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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-15, after preliminary amendment, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2024, 8/6/2025, 2/3/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 recites a computer program and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a program that encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 8-9 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 5 recites: “The method of claim 1 where the pixel shift is proportional to the distance, d, between the vibratory portion and an image plane of the camera.“ in which “the distance” is lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites similar limitation and is rejected with the same reason.
Claim 9 recites: The method of any preceding claim 1 wherein calculating the pixel shift for the at least one region is further based on the angle of rotation of the vibration, θrot “ in which the angle of the vibration is lack of antecedent basis.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,980,410 B1, Hu et al. (hereinafter Hu) in view of US 2019/0364210 A1, Jefremov et al. (hereinafter Jefremov).
As to claim 1, Hu discloses a method of processing captured images from a personal care device (Fig 1), wherein the personal care device comprises:
a motor adapted to vibrate the personal care device so that, in use, a vibratory portion of the personal care device vibrates (Abstract; Fig 1, a toothbrush caring teeth with vibration; Fig 6; col 3, lines 23-34; 48-60, a motor to generate vibration for teeth cleaning); and a camera adapted, in use, to capture an image of one or more features of a user, the captured image being influenced by vibration of the personal care device (Abstract; Fig 6; col 1, lines 52-62; lines col 2, lines 1-9; 48-55, a camera being mounted near the distal end of the support head monitoring cleaning of cleaning and surface status), and wherein the method comprises:
mapping at least one region of the captured image to a position of the vibratory portion (col 1, lines 13-17, 34-44, aligning the image with bristles or other cleaning elements) to), the position describing at least one of: a location of the vibratory portion; and an orientation of the vibratory portion (col 2, lines 48-55; col 2, line 66- col 3, line 3; col 3. lines 23-34, a camera is co-located with the bristles of the tooth brush to oniter clearnin performance).
Hu does not expressly disclose calculating a pixel shift for the at least one region based on the position of the vibratory portion; and shifting pixel data of the captured image based on the calculated pixel shift for the at least one region to generate a corrected image.
Jefremov, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches calculating a pixel shift for the at least one region based on the position of the vibratory portion (Fig 2; pars 0014, 0018, pixel displacement or shift being determined);
shifting pixel data of the captured image based on the calculated pixel shift for the at least one region to generate a corrected image (Fig 2; pars 0003, 0006-0007, 0014, 0018, 0020, 0050, 0054, the video/image being stabilized/corrected by shifting/adjusting pixel displacement).
Therefore, consider Hu and Jefremov’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Jefremov’s teachings in Hu’s method to provide more accurate or stable images for teeth cleaning performance and effectiveness.
As to claim 2, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the image comprises a plurality of different regions (Hu: Fig 7; col 7, lines 45-54, video/image being analyzed to determine areas that have not been cleaned yet or not adequately cleaned, indicating more than one areas (regions) of the teeth being brushed (e.g. areas where the vibration occurs)), and wherein mapping comprises mapping each of the plurality of regions of the captured image to a respective position of the vibratory portion (Hu: Fig 7; col 7, lines 45-54).
As to claim 3, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 2 wherein calculating comprises, for each of the plurality of regions, calculating the pixel shift based on the respective position of the vibratory portion mapped to the region (Hu: Fig 7; col 7, lines 45-54; Jefremov: pars 0008, 0014, 0018, determining and mapping camera displacement to pixel displacement/shifting in relevant positions/regions).
As to claim 4, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 1 wherein shifting comprises, for each of the at least one region of the captured image, shifting the pixel data in the region of the captured image by the calculated pixel shift for the region to generate a corrected image (Fig 2; pars 0008, 0014, 0018-0020, 0024-0025, 0028, shifting an image in accordance with the pixel displacement (e.g. shifting) to stabilize the video/image data).
As to claim 5, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 1 where the pixel shift is proportional to the distance, d, between the vibratory portion and an image plane of the camera (Jefremov: pars 0051, 0071, the pixel displacement/shift depending on the distance to the object in the image).
As to claim 6, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the position of the vibratory portion from a central axis is an angle θvib (Hu: col 3, lines 23-45; Jefremov: Fig 2; pars 0008-0010, 0040, 0045), and wherein the pixel shift is calculated based on both the distance d and the angle θvib (Jefremov: pars 0008-0010, 0040, 0044-0045, 0051, 0063-0066, 0071, the position being calculated with distance and angular displacement), and preferably by d x tanθvib as the pixel shift distance.
As to claim 7, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising defining in the captured image a region of minimal pixel shift (Jefremov: par 0055, within a range of pixel shift).
As to claim 8, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 7 wherein calculating the pixel shift for the at least one region is further based on the distance of the at least one region from the region of minimal pixel shift (Jefremov: par 0055).
As to claim 9, Hu as modified discloses the method of any preceding claim 1 wherein calculating the pixel shift for the at least one region is further based on the angle of rotation of the vibration, θrot (Jefremov: pars 0009, 0039, 0051, 0071).
As to claim 10, Hu as modified discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising the step of converting the calculated pixel shift from the rotational co-ordinate system to the cartesian system of the camera image (Jefremov: pars 0008-0009, 0039, 0051, 0071, for rotational displacement with rotational motion sensor, it would be natural to utilize a rotational coordinate system for measurement and estimation of pixel shift/displacement. However, either utilizing a rotational or cartesian system is a choice of representation).
As to claim 11, Hu as modified discloses the method of any preceding claim 1 wherein mapping a region of the captured image to a position of the vibratory portion comprises determining the position of the vibratory portion at the time the image of the respective region was captured (Jefremov: Figs 3-4; pars 0008, 0026, 0038, 0040-0042, 0045-0048, 0051, 0064).
As to claim 12, Hu as modified discloses the method according to claim 1 but does not expressly teach the pixel shift for each region being wherein calculated based on the pixel density of the captured image. However, an ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pixel shift is inversely proportional to the pixel density. Therefore, consider Hu as modified’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pixel density to calculate or estimate the pixel shift should the pixel density is available or known.
As to claim 13, it recites a computer program executed to perform functions and features of claim 12. Rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 14, it is a device claim encompassed claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 15, Hu as modified discloses a personal care device according to claim 14 wherein the camera is located on the vibratory portion (Hu: Figs 1, 6; col 2, 1-9; col 46-51).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights