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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 26, 2024 and May 23, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 13 – 19 in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims Group I: 1 – 5, Group II: 6 – 12 and Group IV: 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/05/2026.
Applicant stands correct that the present application is a 371 National Stage application and should have been evaluated under the “Lack of Unity” test. Examiner appreciates applicant’s reminder of this oversight. However, lack of unity exists and the groupings are consistent with the restriction groupings in the last Office Action as can be seen below.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Accordingly, restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372 as the groupings outlined below do not fall under the aforementioned categories 1-5.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
I. Claims 1 – 5, drawn to a color reference target for interchangeable color samples for use in an adapter of a subject’s mouth, classified in A61C 13/082.
II. Claims 6 – 12, drawn to a dental system for identifying color or a shade of a subject e.g., a tooth, classified in A61C 13/08.
III. Claim 13-19, drawn to a method of using the combination of groups (I) and (II) above, classified in G06T 7/0014.
IV. Claim 20, drawn to a method of quantifying a color or shade of a subject e.g., a tooth, classified in G06T2207/10024.
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.
Claims 13, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Torlakovic et al. US Patent Publication No. WO-2012038474-A1 (hereinafter Torlakovic) in view of Blanding US Patent Application Publication No. US-20060040230-A1 (hereinafter Blanding).
Regarding claim 13, Torlakovic a method for identifying a true color of an oral landmark of a subject (Torlakovic in [0010] discloses, “determining the actual colour of the selected tooth or tooth area”), comprising:(a) providing an adapter comprising a viewing channel configured to define a field of view of an intraoral region of the subject's mouth, wherein the oral landmark is visible in the field of view of the subject's mouth (Torlakovic in [0024] discloses, “the part of the lip spreader containing or holding the colour chart is located such that it crosses the lips as close as possible to the teeth while in the same time providing a clear view of the teeth”. The lip spreader (adapter) for a clear view (field of view) of the teeth. Torlakovic in [0039] disclose about anterior teeth 4 (oral landmark), “The lip spreader 2 is shown inserted into the patient's mouth 3 and in use to expose the anterior teeth 4”); (b) providing a color reference target comprising three or more color samples, wherein the color reference target appears in the field of view of the subject's mouth (Torlakovic in [0010] discloses about three or more color samples and color chart (color reference target), “providing a lip spreader with an integral colour chart positioned on the lip spreader, wherein the colour chart comprises at least three different colours with known characteristics... capturing a digital image of the colour chart and teeth of interest, the digital image hence including image colours for the teeth and image colours for the colour chart at a known position relative to the teeth”); and (d) using the color reference target, processing a color of at least part of the oral landmark captured in the videos or images to identify the true color of the at least part of the oral landmark, wherein the processing is based on the three or more color samples of the color reference target (Torlakovic in [0010] discloses, the colour chart comprises at least three different colours with known characteristics ... capturing a digital image of the colour chart and teeth of interest, the digital image hence including image colours for the teeth and image colours for the colour chart at a known position relative to the teeth; electronically processing the digital image using the image colour for a selected tooth or tooth area, the image colours for the colour chart, and the known characteristics of the actual colours of the colour chart; and thereby determining the actual colour of the selected tooth or tooth area” wherein the actual color equates to true color and information of color chart equates to color reference target).
Torlakovic doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Blanding discloses (c) capturing videos or images of at least part of the oral landmark through the adapter viewing channel (Blanding in [0050] discloses, “A retractor 20, a type of retainer held in the patient's mouth, defines an imageable area 18. Retractor 20 supports a target reference 22, which provides a suitable material composition and color for providing a benchmark to the image obtained”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Blanding into the system of Torlakovic because it would allow the system to obtain controlled and repeatable image of the tooth and other structure that can be accurately processed for color determination.
Summary of Citations (Blanding)
Paragraph [0050]; “A retractor 20, a type of retainer held in the patient's mouth, defines an imageable area 18. Retractor 20 supports a target reference 22, which provides a suitable material composition and color for providing a benchmark to the image obtained”.
Summary of Citations (Torlakovic)
Paragraph [0010]; “providing a lip spreader with an integral colour chart positioned on the lip spreader, wherein the colour chart comprises at least three different colours with known characteristics ... capturing a digital image of the colour chart and teeth of interest, the digital image hence including image colours for the teeth and image colours for the colour chart at a known position relative to the teeth; electronically processing the digital image using the image colour for a selected tooth or tooth area, the image colours for the colour chart, and the known characteristics of the actual colours of the colour chart; and thereby determining the actual colour of the selected tooth or tooth area”.
Paragraph [0024]; “the part of the lip spreader containing or holding the colour chart is located such that it crosses the lips as close as possible to the teeth while in the same time providing a clear view of the teeth”.
Paragraph [0039]; “The lip spreader 2 is shown inserted into the patient's mouth 3 and in use to expose the anterior teeth 4”.
Regarding claim 16, Torlakovic discloses the method of claim 13, three or more color (Torlakovic in [0010] discloses about three colors).
Torlakovic doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Blanding discloses at least one of the (Blanding in [0056] discloses, “Depending on system complexity, reference 22 may be interchangeable, allowing an approximate initial measurement using one of a set of standard shades, for example. Or, reference 22 may be a standard target used to calibrate camera 12, such as a neutral target. Reference 22 may be monochrome or may contain multiple colors”).
Summary of Citations (Torlakovic)
Paragraph [0010]; “providing a lip spreader with an integral colour chart positioned on the lip spreader, wherein the colour chart comprises at least three different colours with known characteristics”.
Summary of Citations (Blanding)
Paragraph [0056]; “Depending on system complexity, reference 22 may be interchangeable, allowing an approximate initial measurement using one of a set of standard shades, for example. Or, reference 22 may be a standard target used to calibrate camera 12, such as a neutral target. Reference 22 may be monochrome or may contain multiple colors”.
Regarding claim 18, Torlakovic in the combination discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising a processing unit, wherein the processing unit performs the processing in (d) (Torlakovic in [0027] discloses, “In a preferred method the digital image can be sent via e-mail or MMS to an online server that will process the image with special software to determine the colour of selected teeth or tooth areas”).
Summary of Citations (Torlakovic)
Paragraph [0027]; “In a preferred method the digital image can be sent via e-mail or MMS to an online server that will process the image with special software to determine the colour of selected teeth or tooth areas”.
Regarding claim 19, Torlakovic in the combination discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the processing comprises using the known colors of the three or more color samples based on a color quantification scheme to identify the true colors of the oral landmark in the captured videos or images (Torlakovic in [0010] discloses, “the colour chart comprises at least three different colours with known characteristics ... capturing a digital image of the colour chart and teeth of interest, the digital image hence including image colours for the teeth and image colours for the colour chart at a known position relative to the teeth; electronically processing the digital image using the image colour for a selected tooth or tooth area, the image colours for the colour chart, and the known characteristics of the actual colours of the colour chart; and thereby determining the actual colour of the selected tooth or tooth area”).
Summary of Citations (Torlakovic)
Paragraph [0010]; “providing a lip spreader with an integral colour chart positioned on the lip spreader, wherein the colour chart comprises at least three different colours with known characteristics ... capturing a digital image of the colour chart and teeth of interest, the digital image hence including image colours for the teeth and image colours for the colour chart at a known position relative to the teeth; electronically processing the digital image using the image colour for a selected tooth or tooth area, the image colours for the colour chart, and the known characteristics of the actual colours of the colour chart; and thereby determining the actual colour of the selected tooth or tooth area”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Torlakovic in view of Blanding and further in view of De Josselin De Jong Elbert Patent Application Publication No. WO-2017178889-A1 (hereinafter De).
Regarding claim 14, Torlakovic discloses the method of claim 13.
Torlakovic and Blanding in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
De discloses the images or videos are captured under light at a wavelength of 390 nm to 450 nm (De in [0010] discloses, “One embodiment according to the present disclosure is a device, system, or kit that includes lighting elements, which provide incident light with a peak wavelength at about 405 nm and about 450 nm, respectively”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of De into the system of Torlakovic in view of Blanding because it would allow to view the reference samples correspond to the appearance of the oral landmark under the same illumination thereby improving the reliability of determining the oral landmark’s color or shade.
Summary of Citations (De)
Paragraph [0010]; “One embodiment according to the present disclosure is a device, system, or kit that includes lighting elements, which provide incident light with a peak wavelength at about 405 nm and about 450 nm, respectively”.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Torlakovic in view of Blanding and further in view of Giorgianni US Patent Application Publication No. US-20040252303-A1 (hereinafter Giorgianni).
Regarding claim 15, Torlakovic discloses the method of claim 13.
Torlakovic and Blanding in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Giorgianni discloses at least one of the three or more color samples corresponds to a color of a natural tooth, a color of an intraoral tissue under fluorescent light, a color of an intraoral tissue under ultraviolet light, or a color of an intraoral tissue under infrared light, or any combination thereof (Giorgianni in [0021] discloses, “dental imaging system that additionally provides a means for producing high quality images that appropriately represent and convey additional tooth appearance characteristics such as color variations, texture, gloss, transparency, and translucency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Giorgianni into the system of Torlakovic in view of Blanding because it would allow more appropriate comparison standard between reference colors and actual dental structure being examined.
Summary of Citations (Giorgianni)
Paragraph [0021]; “dental imaging system that additionally provides a means for producing high quality images that appropriately represent and convey additional tooth appearance characteristics such as color variations, texture, gloss, transparency, and translucency”.
Regarding claim 17, Torlakovic discloses the method of claim 13.
Torlakovic and Blanding in the combination doesn’t disclose about the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Giorgianni discloses the color reference target comprises a display (Giorgianni discloses about color reference target and display in [0035 and [0091]).
Summary of Citations (Giorgianni)
Paragraph [0035]; “A Matching Operation (70) is then used to compare the formed object visual colorimetric values to visual calorimetric values for each of a plurality of color references (e.g., standard dental shade tabs) stored in a Color Reference Database (60), which results in a Shade Match Specification .... may be used to form images for display, and the visual colorimetric values of the shade match specification may be adjusted using a Display and Adjustment Stage (90)”.
Paragraph [0091]; “The system provides for on-screen visual comparison of the measured tooth to the selected shade tab or to any other shade tab in the database”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Vu Le can be
reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
08/14/2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights