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 .
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 4 and 10 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.
Claims 4 and 10 include the language “predetermined threshold value”. This term is considered indefinite as the claims do not further clarification on the “predetermined threshold value”. The claim requires that the thickness of the dentine is between 2 mm to 1 mm if the amplitude (400 to 600 nm) exceeds a predetermined threshold value and that the thickness of the dentine is less than 0.2 mm if the amplitude (400 nm to 600 nm) does not exceed the predetermined threshold value. It is not clear what is the predetermine threshold value that is used as a reference point to determine the thickness of the dentine. It is suggested claims provide further clarity with respect to the “predetermined threshold value”.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 3 which is a method claim and claim 11 is a apparatus claim. It is not clear the dependency of the claim and it is suggested this be modified.
Claim13 is 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.
Claim 13 is an independent claim which recites the steps of “determine an indication of thickness of the dentine of the tooth based on the spectral analysis result”. Unlike claim set 1 and 7 which include dependent claims that recite how the indication of thickness of the dentine is determined based on the absorption peaks, claim 13 does not recite these steps and therefore it is not clear from claim 13, how the indication of thickness of the dentine is determined. The term “based on” is unclear and therefore it is suggested claim 13 provide further clarification to the steps as outlined in the previous dependent claims.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “determining an indication of thickness of the dentine of the tooth based on the spectral analysis result”. The limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and/or read on analyzing by visual inspection by a user of the spectra. In this case, determining an indication of thickness of the dentine of the tooth can be practically performed in the mind by a user/physician viewing the spectra, and determining thickness of the dentine of the tooth based on the spectra through visual inspection. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a processor), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Following step 2A of the two-prong analysis, these judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea and makes no mention of whether a generic computer (i.e. “using a computer processor”) is used to do so (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the claims as written do not include elements to 1) improve the functioning of a computer (See MPEP 2105.05(a)); 2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)); 3) use a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)); or 4) use the judicial exceptions in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Following step 2B of the two-prong analysis, the additional element(s) (i.e. receiving data, obtaining spectra) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception the computer is simply the tool used to perform the abstract idea of determining an indication of thickness of dentine of the tooth based on the spectra (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (2008/0024788) in view of Elbaz et al. (2019/0269485).
With respect to claim 1, 3, 7, 8, and 13, Shimizu et al. teach of a method and apparatus for detecting distance of a probe to a pulp of a tooth by determining an indication of thickness of dentine of the tooth wherein the indication of thickness of dentine of the tooth is determined using the detected light absorption peaks [0382]. Shimizu et al. teach of the apparatus comprising a probe 1030 [0394] configured to illuminate dental tissue with light and detect scattered light having a wavelength range of 620 nm [0382] and visible light [0412] or light in the wavelength of 650 to 1100 nm [0426] and therefore having wavelength in the claimed range. Shimizu et al. teach of a processor 41 [0376-0379] configured to obtain spectra of the scattered light in the wavelength range of 300-800 nm, obtain spectral analysis result from the spectra an determine an indication of thickness of the dentine of the tooth (fig. 18) based on the spectral analysis result [0382, 0419] where in order to measure dentine by penetrating enamel 5 mm thick, wavelength must be at least 0.9 µm [0382]. Therefore under broadest reasonable interpretation, Shimizu et al. teach of a dental apparatus and method to determine an indication of thickness of the dentine of the tooth based on the spectral analysis result.
With respect to claims 1, 7, and 13, Shimizu et al teach of a probe to be used to determine thickness of the tooth layers such as dentine but do not explicitly teach of the detecting a distance from the tooth to the scanner probe. With respect to claim 13, Shimizu et al. teach of a support tool to align and support he probe 1030 at a predetermined point of the oral cavity [0410] but do not explicitly teach of a dental drill. In a related field of endeavor Elbaz et al. teach of a method and apparatus for forming a three-dimensional volumetric model of a subject’s teeth where the outer surface of the tooth and gingiva may be concurrently scanned using a separate light source providing the 3D outer surface of the tooth and therefore the distance from the tooth to the scanner and used to map the lesion’s depth and/or shape [0274]. Elbaz et al. also teach of the pup region of the tooth [0412, 0413]. Elbaz et al. teach of a dental drill maybe combined with a probe or scanner to provide image guided drilling on the tooth surface [0409]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Elbaz to modify Shimizu et al. to provide real-time feedback to the user as the tooth is being drilled and therefore allowing direct forward-looking imaging prior and/or during drilling [Elbaz, 0409].
With respect to claim 2, Shimizu et al. in view of Elbaz et al. teach of obtaining spectral analysis result comprising signal intensity of the spectra and the indication of thickness of dentine of tooth is determined using the slope of intensities (as shown in figure 18, 0434) where the intensity of the signal light Ls1 corresponding to the measurement light Lm1 of the first wavelength range and intensity of the signal light Ls2 corresponding to the measurement light Lm2 of the second wavelength range are determined in the thickness direction of the tooth [0434].
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. in view of Elbaz et al. and further in view of Kikuchi (2012/0200687). Shimizu et al. do not explicitly teach of the absorption spectra of blood. In a related field of endeavor Kikuchi teaches of observing tooth [0062] with alight source where a light of a band around 540 nm is reflected in body tissue include deep blood vessel and figures 5 shows absorption spectrums of hemoglobin an deoxyhemoglobin [0047]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Kikuchi to modify Shimizu et al. to ensure use of light of specific band suitable for observation of distribution of blood vessel located in the surface layer of tissue [Kikuchi, 0049].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. in view of Elbaz et al. in view of Kikuchi and further in view of Zakian et al. (20111/0102566). The previous references do not explicitly teach of calibration. In a related field of endeavor Zakian et al. teach of a method and apparatus for imaging a tooth that includes calibration by measuring spectra of a reference portion of an object [0136] such as dentine (as set forth by the previous references)> It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Zakian et al. to modify the previous references to effectively calibrate spectral reflectance data and calibrate the probe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797