DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected, claim 4 and 7 is/are objected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-9 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “a detector configured to detect each of the light having the first polarization direction and the light having the second polarization direction separated by the polarization separation unit; and an anisotropy acquisition unit configured to obtain polarization anisotropy of the Raman-scattered light from a detection signal of each of the light having the first polarization direction and the light having the second polarization direction from the detector” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of teeth detection, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
V. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-9 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): the claim limitations uses the term “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; the term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the term “means” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function. Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (Alex C.-T. Ko, Lin-P’ing Choo-Smith, Mark Hewko, Michael G. Sowa, Cecilia C.S. Dong, and Blaine Cleghorn, "Detection of early dental caries using polarized Raman spectroscopy," Opt. Express 14, 203-215 (2006)) in view of Hashimoto (US 20060238745).
Regarding claim 1:
Ko discloses a dental caries detection device comprising:
a light source configured to emit light having a first polarization direction (see figure 1, laser is read as the light source);
a polarization separation unit configured to separate the light having the first polarization direction (see figure 1, LP is read as the first polarizer) and other light having a second polarization direction in Raman-scattered light from a tooth of a subject irradiated with the light having the first polarization direction (see figure 1, PA light from the tooth of a subject irradiated with light);
PNG
media_image1.png
487
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
an anisotropy acquisition unit configured to obtain polarization anisotropy of the Raman-scattered light from a detection signal of each of the light having the first polarization direction and the light having the second polarization direction from the detector (see equations 1 and 2, the spectrograph is read as the anisotropy acquisition unit which obtains polarization anisotropy of the Raman-scattered light, red dashed lines).
PNG
media_image2.png
228
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Ko is silent in disclosing a detector configured to detect each of the light having the first polarization direction and the light having the second polarization direction separated by the polarization separation unit.
Hashimoto discloses a detector configured to detect each of the light having the first polarization direction and the light having the second polarization direction separated by the polarization separation unit (see figure 5 illustration below, where 36b separates the structured light to polarizers 7a and 7a):
PNG
media_image3.png
262
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to eliminate signal fading, enhance signal quality and consistency, and extract information encoded in the light's polarization state. Also separately detecting two orthogonal polarizations ensures that at least one detector always receives a strong signal, thereby providing reliable measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, wherein the polarization separation unit is an optical element that separates traveling directions of the light having the first polarization direction and the light having the second polarization direction into different directions (see figure 5 illustration above, where structure sent to 9a and 9b travels into different directions). See the motivation for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Ko discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, wherein the polarization separation unit is a photoelastic modulator that rotates a polarization plane (see figure 2, HWP rotates the polarizer PA, see illustration below):
PNG
media_image4.png
304
668
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Ko discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, further comprising a bandpass filter configured to transmit light having a specific wavelength in the Raman-scattered light (see figure 3 descriptions):
PNG
media_image5.png
106
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 6, Ko discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, further comprising a screening unit configured to detect a suspected carious part in the tooth (see Introduction, intended to detect cavities):
PNG
media_image6.png
127
788
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
3. Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (Alex C.-T. Ko, Lin-P’ing Choo-Smith, Mark Hewko, Michael G. Sowa, Cecilia C.S. Dong, and Blaine Cleghorn, "Detection of early dental caries using polarized Raman spectroscopy," Opt. Express 14, 203-215 (2006)) in view of Hashimoto (US 20060238745) and Yamagishi (US 20070105069).
Regarding claim 8, Ko and Hashimoto disclose all the limitations of claim 6 but is silent in disclosing the dental caries detection device according to claim 6, wherein the screening unit includes: a fluorescence light source configured to emit excitation light; and a fluorescence detector configured to detect fluorescence from the tooth irradiated with the excitation light.
Yamagishi discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 6, wherein the screening unit includes: a fluorescence light source configured to emit excitation light (see figure 2, 2 is read as the excitation light); and a fluorescence detector configured to detect fluorescence from the tooth irradiated with the excitation light (see figure 2, 3 is read as the fluorescence detector).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fluorescence light source where this light source is used in dentistry to aid in early and accurate detection of dental issues, primarily tooth decay and oral cancer, that might be missed by visual and X-ray examinations.
4. Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (Alex C.-T. Ko, Lin-P’ing Choo-Smith, Mark Hewko, Michael G. Sowa, Cecilia C.S. Dong, and Blaine Cleghorn, "Detection of early dental caries using polarized Raman spectroscopy," Opt. Express 14, 203-215 (2006)) in view of Hashimoto (US 20060238745) and Atiya (US 20180235738).
Regarding claim 9, Ko and Hashimoto disclose all the limitation of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, further comprising an intraoral 3D scanning device configured to form a three-dimensional image of an inside of an oral cavity of the subject. Atiya discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, further comprising an intraoral 3D scanning device configured to form a three-dimensional image of an inside of an oral cavity of the subject (see paragraph 47, data representative of the three-dimensional topography of the external surfaces of the teeth is obtained, a resulting three-dimensional representation can be displayed on a display 84 and manipulated for viewing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Intraoral 3D scanners create 3D images of the mouth in order to replace uncomfortable teeth impressions offering dentists good diagnostic accuracy, faster treatment planning, e.g. for crowns, aligners, implants, improving patient well-being.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are 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.
With regards to claim 4, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): intraoral insertion portion including at least a part of a detection optical system from the light source to the detector and configured to be insertable into an oral cavity of the subject, wherein the detection optical system further includes a shake-compensation mechanism; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
Atiya (US 20180235738) discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 1, further comprising an intraoral insertion portion including at least a part of a detection optical system from the light source to the detector and configured to be insertable into an oral cavity of the subject (see paragraph 34, generating illuminated spots on the structure using a light focusing assembly to receive and focus each of a plurality of light beams to a respective external focal point external to a probe sized to be inserted into an intraoral cavity of a patient), but is silent in disclosing a detection optical system further includes a shake-compensation mechanism.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the dental caries detection device according to claim 6, wherein the screening unit includes: a screening polarization optical element configured to block the light having the first polarization direction and transmits the light having the second polarization direction in reflected light from the tooth irradiated with the light having the first polarization direction; and a screening detector configured to detect the light transmitted through the screening polarization optical element; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
Ko discloses the dental caries detection device according to claim 6, wherein the screening unit includes: a screening polarization optical element configured to block the light having the first polarization direction and transmits the light having the second polarization with the light having the first polarization
PNG
media_image7.png
381
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 12/31/25