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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-7 & 9-10 are pending and rejected.
Claim 8 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is no longer invoked.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Claims 1-7 & 9-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments to the claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Claims 1-7 & 9-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of Claims 1-7 & 9-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites the limitation “the imagesensor” on Lines 6-7. This is a typographical error. Appropriate correction required.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites the limitation “Generating, by a camera [emphasis added]” on Line 2. Applicant is reminded that a claim must only have a single capital letter at the start of the claim and a single period at the end (see MPEP § 608.01(m)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation “a camera” on Line 2. It is unclear whether this “camera” is the same as the “intraoral camera” previously recited on Line 1 of Claim 1 or a separate, different camera. For the purpose of examination, “a camera” is being interpreted as “an image sensor”.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 recites the limitation “a dentition of the user” on Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this “dentition of the user” is the same as the “dentition of the user” previously recited on Line 8 of Claim 1 or a separate, different dentition. For the purpose of examination, “a dentition of the user” is being interpreted as “the dentition of the user”.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “a plurality of areas” on Lines 3-4. It is unclear whether these “plurality of areas” are the same as the “plurality of areas” previously recited on Line 7 of Claim 1, or separate, different plurality of areas. For the purpose of examination, “a plurality of areas” is being interpreted as “the plurality of areas”.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 recites the limitation “a dentition of the user” on Line 4. It is unclear whether this “dentition of the user” is the same as the “dentition of the user” previously recited on Line 8 of Claim 1 or a separate, different dentition. For the purpose of examination, “a dentition of the user” is being interpreted as “the dentition of the user”.
Regarding Claims 2-4 & 7, Claims 2-4 & 7 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-2, 7 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbaum et al. (hereinafter "Elbaum") (U.S. 6,201,880) in view of Ikeda (US 2009/0324072).
Regarding Claim 1, Elbaum discloses an intraoral camera (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5, Lines 52-55) comprising:
a camera (Fig. 2, 88; Col. 9, Lines 3-5) that generates image data (Col. 12, Lines 15-27) by capturing an image (Col. 11, Lines 4-7) of a tooth (Fig. 1, 18; Col. 5, Lines 60-62) inside a mouth of a user (Col. 6, Lines 1-15);
an illuminator (Fig. 1, 11; Col. 5, Lines 57-59) that illuminates the tooth (Col. 5, Lines 57-59); and
a processor (Fig. 1, a processor of 26; Col. 6, Lines 25-31) configured to perform operations (Col. 11, Lines 41-54) comprising:
defining, based on the image data, a glossy area (Fig. 14, at 102, the image is analyzed for saturated pixels; Col. 11, Lines 50-55) of a plurality of areas inside the mouth (see Fig. 11), the glossy area being strongly affected by light emitted from the illuminator (Col. 11, Lines 55-67); and
controlling, at least one of an illumination intensity (Fig. 14, at 104, the intensity of 11 is reduced; Col. 11, Lines 60-67) or a color temperature of the illuminator to bring a first color temperature of reflected light from the tooth closer to a target color temperature based on a second color temperature of the illuminator, the first color temperature being a color temperature of the glossy area.
Elbaum fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of areas inside the mouth are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections.
However, Ikeda teaches an intraoral camera system ([0034]) comprising:
a camera (Fig. 3, 1; [0035]) that generates image data by capturing an image of a tooth inside a mouth of a user ([0037]);
an illuminator ([0036]) that illuminates the tooth ([0036]); and
a processor (Fig. 1, 2; [0042]) configured to perform operations comprising:
defining, based on the image data, an area (Fig. 4, a first area; [0046] & [0053]) among a plurality of areas (a plurality of areas; [0046]) inside the mouth which are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections ([0068], [0071] & see Fig. 4).
The advantage of defining the plurality of areas by dividing the dentition of the user into sections is to better identify subtle color differences between areas that would be unrecognized if the dentition was analyzed as a whole (Ikeda; [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of areas as disclosed by Elbaum, to be defined by dividing the dentition of the user into sections as taught by Ikeda, to better identify subtle color differences between areas that would be unrecognized if the dentition was analyzed as a whole (Ikeda; [0013]).
Regarding Claim 2, Elbaum, as previously modified by Ikeda, teaches the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Elbaum further discloses wherein the controlling the at least one of the illumination intensity or the color temperature of the illuminator comprises controlling the at least one of the illumination intensity (Fig. 14, at 104, the intensity of 11 is reduced; Col. 11, Lines 60-67) or the color temperature of the illuminator to bring the first color temperature within a predetermined range including the target color temperature.
Regarding Claim 7, Elbaum, as previously modified by Ikeda, teaches the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Elbaum further discloses wherein the target color temperature is set according to a color temperature of a tooth in an image captured first after the intraoral camera is put inside the mouth, and
the illumination controller controls the at least one of the illumination intensity (Fig. 14, at 104, the intensity of 11 is reduced; Col. 11, Lines 60-67) or the color temperature of the illuminator to bring the first color temperature across an entire intraoral area closer to the target color temperature set.
Regarding Claim 9, Elbaum discloses an illumination control device (Fig. 1, 26; Col. 6, Lines 16-19) that controls an illuminator (Fig. 1, 11; Col. 5, Lines 57-59) of an intraoral camera (Fig. 1, 10; Col. 5, Lines 52-55) including an image sensor (Fig. 2, 88; Col. 9, Lines 3-5) that generates image data (Col. 12, Lines 15-27) by capturing an image (Col. 11, Lines 4-7) of a tooth (Fig. 1, 18; Col. 5, Lines 60-62) inside a mouth of a user (Col. 6, Lines 1-15) and the illuminator that illuminates the tooth (Col. 5, Lines 57-59), the illumination control device comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1, a processor of 26; Col. 6, Lines 25-31) configured to perform operations (Col. 11, Lines 41-54) comprising:
obtaining the image data generated by the image sensor (Col. 11, Lines 4-7);
defining, based on the image data, a glossy area (Fig. 14, at 102, the image is analyzed for saturated pixels; Col. 11, Lines 50-55) among a plurality of areas inside the mouth (see Fig. 11), the glossy area being strongly affected by light emitted from the illuminator (Col. 11, Lines 55-67); and
controlling at least one of an illumination intensity (Fig. 14, at 104, the intensity of 11 is reduced; Col. 11, Lines 60-67) or a color temperature of the illuminator to bring a first color temperature of reflected light from the tooth closer to a target color temperature based on a second color temperature of the illuminator, the first color temperature being a color temperature of the glossy area.
Elbaum fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of areas inside the mouth are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections.
However, Ikeda teaches an intraoral camera system ([0034]) comprising:
a camera (Fig. 3, 1; [0035]) that generates image data by capturing an image of a tooth inside a mouth of a user ([0037]);
an illuminator ([0036]) that illuminates the tooth ([0036]); and
a processor (Fig. 1, 2; [0042]) configured to perform operations comprising:
defining, based on the image data, an area (Fig. 4, a first area; [0046] & [0053]) among a plurality of areas (a plurality of areas; [0046]) inside the mouth which are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections ([0068], [0071] & see Fig. 4).
The advantage of defining the plurality of areas by dividing the dentition of the user into sections is to better identify subtle color differences between areas that would be unrecognized if the dentition was analyzed as a whole (Ikeda; [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of areas as disclosed by Elbaum, to be defined by dividing the dentition of the user into sections as taught by Ikeda, to better identify subtle color differences between areas that would be unrecognized if the dentition was analyzed as a whole (Ikeda; [0013]).
Regarding Claim 10, Elbaum discloses an illumination control method (Col. 11, Lines 42-45) comprising:
generating (Fig. 14, at 100; Col. 11, Lines 46-50), by a camera (Fig. 2, 88; Col. 9, Lines 3-5), image data (Col. 12, Lines 15-27) by capturing an image (Col. 11, Lines 4-7) of a tooth (Fig. 1, 18; Col. 5, Lines 60-62) inside a mouth of a user (Col. 6, Lines 1-15);
illuminating the tooth (Col. 5, Lines 57-59);
defining, based on the image data, a glossy area (Fig. 14, at 102, the image is analyzed for saturated pixels; Col. 11, Lines 50-55) among a plurality of areas inside the mouth (see Fig. 11), the glossy area being strongly affected by light emitted from the illuminator (Col. 11, Lines 55-67); and
controlling at least one of an illumination intensity (Fig. 14, at 104, the intensity of 11 is reduced; Col. 11, Lines 60-67) or a color temperature of an illuminator to bring a first color temperature of reflected light from the tooth closer to a target color temperature based on a second color temperature of the illuminator, the first color temperature being a color temperature of the glossy area.
Elbaum fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of areas inside the mouth are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections.
However, Ikeda teaches an intraoral camera system ([0034]) comprising:
a camera (Fig. 3, 1; [0035]) that generates image data by capturing an image of a tooth inside a mouth of a user ([0037]);
an illuminator ([0036]) that illuminates the tooth ([0036]); and
a processor (Fig. 1, 2; [0042]) configured to perform operations comprising:
defining, based on the image data, an area (Fig. 4, a first area; [0046] & [0053]) among a plurality of areas (a plurality of areas; [0046]) inside the mouth which are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections ([0068], [0071] & see Fig. 4).
The advantage of defining the plurality of areas by dividing the dentition of the user into sections is to better identify subtle color differences between areas that would be unrecognized if the dentition was analyzed as a whole (Ikeda; [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of areas as disclosed by Elbaum, to be defined by dividing the dentition of the user into sections as taught by Ikeda, to better identify subtle color differences between areas that would be unrecognized if the dentition was analyzed as a whole (Ikeda; [0013]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elbaum et al. (hereinafter "Elbaum") (U.S. 6,201,880) in view of Ikeda (US 2009/0324072) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Im (US 2025/0285302).
Regarding Claims 3-6, Elbaum, as previously modified by Ikeda, teaches the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Elbaum, as previously modified by Ikeda, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operations further comprises: identifying, from first image data captured by the camera, a position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the camera, and controlling the at least one of the illumination intensity or the color temperature of the illuminator by further using a result of the identifying; wherein the identifying comprises identifying the position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the camera from the first image data and second image data that indicates typical shapes of teeth; a storage storing third image data that is pre-captured intraoral image data and includes a dentition of the user of the intraoral camera; identifying, from the first image data and the third image data, the position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the camera; a communicator that transmits, to the user of the intraoral camera, notification information notifying an area whose image is to be captured by the camera among a plurality of areas inside the mouth which are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections; and identifying that an image captured by the camera after the user is notified of the area indicated by the notification information is an image of the area.
However, Im teaches an intraoral camera (Fig. 1, 1010; [0056]) comprising:
a camera (Fig. 2, 1200; [0055]) that generates image data by capturing an image (Fig. 5, 500; [0098]) of a tooth inside a mouth of a user ([0045]);
an illuminator (Fig. 2, 1100; [0057]) that illuminates the tooth ([0068]); and
a processor (Fig. 2, 1400; [0066]) configured to perform operations comprising:
controlling, at least one of an illumination intensity or a color temperature of the illuminator (Fig. 2, a color of 1100; [0068]) to bring a first color temperature of reflected light from the tooth (Fig. 5, an initial color with an initial light distribution ratio of 510; [0099]) closer to a target color temperature based on a second color temperature of the illuminator (a changed color; [0071]), the first color temperature being based on the image data (Fig. 5, 510 is calculated from 500; [0099]);
wherein the operations further comprises:
identifying, from first image data captured by the camera, a position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the camera (Fig. 2, 1300 determines a tooth shape which, given that each of the 32 human teeth are uniquely shaped, identifies the position of the tooth; [0065]), and
controlling the at least one of the illumination intensity or the color temperature of the illuminator by further using a result of the identifying;
wherein the identifying comprises identifying the position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the camera from the first image data and second image data (a training data image; [0125]) that indicates typical shapes of teeth ([0125]);
a storage (Fig. 2, 1500; [0076]) storing third image data that is pre-captured intraoral image data and includes a dentition of the user of the intraoral camera (pre-acquired intraoral images; [0065]), wherein the operations further comprising identifying, from the first image data and the third image data, the position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the camera ([0065]); and
a communicator (Fig. 1, 1600; [0112]) that transmits, to the user of the intraoral camera, notification information notifying an area whose image is to be captured by the camera (Fig. 7, 700R; [0112]) among a plurality of areas inside the mouth which are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections ([0112]), wherein the operations further comprising identifying that an image captured by the camera after the user is notified of the area indicated by the notification information is an image of the area ([0114]).
The advantage of identifying the position and shape of the imaged tooth is to apply a predetermined color intensity specifically selected for the tooth type (Im; [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to someone with ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor as disclosed by Elbaum, as previously modified by Ikeda, to include identifying the position and shape of the imaged tooth as taught by Im, to apply a predetermined color intensity specifically selected for the tooth type (Im; [0119]).
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 STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON whose telephone number is (571)272-4478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 10:00 am ET - 6:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CAREY can be reached at (571)270-7235. 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.
/STEPHEN FLOYD LONDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
