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
The amendments filed 16 February 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 - 20 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection to the specification previously applied in the office action dated 17 November 2025. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously applied in the office action dated 17 November 2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16 – 20 are similarly objected due to their dependence on Claim 15.
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 - 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the term “of the user’s oral cavity” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previously-recited oral cavity. For the purposes of examination, the term “of the user’s oral cavity” is deemed to claim “of an oral cavity of the user”. Claims 2 – 20 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on Claim 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, and 3 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakka (WO 2013/001462 A2), in view of Serval, (US 2016/0143718 A1), further in view of Dentistry iQ, Brush Up: Toothbrush training with a game”, hereinafter Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by GamesThatWork Videos Youtube video, “Brush Up”, hereinafter BrushUp.
Regarding Claim 1, Chakka discloses An oral care system ([0022]; [0046]; [0070]; Fig 6) comprising:
a smart device comprising one or more electronic sensors ([0070] “…intraoral camera”; [0046] “image sensor...”; [0060] “camera-LED assembly 610”; Fig 6; [0060] “…power operated electric toothbrush” );
an electronic device comprising a display ([0085] “smart phone…The transmitted images are displayed on the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phone)(Examiner notes that a smart phone is an electronic device with a display.) the electronic device configured to be operably coupled to the smart device ([0085] “the camera mounted on the upper part of the toothbrush 1502 communicates with the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phones”) so that information obtained by the one or more electronic sensors of the smart device is configured to be transmitted to the electronic device ([0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”; [0085] “The transmitted images are displayed on the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phone”);
wherein a portion of the smart device is configured to be positioned proximate a user’s teeth and gums to perform a bacteria scan wherein at least one of the one or more electronic sensors detect bacteria on the user’s teeth and gums ([0020] “an intraoral camera engaged with the toothbrush and positioned above the detachable bristles to capture the images of the teeth”; [0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”); and
wherein during the bacteria scan ([0020] “an intraoral camera engaged with the toothbrush and positioned above the detachable bristles to capture the images of the teeth”; [0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”), the smart device located in a position of the smart device relative to features of the user’s oral cavity ([0045] “The captured images…”, “capture the images of the teeth…”; [0020] “…capture the images of the teeth for enabling a targeted brushing and to detect and illuminate the plaque.”; [007] “strategically positioning a camera relative to the bristles”)(Examiner notes that the images would include bacteria, and the location of that bacteria is visually captured in place on the teeth and gums in the intraoral camera image, and the camera is positioned in line with the bacteria at a location in which the bacteria can be brushed away.)
wherein upon the bacteria scan being completed ([0045] “The captured images…”, “capture the images of the teeth…”)(Examiner notes that the bacteria scan is obtaining images of the teeth that include bacteria.), information about an amount of the bacteria detected at specific locations on the user’s teeth and gums is transmitted from the smart device to the electronic device ([0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”)(Examiner notes that the scan is obtaining the images, and the information about the amount of bacteria is in the images.) and locations of the user’s teeth and gums on which bacteria was detected ([0045] “The captured images…”, “capture the images of the teeth…”)(Examiner notes that the images would include bacteria, and the location of that bacteria is visually captured in place on the teeth and gums in the intraoral camera image.)
the bacteria detected by the one or more electronic sensors during the bacteria scan ([0020] “an intraoral camera engaged with the toothbrush and positioned above the detachable bristles to capture the images of the teeth”; [0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”),.
Chakka does not specifically disclose the electronic device displays a model of teeth and gums with a depiction of bacteria on the teeth and gums of the model at locations that are consistent with the specific locations of the user’s teeth and gums on which bacteria was detected, the smart device senses the position of the smart device, and wherein the depiction of bacteria is generated based on the bacteria detected by the one or more electronic sensors during the bacteria scan and is mapped to the model based on the sensed position.
Serval teaches a “smart” toothbrush with a smartphone application that tracks the brush’s movements in the mouth and reports on a smartphone display how much of the teeth were brushed in a session. Specifically for Claim 1, Serval teaches smart device senses the position of the smart device ([0069] “toothbrush 1 may incorporate various sensors…motion sensors 11…gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, and other various sensors capable of detecting positions, movement, and acceleration…incorporated either in the handle 40 or the head 42…”; [0070] “toothbrush 1…proximity sensors that detect the proximity of the toothbrush 1 to the mouth of a user…to acquire additional positional information…”; [0086] – [0087] “determining when the toothbrush 1 is brushing any certain section of the user's mouth…“) and bacteria detected by the one or more electronic sensors during the bacteria scan ([0073] “cameras 56…detect levels of plaque on the teeth and changes in levels of plaque during brushing”; Fig. 4 “output brushing quality feedback”).
Chakka and Serval both disclose and teach instrumented toothbrushes with cameras to detect plaque on teeth to provide users with information to increase their brushing habits to decrease plaque coverage: Chakka with a toothbrush having an intraoral camera sensor obtaining images of the teeth for display on a screen and providing associated brushing assistance to remove plaque, and Serval with an instrumented toothbrush with position sensors and a plaque camera to provide feedback to users regarding the amount of plaque remaining on teeth ([Chakka: [0086] – [0087]; [0104]; [Abstract]; Fig. 4). Serval provides a motivation to combine at [0008] with “the system can let the user know which regions of the mouth were brushed or flossed and provide the user on feedback for where they could brush more, or positioned they entirely missed.“ A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that having sensors in the toothbrush to positively determine the brush’s location relative to the user’s mouth over a toothbrushing session would be useful to correlate images of plaque obtained of the teeth to actionable information to the user to address areas that they could brush more or may have actively missed when their toothbrush is near those areas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chakka’s disclosed intraoral camera sensor on an instrumented toothbrush obtaining images of the teeth at a bristle’s-length from the teeth to provide associated brushing assistance to remove plaque with the particular location sensing for the instrumented toothbrush itself relative to the mouth taught by Serval, creating a single instrumented toothbrushing apparatus that can provide actionable information to the user to address areas that they could brush more or may have actively missed (based on plaque images of the teeth) when their toothbrush is near those areas (as sensed by the location sensors).
Serval does not particularly teach the electronic device displays a model of teeth and gums with a depiction of bacteria on the teeth and gums of the model at locations that are consistent with the specific locations of the user’s teeth and gums on which bacteria was detected, and wherein the depiction of bacteria is generated based on the bacteria detected by the one or more electronic sensors during the bacteria scan. Serval does broadly teach [0098] “Gamification…usage data…used to create games for children…motivational tools”; [0073] “cameras 56…detect levels of plaque on the teeth and changes in levels of plaque during brushing”; Fig. 4 “output brushing quality feedback”, such that the levels of plaque are measured on the teeth using cameras, the position of the toothbrush is measured during brushing, and the teaching is open to using the data for “gamification” motivation tools for brushing.
PNG
media_image1.png
591
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Screenshot at 3:34 of “Brush Up” game YouTube demonstration, showing green “gunk” material being brushed away as the brush is used.
Dentistry iQ teaches Brush Up, a gamification motivation tool for brushing on an app and an electronic toothbrush with sensors that guide and assess children’s brushing with visual cues on a model of green bacteria-covered teeth on, Budd, the cartoon teeth model. Specifically for Claim 1, Dentistry iQ teaches the electronic device displays a model of teeth and gums with a depiction of bacteria on the teeth and gums of the model ([Page 5, “Budd demonstrates proper brushing technique” Section] “As Budd guides the child, green material on the teeth disappears”; [Page 6, Top] Figure with teeth.; [Page 3, Bottom] “Budd, the cartoon character who serves as the child’s on-screen tooth brushing guide…”)(Examiner notes that as evidenced by the Youtube video of the app’s functionality, the Brush Up App shows green bacterial material on the teeth to be scrubbed away from timestamp 3:17 – 6:12, a screenshot shown above in Figure A.) at locations that are consistent with the specific locations of the user’s teeth and gums ([Page 5, Top; ”Budd, the cartoon brushing guide” Section] “….simple and clear representation of Budd’s mouth…show…the placement and use of the brush.”, “Budd combines demonstrative anatomy…”; [Page 5, “Budd demonstrates proper brushing technique” Section] “The electronics in the brush translate motion to the screen so that improper brushing movements can be corrected”)(Examiner notes that the instrumented toothbrush and app correlate the brush strokes with locations of the user’s teeth and gum as an education tool to indicate which sections of the mouth are successfully brushed or not.)
Chakka and Dentistry iQ both disclose and teach instrumented toothbrushes that obtain particular information about a user’s teeth and transmit it to be displayed to the user for tooth brushing feedback: Chakka with an intraoral camera obtaining images of the teeth for display on a screen and providing associated brushing assistance to remove plaque, and Dentistry iQ with a “special brush” with electronics to translate brush motion to the screen correlating with brush location instruction to remove plaque. Dentistry iQ presents a motivation to combine at [Page 5, Top] with “The simple and clear representation of Budd’s mouth helps Budd show the child the placement and use of the brush. Children easily mimic this.” Regarding Chakka in view of Serval, Chakka in view of Serval discloses that the levels of plaque are measured on the teeth using cameras, the position of the toothbrush is measured during brushing, and the teaching of Serval is open to using the data for “gamification” motivation tools for brushing. Serval provides a motivation to combine at [0098] with “Gamification…usage data…used to create games for children…motivational tools”. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that presenting a model of a mouth with visible plaque or bacteria shown on the teeth, corresponding to teeth in the user’s mouth that need additional brushing would be a helpful aid for instructing users, particularly children, thorough brushing techniques in a gamified representation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chakka in view of Serval’s disclosed instrumented toothbrush system that can sense its location relative to the mouth (Serval: [0086] – [0087]) incorporating imaging capabilities to display and detect plaque/bacteria on the teeth to provide teeth-cleaning feedback to clean plaque away until it is gone [Chakka: 0048] with the game-ified model of the teeth showing bright green bacteria on the tooth until is it scrubbed away, modeling the instrumented toothbrush’s interaction with the user’s tooth, as taught by Dentistry iQ. This would create a single instrumented toothbrushing apparatus to give users visual feedback with tooth model on when they have successfully scrubbed away bacteria on their teeth using their toothbrush at a particular location, which could be particularly helpful to children learning to brush their teeth thoroughly.
Regarding Claim 3, Chakka in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 3, Chakka discloses wherein the one or more electronic sensors of the smart device comprises an image capture member ([0070] “…intraoral camera”; [0046] “image sensor...”; [0060] “camera-LED assembly 610”, “…power operated electric toothbrush”; [0045] “image sensor…”; Fig 6), and wherein the smart device is configured to acquire images of the user’s teeth and gums and transmit the images to the electronic device ([0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”) which are then displayed on the display of the electronic device ([0085] “smart phone…The transmitted images are displayed on the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phone).
Regarding Claim 5, Chakka in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 3. For the remainder of Claim 5, Chakka discloses wherein the electronic device further displays treatment suggestions for any abnormalities on the user’s teeth and gums ([0061] “artificial intelligence or image recognition technology…process the images captured to detect the plaque and in turn control the motor of the detachable bristle to operate until the plaque has been removed.” (Examiner notes that the device displays, or demonstrates its conclusive recommendation to keep cleaning by maintaining activation of the motor to keep the bristles visibly moving, communicating through action that the image analysis deems that the bristles should continue to operate until the plaque is removed.)
Regarding Claim 6, Chakka in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 6, Chakka discloses wherein when the smart device is positioned proximate to and moved across the user’s teeth and gums, the smart device senses oral health conditions associated with the user’s teeth and gums ([0049] “…capturing the images of the teeth and its surrounding structures”, “detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization, dental caries and the like abnormalities associated with the teeth and intraoral tissues.”)(Examiner notes that “abnormalities associated with the teeth and intraoral tissues” would broadly include oral health conditions.)
Regarding Claim 7, Chakka in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 6. For the remainder of Claim 7, Chakka discloses wherein the smart device comprises an image capture member ([0070] “…intraoral camera”; [0046] “image sensor...”; [0060] “camera-LED assembly 610”, “…power operated electric toothbrush”; [0045] “image sensor…”; Fig 6), which acquires images of the user’s teeth and gums as the smart device is moved across the user’s teeth and gums [0045] “The captured images…intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”; [0059] “a non-detachable camera 610 positioned above the detachable bristles 608 to capture the images of the teeth”) and wherein the images are transmitted to the electronic device ([0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”); and displayed on the display of the electronic device ([0085] “smart phone…The transmitted images are displayed on the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phone).
Regarding Claim 8, Chakka in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 7. For the remainder of Claim 8, Chakka discloses wherein the display of the electronic device displays an indication of the oral health conditions detected by the smart device or the electronic device ([0085] “smart phone…The transmitted images are displayed on the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phone)(Examiner notes that by displaying the images of the teeth and surrounding areas, the oral health conditions that are present are broadly indicated visually to the user by their presence in the image.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Rosa, et. al., “New portable system for dental plaque measurement using a digital single-lens reflex camera and image analysis: Study of reliability and validation”, hereinafter Rosa.
Regarding Claim 2, Chakka in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 2, Chakka does not disclose wherein the electronic device further displays a bacteria counter that comprises a percentage or numerical value associated with bacterial coverage on the user’s teeth and gums.
Rosa teaches a quantification of plaque on teeth from image processing of intraoral images. Specifically for Claim 2, Rosa teaches display a bacteria counter that comprises a percentage or numerical value associated with bacterial coverage on the user’s teeth and gums ([Page 279, Left Column, Paragraph 1] “The quantification of dental plaque (DP)…has been performed for many years using difference indices of DP”; [Page 279, Right Column, 1st Full Paragraph] “measure the quantity of DP deposited on dental surfaces in a proportional measurement scale (of high level) by using digital intra-oral photographs”; [Page 280; Right Column, “Phase 2” Bullet point] “Using an image processing and analysis program…the DP area in each tooth was automatically measured in mm2.”; Figure 2 display scheme % of tooth area with dental plaque.)(Examiner notes that “plaque deposits” include bacterial coverage.)
Chakka and Rosa both disclose and teach using image recognition to determine the amount of plaque on teeth: Chakka with “the artificial intelligence or image recognition technology” to process images to detect the plaque [Chakka 0061] and Rosa with “image processing and analysis program” to determine quantification of dental plaque. Rosa provides a motivation to combine at [Page 283, Right Column, “Conclusions” Section] with “The greater sensitivity of this tool over the DP index allows greater discrimination power to assess oral hygiene measures such as electric toothbrushes or antimicrobial agents.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that quantifying the amount of plaque coverage on a person’s teeth based on imaging data would be useful for determining how well oral hygiene is progressing using a toothbrush to remove plaque.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intraoral camera on the instrumented toothbrush device obtaining images of the user’s teeth and intraoral features for broad plaque detection processing in image recognition technology disclosed in Chakka with the quantification scoring of dental plaque per tooth using image recognition as taught by Rosa, creating a single instrumented toothbrush device that uses image recognition to present quantified representations of plaque coverage for a user’s teeth.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Urakabe (US 2013/0286174 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 3. For the remainder of Claim 4, Chakka discloses wherein the display indicates detected gum conditions ([0049] “…capturing the images of the teeth and its surrounding structures”, “detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization, dental caries and the like abnormalities associated with the teeth and intraoral tissues.”)(Examiner notes that “abnormalities associated with the teeth and intraoral tissues” would broadly include gum conditions.)
Chakka does not specifically disclose including at least one of inflammation, recession, bleeding, gingivitis, and periodontal disease. Chakka does broadly disclose [0049] “abnormalities associated with the teeth and intraoral tissues” could broadly include inflammation, recession, bleeding, gingivitis, and periodontal disease of the gums.
Urakabe teaches an intraoral camera system that obtains continuously captured image sequences, and reports them in color to show swelling or inflammation on the patient’s gums, as well as locations of depositions of plaque ([Abstract]; [0384]; [0385]; [0358]) displaying color intraoral images obtained by actual image capturing means (as opposed to x-ray) showing swelling or inflammation of the gums. Specifically for Claim 4, Urakabe teaches the display indicates detected gum conditions including at least one of inflammation (Fig. 23, [0358] “images captured by the…actual image capturing means…display of the actual image enables the color and any swelling or inflammation of the gums to be displayed…”), recession, bleeding, gingivitis, and periodontal disease.
Urakabe provides a motivation to combine at [0358] with “…display of the actual image enables the color and any swelling or inflammation of the gums to be displayed…comparison with the x-ray image enables the degree of advance of any periodontal disease or tooth decay to be displayed in a manner easily understandable by the patient.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that displaying a color image of the mouth with swelling or inflammation would allow for easy patient understanding of their gum health condition, with the option to be presented as a supplemental aid to better understand x-ray images that have been taken of their intraoral condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intraoral images the teeth and surrounding structures to detect broadly-disclosed “abnormalities” associated with the teeth and intraoral tissues disclosed in Chakka, with the particular display of color intraoral images to particularly identify swelling or inflammation of the gums taught by Urakabe, creating single instrumented toothbrush device that can present its color intraoral images to the patient to help them visualize the areas of swelling or inflammation of their gums for clearer understanding of their oral health.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Attanasi, “Digital Dental Imaging”, hereinafter Attanasi.
Regarding Claim 9, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 9, Chakka discloses wherein the smart device comprises an image capture member ([0070] “…intraoral camera”; [0046] “image sensor...”; [0060] “camera-LED assembly 610”, “…power operated electric toothbrush”; [0045] “image sensor…”; Fig 6) which acquires images of the user’s teeth and gums as the smart device is positioned proximate to and moved across the user’s teeth and gums ([0045] “The captured images…intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”; [0059] “a non-detachable camera 610 positioned above the detachable bristles 608 to capture the images of the teeth”), wherein the images acquired by the image capture member are transmitted to the electronic device ([0045] “The captured images are further transmitted to the remote base station to detect the plaque, intraoral areas with bacterial colonization…associated with the teeth”), and wherein the electronic device displays the images acquired by the image capture member ([0085] “smart phone…The transmitted images are displayed on the WiFi/bluetooth enabled devices 1506 but not limited to a smart phone)
Chakka does not specifically disclose with a color representative of the user’s teeth.
Attanasi teaches displays the images (of the user’s teeth and gums) acquired by the image capture member with a color representative of the user’s teeth ([Page 5, Paragraph 3] “the camera need to produce still photos as well as accurate color reproduction…”; [Page 4, Paragraph 3] “Intraoral camera images…monitor oral lesions for changes in…color”; Figure 4, color of staining on the tooth shown; Figures 5 – 6; Table 1 on Page 6 “Changes in color or translucency of enamel”).
Chakka and Attanasi both disclose and teach handheld intraoral cameras: Chakka an intraoral camera on a BluetoothTM-enabled toothbrush device and Attanasi as shown in Attanasi: Figure 1 as “an intraoral wand camera”. Attanasi provides a motivation to combine at [Page 6, Top, Table 1] with “What to look for when assessing a tooth surface’s risk of cavitation with an intraoral camera: Changes in color or translucency of enamel, White spot lesions that appear chalky white…Black discoloration”. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that using color imaging with an intraoral camera would be useful for detecting evidence of cavitation risk on a tooth.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the broadly disclosed imaging with an intraoral camera on a toothbrushing (and irrigating) device disclosed in Chakka with the specifically color imaging with an intraoral camera taught by Attanasi, creating a single intraoral camera device on a toothbrush that can provide color image evidence of potential intraoral issues like cavitation risk.
Regarding Claim 10, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Attanasi discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 9. For the remainder of Claim 10, Chakka does not specifically disclose wherein the electronic device provides, on the display, historical images of the user’s teeth for color comparison.
Attanasi teaches wherein the electronic device provides, on the display, historical images of the user’s teeth for color comparison ([Page 4, Paragraph 3] “By providing documentation of the oral cavity…can use these images for reference should any suspicious lesions develop…monitor oral lesions for changes in size…”; Figures 4 – 6, Figures 8 and 9; [Page 3, Paragraph 2] “…viewing images on the screen all together…”; Table 1, “changes in color or translucency of enamel”)(Examiner notes that using the images for “reference”, particular for “changes in size” indicates that different historical older images are shown so that they can be compared to newer/current images.).
Chakka and Attanasi both disclose and teach handheld intraoral cameras: Chakka an intraoral camera on a BluetoothTM-enabled toothbrush device, and Attanasi as shown in Attanasi: Figure 1 as “an intraoral wand camera”. Attanasi provides a motivation to combine at [Page 4, Paragraph 3] with “By providing documentation of the oral cavity, clinicians can use these images for reference should any suspicious lesions develop. Intraoral camera images can be used to monitor oral lesions for changes in size…” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that using color imaging with an intraoral camera over time would be useful for detecting changing evidence of suspicious oral lesions or tooth cavitation risk.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the broadly disclosed imaging with an intraoral camera on a toothbrushing (and irrigating) device disclosed in Chakka with the specifically color imaging with images over time “for reference” using an intraoral camera taught by Attanasi, creating a single intraoral camera device on a toothbrush that can provide color image evidence over time of potential intraoral issues like lesions or cavitation risk.
Claims 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Pant et. al., (United States Patent Application Publication US 2016/0278664 A1), hereinafter Pant.
Regarding Claim 11, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 11, Chakka discloses the one or more sensors ([0070] “…intraoral camera”; [0046] “image sensor...”; [0060] “camera-LED assembly 610”; Fig 6; [0060] “…power operated electric toothbrush” );
Chakka does not disclose comprise a breath freshness sensor, and wherein upon the user breathing on the portion of the smart device, the breath freshness sensor is configured to collect data to determine breath freshness of the user.
Pant teaches instrumented mediums, such as a toothbrush, for measuring a breath sample and reporting the results. Specifically for Claim 11, Pant teaches comprise a breath freshness sensor (Fig 2A, [0023] “capturing/sensing components 221 (e.g., GPS, hardware sensors”; [0029] “…sensors…offering … 1) innocuous tracking of breath”;[0030] “Further, as with today's motorized toothbrushes, there may be a turn on/off switch on personal device 100 to allow the user to control and decide on whether to turn on/off breath testing mechanism 110.”; [0027] “ toothbrush is use as an example of personal device 100 employing breath testing mechanism 110.”; Fig 2C; [0053] – [0056]), and wherein upon the user breathing on the portion of the smart device ([0028] “…allowing breath testing mechanism 110 to detect alveolar air to enable seamless and accurate breath detection.”; Fig 2C; [0053] – [0056]; [0015] “breath odors” and “halitosis”) , the breath freshness sensor is configured to collect data to determine breath freshness of the user ([0028] “…allowing breath testing mechanism 110 to detect alveolar air to enable seamless and accurate breath detection.”; [0015] “breath odors” and “halitosis”).
Chakka and Pant both teach smart toothbrushes with multiple types of sensors: Chakka with an intraoral camera image sensor and a pressure sensor, and Pant with cameras [0043] for image capture and sensors for breath sensing [0023]. Pant provides a motivation to combine at [0028] with “For example, having a toothbrush as personal device 100, it is contemplated that personal device 100 is likely to be used regularly twice a day by the user, allowing breath testing mechanism 110 to detect alveolar air to enable seamless and accurate breath detection.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that including breath sensing capabilities on the user’s instrumented toothbrush would allow for the user to obtain data over time from at least twice a day to determine if their breath is problematic.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the instrumented toothbrush with multiple sensing capabilities disclosed in Chakka with the breath sensing sensor in an instrumented toothbrush taught by Pant, creating a single instrumented toothbrush to evaluate the user’s oral care process and breath on a convenient daily basis.
Regarding Claim 12, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Pant discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 11. For the remainder of Claim 12, Chakka does not disclose wherein the data collected by the breath freshness sensor is transmitted to the electronic device, and wherein the electronic device is configured to display information about the user’s breath on the display.
Pant teaches wherein the data collected by the breath freshness sensor ([0028] “…allowing breath testing mechanism 110 to detect alveolar air to enable seamless and accurate breath detection.”; Fig 6A); is transmitted to the electronic device (Fig 6A; “Communicate the message to the user and/or one or more computing devices associated with central monitoring system, medical personal, etc…”), and wherein the electronic device is configured to display information about the user’s breath on the display (Fig 6A, “Evaluate the sample”, “Form a message based on results of the evaluation”, “Communicate the message to the user…”; [0090] “…present, via one or more output components, the message to the user via a user interface, wherein the message includes results of the evaluation of the breath sample.”; [0015] “breath odors” and “halitosis”).
The motivation for Claim 12 to combine Chakka with Pant is similar to that described in more detail above in Claim 11. In summary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the instrumented toothbrush with multiple sensing capabilities disclosed in Chakka with the breath sensing sensor in an instrumented toothbrush taught by Pant, creating a single instrumented toothbrush to provide information regarding the user’s oral care process and breath on a convenient daily basis.
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Pant, further in view of Ayres, “In the Details: Finally, Your Phone Can Tell You If Your Breath Stinks”, hereinafter Ayres.
Regarding Claim 13, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Pant discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 12. For the remainder of Claim 13, Chakka does not disclose wherein the display includes a breath freshness scale that rates the user’s breath on a scale from very bad to very good.
Pant teaches wherein the display includes a breath freshness ([0015] “3) detection of breath compounds, such as ethanol for alcohol monitoring, hydrogen disulfide for halitosis”)
The motivation for Claim 12 to combine Chakka with Pant is similar to that described in more detail above in Claim 11. In summary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the instrumented toothbrush with multiple sensing capabilities disclosed in Chakka with the breath sensing sensor in an instrumented toothbrush taught by Pant, creating a single instrumented toothbrush to provide information regarding the user’s oral care process and breath freshness on a convenient daily basis.
Pant does not specifically teach wherein the display includes a breath freshness scale that rates the user’s breath on a scale from very bad to very good.
Ayres teaches a portable breath analyzing device associated with a smartphone, and it that measures VSCs in breath and outputs the results in a user-friendly scale on the smartphone. Specifically for Claim 13, Ayres teaches wherein the display includes a breath freshness scale that rates the user’s breath on a scale from very bad to very good ([Page 3, Figure at top, Boxes in the middle and right “Mint score” 1 – 5, “You’re good to go!” on a smart phone display; [Page 3, Paragraph 1] “…based…on the Halimeter…measure volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) found in the air expelled by patients.”)(Examiner notes that a score of 1 that merits a “You need a mint” suggestion is broadly very bad breath, and a score of 5 that merits a “You’re good to go!” is broadly very good. Examiner further notes that at Applicant’s specification, the scale is clarified as [0051] “a predetermined scale that associates an amount of sulfur to a breath freshness”.).
Ayres provides a motivation to combine at [Page 3, Paragraph 2] with “These measurements are then sent wirelessly via Bluetooth to a paired smartphone, which collects the transmitted data and analyzes it over time, making suggestions to its user for improvement in oral hygiene and water consumption (like the ever-helpful "You need a mint"). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that obtaining specific suggestions from breath measurements at the smartphone regarding breath would be helpful for addressing breath problems on the go.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the “message” of results of the breath sensing for the instrumented smartbrush device disclosed by Chakka in view of Pant, with the specific 1 – 5 scale breath Mint freshness rating taught by Ayres, creating a single smart toothbrush device to obtain data about breath freshness and report it to the user in clearly-understandable and actionable display for an average user.
Regarding Claim 14, Chakka in view of Serval and Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp, further in view of Pant discloses as described above, The oral care system according to claim 12. For the remainder of Claim 14, Chakka and Pant do not disclose or teach wherein the display includes a tips section that, when activated, provides the user with breath freshening instructions.
Ayres teaches wherein the display includes a tips section that, when activated, provides the user with breath freshening instructions ([Page 3, Figure at top, “Results” Boxes in the middle and right “Mint score” 1 – 5, “You need a mint” on a smart phone display).
The motivation for Claim 14 to combine Chakka in view of BrushUp, further in view of Pant with Ayres is similar to that described in more detail in Claim 13. In summary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the “message” of results of the breath sensing disclosed by Chakka in view of Pant, with the 1 – 5 scale breath Mint freshness rating with “You need a mint” messaging taught by Ayres, creating a single smart toothbrush device to obtain data about breath freshness and report it to the user in clearly-understandable and actionable display of tips for an average user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 7, “Response to 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection” Section] – [Page 9, Top] that neither the cited art combinations nor the cited passages teach or suggest a smart device that senses its own position relative to features of the user’s oral cavity during a bacteria scan, because Chakka does not teach any position-sensing capability that would allow the device to determine where it is located (i.e. its pose or position) relative to anatomical features of the oral cavity during the bacteria scan. Based on the amendment, a new reference, Serval is added, to teach a toothbrush smart device that senses its own position relative to the features of the user’s oral cavity during a bacteria scan, as detailed above in the 35 U.S.C. Rejection of claim 1 citing Chakka in view of Serval, further in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 9, 2nd Full Paragraph] – [Page 10, Top] that Dentistry iQ does not teach any sensor that detects bacteria on the user’s teeth and gums, and there is no sensing of the device’s position relative to features of the user’s oral cavity during a bacteria scan. Dentistry iQ is used to teach the gamification of toothbrushing and indicating that bacteria still needs to be removed by showing bacteria on a 3d tooth model. It is not used in the combination for the sensors. Based on the amendment, a new reference, Serval is added, to teach a toothbrush smart device that senses its own position relative to the features of the user’s oral cavity during a bacteria scan, as detailed above in the 35 U.S.C. Rejection of claim 1 citing Chakka in view of Serval, further in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 10, 1st Full Paragraph] that the claims require a system 1) the smart device performs a bacteria scan using electronic sensors to detect bacteria on the user’s teeth and gums, 2) during that scan, the smart device determined its position relative to features of the user’s oral cavity; and 3) The depiction of bacteria displayed on the model is generated from the scan-derived bacteria detection data and registered/mapped onto the model using the sensed device-position information, which is not taught by Chakka or Dentistry iQ. Looking to the claim, the “depiction of bacteria” is “based on”, which could broadly encompass a Boolean showing of bacteria on a mouth model while bacteria is still being picked up on images of the mouth at all. The recited claim does not necessary require that the sensed bacteria location are precisely 1:1 “registered/mapped onto the model using the sensed position information”. Further, in the currently-applied 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above, Serval teaches gathering the changing plaque (bacteria) level data on the teeth using cameras during brushing [0073], while obtaining position data for the toothbrush [0086] – [0087], which can be information provided for “gamification” of the usage data [0098], to promote better brushing habits to decrease plaque [Abstract]. The combination of Chakka in view of Serval, further in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp discloses these elements. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 11, Paragraph 1] – [Page 11, Paragraph 2] that with respect to claims 2, 9 – 14, and 17, the additional references of Rosa, Attanasi, Pant, Ayres, and Griggs do not suggest the position-sensing and position-based mapping/registration features in amended Claim 1. Based on the 35 U.S.C. Rejection of claim 1 above, Chakka in view of Serval, further in view of Dentistry iQ, as evidenced by BrushUp are combined to teach the position-sensing and mapping of bacteria on a tooth model. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 11, 3rd Paragraph] – [Page 12, Top] that for claim 5, Chakka does not display a suggestion on the electronic device and does not disclose presenting any treatment suggestions for abnormalities on a display. Looking to the claim, it is not recited that the suggestion is displayed on a physical display. Rather, the electronic device broadly displays with communication by action (continuing to operate the bristle motor), to visibly demonstrate its further treatment suggestion based on the image analysis, which is to continue brushing the teeth until the plaque is gone. Looking to Merriam-Webster’s definitions of display including “to exhibit conspicuously” or “to make (an emotion, quality, skill, etc,) evident.” The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 12, 1st Full Paragraph] that for claim 15, Chakka does not disclose a self-contained smart device that is insertable into, and removably retained within, a cavity of the handle for storage and use in the assembled position, nor does Chakka disclose that the smart device itself (the component containing the electronic sensors) is completely detached from the oral care implement. Looking to the claims, neither Claim 15 nor Claim 1 from which it depends recite that the smart device is self-contained. Claim 1 recites that there is a “smart device comprising one or more electronic sensors”. Looking to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above for Claim 15, the “smart device” corresponds to the “intraoral camera”, which is one or more electronic sensors. This camera is housing on the bristle assembly, which can be denoted as the portion which contains the one or more electronic sensors.
Notably, Chakka does discloses that only the bristles, or tooth cleaning elements portion of the oral care implement, are removed to be completely detached from the smart device, and not the rest of the oral care implement including the handle and head. In the disassembled position, the smart device is only partially detached from the oral care implement, since it is still attached to the head and handle. For this reason, the argument is persuasive regarding Claim 15. As such, and in light of further search and consideration, the above objection to Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16 – 20 is applied.
Applicant argues at [Page 12, Bottom] – [Page 13, Top] that for claim 16, Chakka does not include a dock sensor with a pressure sensor to detect whether a smart device is coupled into, inserted into, or removed from the oral care implement because Chakka’s pressure sensing mechanism is to detect when excess pressure is applied on the teeth during brushing. In light of the newly-applied objection to Claim 15 which applies to its dependent Claims 16 – 20 due to their dependency, the argument is moot.
Applicant argues at [Page 13, 1st Full Paragraph] that for claim 17, claim 17 requires depiction of a coverage percentage for each of the user’s teeth with separate values per tooth, and Griggs teaches an aggregate session completion percentage. In light of the newly-applied objection to Claim 15 which applies to its dependent Claims 16 – 20 due to their dependency, the argument is moot.
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 MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights