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 Arguments
In view of the amendments, the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In view of the amendments, an updated search was conducted resulting in the modified rejection below.
Applicant states “an adjuvant fingerprint is derived from imaging the adjuvant …and it is used to classify/segment pixels by comparing each pixel’s spectral components against the stored signature and updating the signature as the adjuvant changes state over time (paste to slurry to foam)” (Page 2 of Remarks). The claim language however does not recite a specific algorithm with respect to how the periodic updating of the spectral signature is conducted where the updating of the spectral signature of the adjuvant is tied to the change of the composition of state of the adjuvant over time [0154-0158].
As per the specification:
“[0156] To store the continuously updated spectral fingerprint, a memory module is used to store and update the stored spectral fingerprint by modifying its data if required to do so.
[0157] A linear mixed model may be used to estimate the endmembers of the spectral fingerprint of the adjuvant in the acquired image pixels. In this case, only the pixels containing the adjuvant are monitored to detect changes in the spectral components of such pixels over time.
[0158] A threshold mechanism can be used to detect the changes in the spectral components of the adjuvant pixels. If the spectral components exceed a given threshold, the spectral fingerprint can be updated based on the new detected spectral components. In this respect, the spectral fingerprint is not continuously updated but the relevant spectral components are continuously monitored, and the spectral fingerprint is updated as and when required”.
It is suggested claim language provide specific language in the claims with respect to the steps of the “periodic updating” of the spectral signature and also incorporate the language from the Applicant Remarks (stated above) with respect to the change of the adjuvant over time from paste to slurry to foam and the updating of the spectral signature (fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6, 8, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuilkin et al. (WO 2015/195746) in view of Dehghani et al. (2022/0377217) with evidentiary support provided by Sowa et al. (2021/0075978).
With respect to claims 1, 6, 11, 14, and 15, McQuilkin et al. teach of a personal care system 10, method, and computer program (as set forth in [000450] with respect to a gel or sunscreen that comprises an imaging device 111 configured to obtain images of a region of interest 109 (fig. 1) such as the skin or face [000450-000456] and a processor configured to obtain spectral signature of an adjuvant or target substance 295 and non-target substances 294 [00164] on the region of interest wherein the adjuvant includes a gel or sunscreen or lotion [000112, 000450]. McQuilkin et al. teach of identifying spectral components in the images [00017] and segment the adjuvant form the images by comparing the spectral signature to the spectral components of the images where individual pixels or groups of pixels may be analyzed to determine if the pixels are associated with spectral responses matching the spectrum of the target substance and if a match is found, the target substance is detected and the location of the pixels in the image information helps to locate the target substance in the scene that was imaged [00017]. McQuilkin et al. teach of outputting segmented image where the output image is derived from spectrally filtered images that allows the sunscreen to be easily detected and located in the scene with the detected sunscreen area being highlighted (fig. 38A/B). McQuilkin et al. teach of segmenting the adjuvant such as the sunscreen from the image (from fig. 36A to fig. 36B) to show both uncoated skin and covered skin is (fig. 37) and using an image reconstruction algorithm to generate adjuvant-clean images (fig. 38C) by segmenting out the adjuvant or sunscreen [000450-000457]. McQuilkin et al. teach of determining if the spectral components of a pixel or group of pixels in an image is within a threshold difference to the spectral signature of the adjuvant and if they are, segment the pixel or group of pixels as the adjuvant where the displayed image may be processed to indicate the presence of the target substance above a threshold level [000145] and therefore teach of comparing the spectral components of a pixel or group of pixels in an image to a threshold percentage difference to the spectral signature of the adjuvant and then segmenting out the pixels tied to the adjuvant [000420]. The reference teaches of updating the spectral signature of the adjuvant when the spectral components differ relative to the threshold over time where the system 230 detects the differences in the spectral signatures of the substances 294 and 295 within the scene 293 and display an output image showing the location of the target substances 295 in different color [000164]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the reference therefore teaches outputting an image where the image pixels associated with the target substance are highlighted and segmenting out the adjuvant or sunscreen based on a comparison of spectral characteristics [000456].
McQuilkin et al. teach of the segmentation and processing to reconstruct image with the adjuvant or sunscreen segmented out but do not explicitly teach of the patching or stitching image techniques. In a related field of endeavor Dehghani et al. teach of image processing system and method with the use image reconstruction algorithm including stitching and real-time registration of a plurality of images [0261, 0262]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Dehghani et al. to modify McQuilkin et al. to combine multiple overlapping images to create higher resolution composite image and expand the field of view.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, McQuilkin et al. in view of Dehghani et al. teach of identifying spectral components by performing color clustering [000145, 000147].
With respect to claims 3, 8, and 13, McQuilkin et al. in view of Dehghani et al. teach of the use of hyperspectral imaging [00121-00123, fig. 3B].
With respect to claims 4 and 5, McQuilkin et al. in view of Dehghani et al. teach of using visible and/or NIR images [000114] and therefore may be configured to use combination of both or individually. It is well known in the art to use combination of visible and near-infrared images and providing co-registered color and near-infrared images as the basis for a multispectral or hyperspectral imaging (as evidenced by Sowa et al. (2021/0075978)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuilkin et al. in view of Dehghani et al. and further view of Banerjee et al. (2024/0016393). McQuilkin et al. teach of the use of the system and method in various applications such as image segmentation with respect to sunscreen do not teach of an oral care device. In a related field of endeavor Banerjee et al. teach of a system and method for detecting blood in oral cavity during toothbrushing by looking the spectral signature during toothbrushing [0091, 0094] and measure hemoglobin using only a few wavelengths of light in both visible and infrared regions during tooth brushing [0093]. Banerjee et al. teach of the oral care device to comprise a handle 111 and/or cleaning unit, wherein the region of interest is the oral cavity [0039, 0040]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Banerjee et al. to modify McQuilkin et al. to provide an oral care device such as a toothbrush to monitor changes, in the oral cavity as a result of brushing [Banerjee, 0002, 0003].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McQuilkin et al. in view of Dehghani et al. in view of Banerjee et al. and further in view of Sharma et al. (2019/0117078). Banerjee et al. teach of the toothbrush 100 to comprise a toothbrush head section 122 and bristles 123 but do not explicitly teach of the imaging device to obtain images in the direction of the bristles. In a similar field of endeavor Sharma et al. teach of an personal care system, comprising an imaging device 5100 configured to obtain images of a region of interest 5109 of an object [0172]. Sharma et al. teach of optical system and method for examination of teeth including hyper-spectral imaging and analyzing OCT images and generate “heat maps” which can be displayed and provide information on the tooth condition [0206]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Sharma et al. to modify Oe et al. and Banerjee et al. to detect various abnormalities with respect to the tooth surface [Sharma, 0006, 0008] and under broadest reasonable interpretation, provide information on the concentration of adjuvants such as toothbrush on the tooth surface (as a result of the Banerjee reference).
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 BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights