, lines 34-39; Figure 2) and comprises a non-transitory memory configured for storing the imaging data (column 3, line 64-column 4, line 1; column 6, lines 17-21, referring to storing the acquired data; Figure 1).
However, Asch et al. do not specifically disclose that the non-transitory memory is stored within an outer body of the mouth.
Imran discloses a mouthpiece (10) worn in a person’s mouth which can include a processor (70) such as a microprocessor which may also contain memory resources (75) (Abstract; paragraphs [0028], [0033]). The mouthpiece has a curved shape corresponding to a shape of dental arches (paragraph [0034]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the non-transitory memory of Asch et al. be stored within an outer body of the mouth, as Asch et al. requires a non-transitory memory for a mouthpiece [in the form of a mold] and Imran teaches an effective alternative placement for a non-transitory memory for a mouthpiece by having the memory be stored within the body of the mouthpiece/mouth. That is, using the known technique for providing a memory, as desired by Asch et al., by placing the memory within the body of the mouthpiece/mouth, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and further would provide a more compact system.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (“Photoacoustic Imaging for Noninvasive Periodontal Probing Depth Measurements”, Published online 9/7/22), as cited by Applicant.
With regards to claim 9, as discussed above, Asch et al. meet the limitations of claim 1. However, they do not specifically disclose that their device further comprises a photoacoustic imaging agent.
Lin et al. disclose a periodontal probe for periodontal examinations, wherein photoacoustic ultrasound is used for high-spatial resolution imaging of probing depths (Abstract). Photoacoustic imaging was used in tandem with a food-grade oral rinse (i.e. food-based imaging agent) to estimate probing depths, wherein it was shown that photoacoustic imaging can serve as a complementary tool for the dental community to image pockets and measure probe depth non-invasively (Abstract; pg. 24, left column, first paragraph; pg. 27, left column, referring to the “squid ink contrast agent”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the device of Asch et al. further comprise a photoacoustic imaging agent, as taught by Lin et al., in order to provide high-spatial resolution imaging of probing depths and dental pockets (Abstract).
With regards to claim 10, Lin et al. disclose that the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises melanin nanoparticles (pg. 25, Section “Characterization of Cuttlefish Ink Derivatives”, referring to the cuttlefish ink containing spherical melanin nanoparticles).
With regards to claim 24, Lin et al. disclose that the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises a food based imaging agent (“food-grade oral rinse”), the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises a food-grade squid ink, the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises a cornstarch or the photoacoustic imaging agent comprises an optical absorber, a strong optical absorber, or an optical absorber comprising a melanin (Abstract; pg. 24, left column, first paragraph; pg. 27, left column, referring to the “squid ink contrast agent”; pg. 25, Section “Characterization of Cuttlefish Ink Derivatives”, referring to the cuttlefish ink containing spherical melanin nanoparticles; pg. 24, Section “Reagents” and “Preparation of Cuttlefish Ink Derivatives”, referring to the cornstarch enhanced contrast agent; pg. 26, Section “Discussion”, referring to the melanin nanoparticles in cuttlefish ink servings as a contrast agent for noninvasive measurements of probing depths, wherein melanin has broad optical absorption for photoacoustic imaging).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798