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 .
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application in paragraphs 0047 and 0055. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 17, claim 1 line 23, claim 1 line 29 and claim 1 line 36 to “mechanically swivel”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 50 to “the fifth camera”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 line 75 to “the fifth camera”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
Swiveling-and-pivoting unit in claim 1 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to mechanical swivel and pivot” and “to dynamically swivel and pivot”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Progress Bar Generator Unit in claim 1 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. In light of the Specification, Examiner will interpret the limitation “Progress Bar Generator Unit” as referring to a hardware processor and memory unit (Specification para. 0035).
Progress Updating Unit in claim 1 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to command”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Speech-to-text converter unit in claim 2 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to convert”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
X-ray Shield Placement Detector in claim 4 which uses the generic placeholder “detector”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine” and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Rinse and Spit Detector in claim 5 which uses the generic placeholder “detector”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine” and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Numbing Injection Detector in claim 6 which uses the generic placeholder “detector”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine” and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Dental Material Preparation Detector in claim 10 which uses the generic placeholder “detector”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine” and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Dental Tool Preparation Detector in claim 11 which uses the generic placeholder “detector”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine” and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Active Dental Treatment Recognition Unit in claim 13 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine” and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Back-region vibrating massager Activator/Deactivator Unit in claim 13 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to deactivate” and “to activate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Audio Playback Activator/Deactivator Unit in claim 15 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to automatically activate” and “to automatically deactivate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
Patient-is-Alone Detector Unit in claim 15 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to perform”, “to determine”, and “to generate”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
Stow-Away and Extension Unit in claim 16 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to switch” and “to trigger”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
Chamber Opening Unit in claim 18 which uses the generic placeholder “unit”, is modified by functional language “to selectively open”, and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
X-ray Shield Placement Detector in claim 4, as the specification paragraph 0041 and 0100 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that an X-ray protective blanket was placed onto the dental treatment patient and how a signal is generated.
Rinse and Spit Detector in claim 5, as the specification paragraph 0043 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that a dental patient performed a rinse and spit procedure and how a signal is generated.
Numbing Injection Detector in claim 6, as the specification paragraph 0044 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that the dental patient is currently receiving a numbing injection and how a signal is generated.
Dental Material Preparation Detector in claim 10, as the specification paragraph 0048 and 0100 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that that a dental material is being prepared towards insertion into a mouth of the dental patient and how a signal is generated.
Dental Tool Preparation Detector in claim 11, as the specification paragraph 0049 and 0100 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that a particular dental tool is being prepared towards utilization on said dental patient and how a signal is generated.
Active Dental Treatment Recognition Unit in claim 13, as the specification paragraph 0051 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that the dentist or the assistant or both are currently touching a face or a body of the dental treatment patient and how a signal is generated.
Patient-is-Alone Detector Unit in claim 15, as the specification paragraph 0055 does not describe how the computerized vision analysis determines that both the dentist and the assistant are not within field-of-view of any of the cameras and how a signal is generated.
Claims 7-9, 12, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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 lines 79 recites the limitation “based on said computerized vision analysis of (H6)”. This limitation is unclear as the limitation (H6) does not appear to exist in either claim 1 or in claim 4, though the limitation (H) exists. In light of (D6) of claim 1 line 76 being directed to computerized vision analysis, for purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 1 line 79 as “based on said computerized vision analysis of (D6)” and suggests amending to clarify.
Claims 14 and 15 contain the trademark/trade name Bluetooth®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a wireless transceiver and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Swiveling-and-pivoting unit in claim 1, as in paragraphs 0026-0031, 00103, and 00134, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to swivel and pivot the cameras is described.
Progress Updating Unit in claim 1, as in paragraph 0036, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to command is described.
Speech-to-text converter unit in claim 2, as in paragraphs 0020, 0038, 00102, and 00133, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to convert audio to a text is described.
X-ray Shield Placement Detector in claim 4, as in paragraph 0041 and 0100, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Rinse and Spit Detector in claim 5, as in paragraph 0043, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Numbing Injection Detector in claim 6, as in paragraph 0044, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Dental Material Preparation Detector in claim 10, as in paragraph 0048 and 0100, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Dental Tool Preparation Detector in claim 11, as in paragraph 0049 and 0100, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Active Dental Treatment Recognition Unit in claim 13, as in paragraph 0051, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Back-region vibrating massager Activator/Deactivator Unit in claim 13, as in paragraph 0052, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to deactivate or activate is described.
Audio Playback Activator/Deactivator Unit in claim 15, as in paragraph 0055, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to deactivate or activate is described.
Patient-is-Alone Detector Unit in claim 15, as in paragraph 0055, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to perform analysis, determine, or generate is described.
Stow-Away and Extension Unit in claim 16, as in paragraph 0056, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to switch or trigger is described.
Chamber Opening Unit in claim 18, as in paragraph 0058, no corresponding structure, material, or acts to open is described.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3, 7-9, 12, 14, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please see attached PTOL-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772