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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039).
Regarding claim 1:
Dorodvand discloses: a method to monitor progress or predict an outcome of a tooth whitening regimen (¶ [0001] “The present invention relates to a system and method for receiving and analysing images of human teeth and gums”; ¶ [0009] “ Monitoring the change in the morphology, colour and texture of the teeth surfaces over time may also be used to track the effectiveness of beauty products and treatments applied to the teeth, such as whitening gel and special toothpastes.”, comprising:
(a) providing an adapter comprising a viewing channel configured to define a field of view of an intraoral region of a subject's mouth, wherein one or more teeth are visible in the field of view of the subject's mouth (¶ [0018] “…a mouthpiece attachment comprising a hollow tubular body with opposing first and second open ends, wherein the first open end is configured to be held in the mouth of a user and the second open end is configured to attach to the image capture device such that, in use, the image capture device images the user's mouth through the tubular body from a fixed position relative to the user's mouth”; ¶ [0024] “FIG. 2 is an illustration of a mouthpiece”; ¶ [0039] “The mouthpiece may further comprise a rim 125 positioned around the perimeter of the second opening 122 of the mouthpiece”; ¶ [0040] “…when held with the user's lips around the rim, the opening frames the user's front teeth and a portion of the gums surrounding the front teeth…the second opening may take any other appropriate shape which conforms to the shape of the user's mouth to define an opening through which the teeth and gums may be imaged”);
Dorodvand does not specifically teach: (b) providing a color reference target comprising one or more color samples, wherein the color reference target appears in the field of view of the subject's mouth, and wherein each of the one or more color samples is associated with a reference color or shade; (c) using the color reference target to identify the color or shade of the one or more teeth.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bengel teaches: (b) providing a color reference target comprising one or more color samples (¶ [0011] “…to further eliminate color cast and to adjust image brightness, a neutral reference point, such as a piece of gray card, is provided within the digital image. The gray card allows the image editing software to eliminate any remaining color cast that results despite standardized conditions and to adjust image brightness”),
wherein the color reference target appears in the field of view of the subject's mouth (¶ [0014] “FIG. 1 illustrates the use of a small piece of gray card together with a black contraster put behind the teeth.”; ¶ [0082] “…to serve as an intraoral reference 101 as shown in FIG. 1. The gray card 101 can also be placed behind or in front of the tooth 103. Preferably, images are taken with the intraoral reference 101 at the same position each time to produce repeatable and comparable images.”), and
wherein each of the one or more color samples is associated with a reference color or shade ¶ [0082] “…to serve as an intraoral reference 101 as shown in FIG. 1. The gray card 101 can also be placed behind or in front of the tooth 103. Preferably, images are taken with the intraoral reference 101 at the same position each time to produce repeatable and comparable images.”);
(c) using the color reference target to identify the color or shade of the one or more teeth (¶ [0011] “…The gray card allows the image editing software to eliminate any remaining color cast that results despite standardized conditions and to adjust image brightness. Color values of the fine-tuned image are then determined by the software and are available for comparison with other images taken under the same method of the present invention.”; ¶ [0081] “…The grey card serves two functions: (1) to eliminate possible color casts of the digital image caused by lighting conditions, camera technique, etc.; and (2) to allow "fine tuning" of the digital image brightness to get repeatable and comparable photographs. Both of these functions can be performed using a commercially available standard image editing program.”; abstract “The object is set in a fixed environmental and lighting condition and the digital camera is set with certain predetermined fixed settings to provide consistent and repeatable digital images. The digital image is taken with a predetermined neutral reference adjacent the object. A commercially available image editing software is used to standardize and analyze the color information of the digital image based on the neutral reference”); and
Dorodvand further teaches (d) predicting the outcome of the tooth whitening regimen (¶[0030] “…oral health conditions… include… enamel wear and tooth discolouration.”; and explains such conditions are associated with changes in color of teeth/gums and are detected from mouth image data in ¶[0031] “These conditions may be associated with changes in texture, morphology and color… detected as changes in the properties of mouth image data…”; ¶ [0053] “One important type of image property features used is colour/texture descriptors [including] statistical parameters on each color layer…”. Based on that image-derived result data, Dorodvand teaches generating a whitening score as a quantitative measure (i.e., outcome indicator) and presenting trends in whitening scores over time in ¶[0101] “...a plaque level score… a gum health score… and a whitening score… These metrics may be calculated from the result data…”; ¶[0104]-[0105] “historical or recent trend data may be displayed… trends… for… whitening scores.”; and ¶[0019] “...trends over time can be analysed.”).
Additionally, Bengel further teaches that tooth shade/color quantification is used to assess bleaching outcomes in (¶[0012] “...useful for assessing the therapeutic outcome of tooth-bleaching procedures and determining tooth shade…”; ¶[0100] “...assess tooth color and the outcome of the bleaching procedures…”), and Bengel’s color-value determination based on the neutral reference provides the underlying “identified color or shade” basis required by step (d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand’s standardized intraoral imaging system (mouthpiece attachment holding a camera in a fixed position and excluding ambient light to keep lighting constant) to include Bengel’s known technique of placing a predetermined neutral reference (e.g., a gray card intraoral reference) within the captured dental image and using that reference to standardize/analyze the image to determine tooth shade and assess bleaching outcomes. Dorodvand expressly recognizes monitoring changes in teeth appearance over time to track effectiveness of treatments including whitening products, and emphasizes repeatable imaging geometry and illumination via the mouthpiece seal/exclusion of ambient light. Bengel teaches that reliable bleaching outcome assessment requires standardized/repeatable images and uses an in-image neutral reference to eliminate color cast/normalize brightness and quantify tooth shade parameters for assessing bleaching outcomes. Combining these teachings merely applies a known image-standardization and color-quantification technique as taught by Bengel to Dorodvand’s known standardized intraoral image capture configuration to improve accuracy and repeatability of tooth shade measurement and whitening progress/outcome assessment, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand further teaches: wherein the adapter comprises a flange that is configured to couple the adapter to the subject's mouth (¶ [0039] “The mouthpiece may further comprise a rim 125 positioned around the perimeter of the second opening 122 of the mouthpiece. The rim 125 may comprise a tubular lip which frames the first opening and extends radially beyond the body of the mouthpiece. The rim 125 may take any other shape which preferably aids in allowing the user to hold the mouthpiece in a constant position with their lips positioned around the rim and may also be easy identifiable during the image processing steps to select the area of interest.”; ¶ [0040] “The rim is configured to be received by the user's mouth, such that the user's lips are placed around the rim 125 which rests against the user's gums.”)).
Regarding claim 3:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand further teaches: wherein the adapter is configured to block environment light from the field of view of the intraoral region of the subject's mouth (¶ [0042] “…the lighting of the oral image may also be kept constant between different images, since the mouthpiece 120 excludes any ambient light from the surroundings meaning the lighting of the image is solely provided by the constant output of the flash. In other words, the second opening of the mouthpiece may be shaped so as to form a seal against the user and the first opening may form a seal around the camera and flash. In this way, no ambient light may reach the imaged area, other than that from the camera flash such that the lighting conditions remain constant.”).
Regarding claim 4:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand further teaches: wherein the adapter is configured to couple to a camera configured to capture images or videos of the subject's mouth, wherein the captured images or videos comprise the one or more teeth of the subject (¶ [0018] “…a mouthpiece attachment comprising a hollow tubular body with opposing first and second open ends, wherein the first open end is configured to be held in the mouth of a user and the second open end is configured to attach to the image capture device such that, in use, the image capture device images the user's mouth through the tubular body from a fixed position relative to the user's mouth… receive mouth image data from the image capture device; identify an area of analysis within the image data corresponding to the teeth and gums”; ¶ [0033] “…The image capture device 110 can be a specialist component provided for use with the system or can be a conventional image capture device such as a conventional digital camera, webcam, video camera or smart phone camera. The image data captured can be a single static digital image, an image sequence or a video.”).
Regarding claim 12:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand further teaches: wherein a processing unit is used to identify the color or shade of the one or more teeth, and wherein a mobile device comprises the processing unit (¶ [0018] “…a processing unit; wherein the processing unit is configured to: receive mouth image data from the image capture device; identify an area of analysis within the image data corresponding to the teeth and gums; extract a set of image property features from the area of analysis of the image data; pass the image property features through a condition classifier, the condition classifier configured to compare the values of the extracted image property features against pre-set parameters to identify sub-areas of the area of analysis which are indicative of oral health conditions”; ¶ [0030] “…The oral health conditions which may be identified with the system according to the present invention include one or more of: plaque levels (both new plaque or “biofilm” or old plaque known tartar), gingivitis, tooth decay (caries), periodontal disease, receding gums, teeth alignment, enamel wear and tooth discolouration.”).
Regarding claim 13:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 4 as applied above.
Dorodvand further teaches: wherein identifying the color or shade of the one or more teeth comprises using the reference color or shade of the one or more color samples to identify the color of the one or more teeth in the captured videos or images (¶ [0011] “…the digital photographs are taken under standardized conditions, including light condition, photographic equipment technology and settings of the photographic equipment to produce repeatable images. Although the resulting digital photographs minimize the color cast in the image, to further eliminate color cast and to adjust image brightness, a neutral reference point, such as a piece of gray card, is provided within the digital image”).
Regarding claim 18:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 4 as applied above.
Bengel further teaches: wherein the color or shade of the one or more teeth is the color or shade of the one or more teeth prior to the subject undergoing the tooth whitening treatment (¶ [0097] “With regard to tooth-bleaching procedures, the important values for assessment are L, the whiteness of a tooth, b, the yellowness, and a, the redness. After tooth bleaching major changes of the L and b values can be found, whereas the a values show only minor differences. The .DELTA.b score (the difference in yellowness before and after bleaching) has the most perceptual relevance”).
Regarding claim 20: the claim limitations are similar to those of claim 1; therefore, rejected in the same manner as applied above.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039) and Dillon (US 20190046304).
Regarding claim 5:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein the adapter is configured to be moved in the subject's mouth to adjust the field of view of the intraoral region of the subject's mouth.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dillon teaches: wherein the adapter is configured to be moved in the subject's mouth to adjust the field of view of the intraoral region of the subject's mouth (¶ [0052] “FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram 200 that shows scanning of a dental arch, in accordance with certain embodiments. An exemplary occlusal scan 202 that is generated by gliding the wand 108 over the occlusal surface of a dental arch 118, 120 of the patient is shown.”; ¶ [0061] “At block 406, a plurality of labial scan segments are generated by moving the wand 108 in a hook shaped pattern (or some other exemplary pattern) to periodically image a portion of the occlusal surface while imaging the labial surface. For example, the wand 108 is moved to image the occlusal surface of a first tooth (e.g., the last, i.e., third molar at the end of a dental arch), and moved down the side surface of the first tooth towards the labial side and then along the side surface of the first tooth, second tooth, and third tooth to image a portion of the labial surface”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel to include Dillon’s teaching of moving an intraoral imaging implement within the oral cavity into Dorodvand’s mouthpiece-based imaging approach to enable capture of additional intraoral regions/surfaces by repositioning, rather than being limited to a single constant view. Dillon expressly teaches that intraoral imaging is performed by holding the wand in the oral cavity and moving/gliding it to acquire scans of different surfaces. Such a modification is a predictable use of a known technique (moving an intraoral imager to capture different regions) to improve the capability of Dorodvand’s system by allowing the user to adjust what is in view when needed, while still permitting stable positioning during capture if desired.
Claim(s) 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039) and Hobo (US 6328563).
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein the one or more color samples are based on a color quantification scheme (claim 6); wherein the color quantification scheme is the Munsell color system (claim 7).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hobo teaches: wherein the one or more color samples are based on a color quantification scheme; wherein the color quantification scheme is the Munsell color system (col. 3, lines 3-6; “the method of deciding the color in terms of Value, Chroma, and Hue by means of comparing the color samples visually with the object, is a classical one known together with the name of the Munsell system.”; col. 5, lines 24-29 “there is provided a dental shade system, in which many color samples (shades) are arranged equidistantly (with equal step) visually in color space in terms of three dimensional coordinates of Value, Chroma, and Hue, wherein, many different color samples are placed separately on one or plural narrow triangular pillars”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel to include a well-known dental color quantification scheme such as the Munsell system (Value/Chroma/Hue) taught by Hobo, because doing so provides an established, structured framework for defining dental shade samples and improves repeatability/communication of tooth shade determinations, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 9:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Hobo further teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more color samples is a color of a natural tooth (col. 3, lines 27-34 “…At the time of selecting the color sample which matches the natural tooth color, using the dental shade system 111 constituted as described above, the following procedure is recommended. In the first step, select the color sample which matches the natural tooth color in Value, from among the color samples having 5 steps in Value which are arranged on the front line 115 and having weak Chroma (1) and medium Hue (M).”).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039) and Fink (US 20180080828).
Regarding claim 8:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the one or more color samples is chosen from a color in a ColorChecker calibration target.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fink teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more color samples is chosen from a color in a ColorChecker calibration target (¶ [0017] “…a standard color reference having a plurality of patches of a predetermined size, location and color may be used. Such a color reference is for example available under the designation Color Checker Pico from Edmund Optics, Germany. Such a standard color reference may for example exhibit twelve grayscale patches and sixteen color patches”; ¶ [0060] “…The color reference in the example has thirty square shaped color samples in a matrix of five rows and six columns, each sample having a unique predetermined color. A controller of the device 1 stores the nominal colors and locations of the colors associated with the color reference 20.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel to include using at least one color sample selected from a ColorChecker calibration target as taught by Fink, because ColorChecker targets provide standardized, predetermined color patches for camera/image calibration and color measurement, yielding predictable improvements in robustness/accuracy of tooth shade determination relative to a single neutral reference (e.g., gray card).
Regarding claim 15:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein a property of the one or more properties comprises an opacity of the one or more teeth.
However, Fink teaches: wherein a property of the one or more properties comprises an opacity of the one or more teeth (¶ [0002] “…The appearance of natural teeth is on the one hand provided by color shades, and further by a certain translucency”; ¶ [0003] “…there are electronic devices for measuring a color and/or a translucency of a tooth”).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039), Hobo (US 6328563) and Elbert (US 20040023184).
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein at least one of the one or more color samples is a shade of a natural tooth under light at a wavelength of 390 nm to 450 nm (claim 10); under fluorescent light (claim 11)
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hobo teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more color samples is a shade of a natural tooth (col. 14, lines 55-64; “the color sample which matches the natural tooth color is selected … bringing the first face 11 having weak Chroma (C1) to the patient's natural teeth (maxillary anterior teeth) to be compared… then selecting the color sample which matches the natural tooth color in Value among Values of 5 steps (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5) arranged in order of Value”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel to include a well-known dental color quantification scheme such as the Munsell system (Value/Chroma/Hue) to select color samples that is a shade of a natural tooth taught by Hobo, because doing so provides an established, structured framework for defining dental shade samples and improves repeatability/communication of tooth shade determinations, yielding predictable results
Dorodvand in view of Bengel and Hobo does not specifically teach under light at a wavelength of 390 nm to 450 nm.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Elbert teaches: under light at a wavelength of 390 nm to 450 nm (¶ [0008] “…the light emitting diode is adapted to emit light having a peak intensity in the wavelength range of about 390 nm to about 500 nm”; ¶ [0010] “…illuminating the tooth surfaces with light from a light emitting diode having a peak intensity in the wavelength range of about 390 nm to about 500 nm, wherein the illuminating is effective to cause visually detectable differential fluorescence emissions from normal tooth surfaces and abnormal tooth surfaces”);
under fluorescent light (¶ [0008] “…the light emitting diode is adapted to emit light having a peak intensity in the wavelength range of about 390 nm to about 500 nm”; ¶ [0010] “…illuminating the tooth surfaces with light from a light emitting diode having a peak intensity in the wavelength range of about 390 nm to about 500 nm, wherein the illuminating is effective to cause visually detectable differential fluorescence emissions from normal tooth surfaces and abnormal tooth surfaces”);)
Elbert teaches that 390–450 nm intraoral illumination is advantageous for tooth-surface inspection by enabling direct visualization of fluorescence-related phenomena. Hobo teaches using natural-tooth shade samples for matching a patient’s natural tooth color. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel and Hobo to use a fluorescent light source at a wavelength of 390 nm to 450 nm as taught by Elbert. The motivation to employ Elbert’s known 390–450 nm illumination condition when utilizing/defining the shade reference samples of Hobo lies in the fact that controlling illumination is a known way to standardize observed appearance; applying a known illumination technique to an existing shade-sample comparison process is a predictable variation that yields the expected benefit of consistent shade interpretation under that illumination.
Regarding claim 17:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein a property of the one or more properties comprises a classification of the tooth as natural or artificial.
However, Elbert further teaches: wherein a property of the one or more properties comprises a classification of the tooth as natural or artificial (¶ [0035] “…the discovery that when more energetic (shorter wavelength) blue light is utilized, metabolic products of bacteria that typically reside in plaque, tarter, gingiva (pockets), dental tissue (lesions, cavities, cracks) and unpolished restorative materials (leaks around fillings, unpolished restorative surfaces, and cracks in restorative materials), will be cause to emit visually detectable red to orange fluorescence (about 500 to about 700 nm)”).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039), Katsumata (US 20070140539).
Regarding claim 14:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein a property of the one or more visual properties comprises a reflection of light from the one or more teeth
However, in the same field of endeavor, Katsumata teaches: wherein a property of the one or more visual properties comprises a reflection of light from the one or more teeth (¶ [0099] “…In the chroma calculating unit 70, first, spectrum (in this embodiment, a spectral reflectance curve) estimation processing and so forth are carried out by the spectrum-estimation computing unit 71.”; ¶ [0110] “…In this spectrum (spectral reflectance) estimation processing, in the wavelength band from 380 nm to 780 nm, estimation of the spectral reflectance is performed in 1-nm intervals. That is, in this embodiment, 401-dimension spectral reflectance data is estimated.”; ¶ [0118] “An example of the reflectance spectrum of the tooth (number of samples, n=2) is shown in FIG. 9, and an example of the reflectance spectrum of the gum (number of samples, n=5) is shown in FIG. 10.”).
Katsumata teaches that spectral reflectance of a tooth can be estimated from oral-cavity image data and used in dental colorimetry/shade determination workflows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel to include/derive a reflection/reflectance-based tooth property in the Dorodvand in view Bengel’s system because reflectance is a known visual/optical characteristic of teeth that predictably affects (and informs) color/shade determination and monitoring, and incorporating a known, computable optical property into an image-based tooth analysis pipeline is a predictable variation.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039), Maev (US 20100227295).
Regarding claim 16:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein a property of the one or more properties comprises a thickness of the dentin of the one or more teeth
However, in the same field of endeavor, Maev teaches: wherein a property of the one or more properties comprises a thickness of the dentin of the one or more teeth (¶ [0008] “…the computer can calculate such parameters as thicknesses of the internal tooth layers, including enamel, dentin, and cementum, or distances to the interfaces between said internal layers from any point of interest on the tooth surface.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel to additionally use dentin thickness as one of the “one or more properties” because Maev teaches that internal structural measurements including dentin thickness and distances to enamel/dentin and dentin/pulp interfaces; which, provides useful quantitative information about the tooth and can be calculated by a computerized dental assessment system. Incorporating Maev’s taught dentin thickness measurement as an additional tooth “property” is a predictable use of prior art elements, yielding no more than expected results and representing a routine optimization of available tooth attributes for analysis.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorodvand (US 20190167115) in view of Bangel (US 20050196039) and Whaite (US 20040136002).
Regarding claim 19:
Dorodvand in view of Bengel teaches the limitations of claim 1 as applied above.
Dorodvand in view of Bengel does not specifically teach wherein the predicted outcome comprises a predicted color or shade of the one or more teeth subsequent to the tooth whitening regimen
However, in the same field of endeavor, Whaite teaches: wherein the predicted outcome comprises a predicted color or shade of the one or more teeth subsequent to the tooth whitening regimen (¶ [0091] “(3) an image of the patient's tooth (and its corresponding shade map) as predicted, for example, by a MAT system after a tooth whitening procedure. This information is derived from the knowledge management aspects of the MAT system”; ¶ [0093] “(4) optionally presenting a series of images as described above predicting the progress of the whitening procedure at each scheduled appointment, thus allowing patients to see the projected progression of the treatment.”; ¶ [0098] “…selects a type of tooth whitening treatment 46 and inputs this information into a database 48 of treatments that uses a processor to predict the shade of patient's teeth after the whitening treatment. This information is then displayed 14 in display box 4”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dorodvand in view of Bengel by including the predicted outcome comprises a predicted color or shade of the one or more teeth subsequent to the tooth whitening regimen as taught by Whaite in order to allow patients to see the projected progression of the treatment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665