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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 87 and 101-104 are 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.
With regards to Claim 87, the limitation “(c) digitally quantifying pixel-level stain fluorescence intensity values across a spatial distribution of the fluorescence image using image processing software executed by a processor” is not discussed in the specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 87 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to the independent Claim 87, the teachings of Austin, Princen, Saidi, and Davis, individually or combined, show all the elements of the claim except digitally quantifying pixel-level stain fluorescence intensity values across a spatial distribution of the fluorescence image using image processing software executed by a processor.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112, and 35 U.S.C.103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 2/23/2026, with respect to Claim 87 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shigemi Nagai (US 20140093457) discloses using a fluorescence microscope to obtain a digital fluorescence image [0057, 0059, 0128] of a stained tooth sample ([0247], Table 2) and corresponding analysis of the stain fluorescence intensity of the fluorescence image ([0052, 0258, 0378, 0381]) and (c) predicting the subject's diagnostic status with respect to the disease or disorder [0281].
Nicholas Hamilton, “Quantification and its Applications in Fluorescent Microscopy Imaging”, Traffic 2009; 10: pp. 951–961, discloses using a fluorescence microscope to obtain a digital fluorescence image and application of concrete quantification measures (Abstract).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857