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 1-10 are pending and rejected.
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 is:
“an imaging unit that generates image data” in Claims 1 & 9, as described in Para. [0058] of Applicant’s specification.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements and/or steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. They represent components and/or activities which would routinely be used in applying the abstract idea. As such, they do not meaningfully limit the claims, taken as a whole, to a particular application of the abstract idea; rather, the claims would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
A review of the instant claims using the Alice two-part analysis is provided herein.
Step 1: The claims one of the four statutory categories, in this instant, a machine (Claims 1-9) and a process (Claim 10).
Step 2A:
Prong One: The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite methods of organizing human activity, specifically a list of instructions for an operator to follow (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The methods of organizing human activity is:
controlling at least one of an illumination intensity or a color temperature of an illuminator.
The mental processes are:
identifying a position of a tooth; and
determining that an image captured is an image of the area indicated by notification information.
Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements: (a) merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; and (b) the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: The claims do not contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The instant claims recites the additional elements of: an imaging unit that generates image data, an illuminator that illuminates the tooth, an illumination controller that controls the illuminator, a storage storing image data and a communicator that transmits notification information. These additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they represent components that are generic, routine and well-understood and activities that are insignificant extra-solution activities which would routinely be used in applying the abstract idea. As such, they do not meaningfully limit the claims, taken as a whole, to a particular application of the abstract idea; rather, the claims would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
In accordance with MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III), Examiner notes that the intraoral camera, the illumination control device and the illumination control method are routine, conventional, and are recited at a high degree of generality. Specifically, Pesach et al. (US 2024/0268935), Mykland (US 2024/0206717) and Elazar et al. (US 2017/0340198) describe well known intraoral cameras, illumination control devices and illumination control methods including the additional elements of:
an imaging unit that generates image data (e.g., Pesach, [0238]; Mykland, [0102]; Elazar, [0066]),
an illuminator that illuminates the tooth (e.g., Pesach, [0238]; Mykland, [0093]; Elazar, [0061]),
an illumination controller that controls the illuminator (e.g., Pesach, [0238]; Mykland, [0110]; Elazar, [0117]),
a storage storing image data (e.g., Pesach, [0239]; Mykland, [0115]; Elazar, [0115]), and
a communicator that transmits notification information (e.g., Pesach, [0241]; Mykland, [0115]; Elazar, [0105]).
Accordingly, these additional elements of the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Im (US 2025/0285302).
Regarding Claim 1, Im discloses an intraoral camera (Fig. 1, 1010; [0056]) comprising:
an imaging unit (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
an illumination controller (Fig. 2, 1400; [0066]) that controls 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]).
Regarding Claim 2, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Im further discloses wherein the illumination controller controls the at least one of the illumination intensity or the color temperature of the illuminator to bring the first color temperature within a predetermined range including the target color temperature (the initial color is changed to a color selected from a lookup table; [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Im further discloses a determiner (Fig. 2, 1300; [0055]) that identifies, from first image data captured by the imaging unit, a position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the imaging unit (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]), wherein the illumination controller controls the at least one of the illumination intensity or the color temperature of the illuminator by further using a result of the identification by the determiner ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 4, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 3. Im further discloses wherein the determiner identifies the position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the imaging unit from the first image data and second image data (a training data image; [0125]) that indicates typical shapes of teeth ([0125]).
Regarding Claim 5, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 3. Im further discloses 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 determiner identifies, from the first image data and the third image data, the position of the tooth whose image is being captured by the imaging unit ([0065]).
Regarding Claim 6, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 3. Im further discloses 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 imaging unit (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 determiner determines that an image captured by the imaging unit after the user is notified of the area indicated by the notification information is an image of the area ([0114]).
Regarding Claim 7, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Im 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 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 ([0072]).
Regarding Claim 8, Im discloses the intraoral camera according to Claim 1. Im further discloses wherein the illumination controller controls the at least one of the illumination intensity or the color temperature of the illuminator according to a color temperature of a glossy area strongly affected by light emitted from the illuminator among a plurality of areas inside the mouth which are defined by dividing a dentition of the user into sections ([0068]).
Regarding Claim 9, Im discloses an illumination control device (Fig. 1, 1020; [0043]) that controls an illuminator (Fig. 2, 1100; [0057]) of an intraoral camera (Fig. 1, 1010; [0056]) including an imaging unit (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]) and the illuminator that illuminates the tooth ([0068]), the illumination control device comprising:
an obtainer that obtains the image data generated by the imaging unit ([0047]); and
an illumination controller (Fig. 2, 1400; [0066]) that controls 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]).
Regarding Claim 10, Im discloses an illumination control method ([0090]) comprising:
generating (Fig. 4, S410; [0091]) image data by capturing an image (Fig. 5, 500; [0098]) of a tooth inside a mouth of a user ([0045]);
illuminating the tooth (Fig. 4, S410; [0091]); and
controlling (Fig. 4, S430; [0094]) at least one of an illumination intensity or a color temperature of an 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. 4, S420; [0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0268935; US 2024/0206717; US 2024/0090772; US 2019/0349518; US 2019/0104943; US 2018/0168781; US 2018/0125610; US 2017/0340198; US 2017/0202483; US 2016/0338803; US 2015/0245009; and US 2010/0268069.
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