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 following title is suggested: “SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR DENTINE-ENAMEL BOUNDARY DETECTION”.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4, the term “560nm” should have a space between “560” and “nm”.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “light emission module” in Claim 1; “sensor module” in Claim 1; “light emission module” in Claim 11; and “sensor module” in Claim 11.
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 1 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “module” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“module” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest”
“module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on page 3, lines 3-6 as light emitting diodes (LEDs), lasers, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “module” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“module” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data”
“module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on page 3, lines 30-page 4, line 20 as a camera or light detector, single photon avalanche diode, or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 11 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “module” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“module” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest”
“module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on page 3, lines 3-6 as light emitting diodes (LEDs), lasers, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 11 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “module” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“module” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data”
“module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on page 3, lines 30-page 4, line 20 as a camera or light detector, single photon avalanche diode, or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor, and equivalents thereof.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12, and 14-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/844497 in view of Te Velde et al (EP 3888589 A1, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Te Velde).
Regarding the claims, 18/844497 discloses:
18/859699
Claim(s)
18/844497
Claim(s)
A dentine-enamel boundary detection system for an oral inspection device, the dentine-enamel boundary detection system comprising:
wherein the processor module is configured to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest. (Claim 9)
1; 9
An interdental gap detection system for an oral inspection device, the gap detection system comprising:
1
a light emission module configured to emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest;
1
a light emission module configured to emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest;
1
two optical filters having different respective passbands, each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass filtered fluorescence
1
an optical filter arranged to preferentially filter, from light reflected from or emitted by the oral region of interest, fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest;
1
a sensor module configured to detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data
1
a sensor module configured to detect the filtered light and output corresponding sensor data
1
a processor module configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module;
wherein the processor module is configured to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest (Claim 9)
1; 9
wherein the system further comprises a processor module configured to process the sensor data output by the sensor module, to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest.
1
The dentine-enamel boundary detection system according to claim 1, wherein the light emission module is configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of 405 to 450 nm.
2
The interdental gap detection system according to claim 1,wherein the light emission module is configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of from 405 to 450 nm.
2
wherein one or both of the light emission module and the sensor module of the dentine-enamel boundary detection system are provided on the cleaning tool head.
12
wherein the oral inspection or treatment device is a dental cleaning appliance, further comprising a body and a cleaning tool head;
wherein one or both of the light emission module and the sensor module of the interdental gap detection system are provided on the cleaning tool head.
8; 9
wherein the processor module is provided as part of a controller module located within a remote device, wherein the remote device and the oral inspection or treatment device are configured for communication with one another to allow for exchange of signals and/or data
14
wherein the processor module is provided as part of a controller module located within a remote device, wherein the remote device and the oral inspection or treatment device are configured for communication with one another to allow for exchange of signals and/or data.
12
wherein, on identification of the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest, the oral inspection or treatment device is configured to apply a treatment to the identified interdental gap in the oral region of interest
15
wherein, on identification of the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest, the dental cleaning appliance is configured to apply a treatment to the identified interdental gap in the oral region of interest.
13
A method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary in an oral region of interest, comprising steps of:
wherein the processor module is configured to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest. (Claim 9)
9; 16
A method for detecting an interdental gap in an oral region of interest, including steps of:
14
irradiating an oral region of interest with light
16
irradiating an oral region of interest with light;
14
detecting light reflected from or emitted by the oral region of interest, said light comprising filtered fluorescence, the filtered fluorescence having passed through two optical filters having different respective passbands, each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass said filtered fluorescence
16
detecting light reflected from or emitted by the oral region of interest, said light having passed through an optical filter arranged to preferentially filter fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest;
14
outputting sensor data corresponding to the detected filtered fluorescence;
16
outputting sensor data corresponding to the detected light;
14
and processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest based on the filtered fluorescence.
wherein the processor module is configured to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest. (Claim 9)
9; 16
and
processing said sensor data to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest
14
18/844497 discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing two optical filters having different respective passbands, each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures. However, Van Der Poel, which is also directed towards a dentine-enamel boundary detection system (“the data processing means are configured for detecting differences in natural fluorescence of dentin and enamel. This may be detected using optical filters designed to distinguish between the fluorescence of the dentin and enamel, by recording the spectral distribution of the fluorescence or by digitally distinguishing between the between the fluorescence of the dentin and the fluorescence of the enamel”, [0131]), teaches two optical filters having different respective passbands (“the color image sensor comprises a color filter array comprising a number of filters allowing light at said first wavelength to pass and a number of filters allowing the emitted fluorescence to pass”, [0051]), each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures (“An image sensor which is capable of detecting light at two different wavelengths and distinguishing between the two wavelengths can be realized by arranging a filter in front of the photodetectors of the image sensor, where some regions of the filter allows light at one wavelength to pass while other regions allow light at the other wavelength to pass”, [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of 18/844497 with the two optical filters having different respective passbands, as taught by Van Der Poel, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18-19, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites a dentine-enamel boundary detection system for an oral inspection device. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
The plain meaning of the limitation “identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module” includes mental processes that can be performed in the human mind by observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, or by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform these mental process steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a light emission module configured to emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest
two optical filters having different respective passbands, each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass filtered fluorescence
a sensor module configured to detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a processor module configured to...
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
a light emission module configured to emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest
two optical filters having different respective passbands, each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass filtered fluorescence
a sensor module configured to detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data
a processor module configured to...
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The light emission module is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 (“The specific form of the light emission module is not particularly limited. In some embodiments, the light emission module may comprise one or more light emitting diodes, LEDs, for example. In other embodiments, the light emission module may comprise a laser light source”, 3:3-5).
The optical filters are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 (“The specific form of the optical filters used in the present invention is not particularly limited, other than they must be suitable for being arranged in an optical path between the oral region of interest and the sensor module In some embodiments, the optical filters may be bulk-dyed filters. In other embodiments the optical filters may comprise an interference coating. In some embodiments the filters may each comprise an absorptive filter, an interference filter, or a dichroic filter. Preferably the filters comprise an absorptive filter, as absorptive filters are generally relatively low cost and readily available. The optical filters may be made from any suitable material: for example, they may be made from a glass material or a polymeric material (such as a resin).”, 3:7-14).
The sensor module is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 (“The precise form of the sensor module is not particularly limited, provided that it is configured to detect light reflected from or emitted by the oral region of interest and output corresponding sensor data.”, 3:30-32).
The processor module is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 10/24/2024 (“a controller 40 including a processor module 40a”, 8:31; 10:27-37).
Independent Claim 11 is also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons as it recites the same abstract idea(s) and additional element(s) as Claim 1 but as an apparatus-type claim.
Independent Claim 16 is also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons as it recites the same abstract idea(s) and additional element(s) as Claim 1 but as a method-type claim.
Dependent Claim 2 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 3 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 5 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea (“process the time data output by the sensor module to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest”), recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application (“the sensor module is configured to detect a time of arrival at the sensor module of the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding time data”; “the processor module is further configured to...”), and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea (“the sensor module is configured to detect a time of arrival at the sensor module of the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding time data”; the processor module is further configured to...”).
Dependent Claim 6 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 7 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 9 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea (“identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest”), recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application (“wherein the processor module is further configured to...”), and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea (“wherein the processor module is further configured to...”).
Dependent Claim 12 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 14 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 18 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 19 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea (“processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest comprises processing the time data”), recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application (“wherein: outputting sensor data corresponding to the detected light comprises outputting time data identifying the time of arrival at which said light is detected”), and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea (“wherein: outputting sensor data corresponding to the detected light comprises outputting time data identifying the time of arrival at which said light is detected”).
Dependent Claim 21 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 22 also fails to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it merely further limits the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 24 also fails to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as it recites limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above and does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18-19, 21-22, and 24 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner notes that Claim 15 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the recited additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, and therefore are integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
The Examiner notes that Claim 17 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 creating a ratiometric image is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore is not directed to any judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04.
The Examiner notes that Claim 20 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 creating a fluorescence lifetime image is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore is not directed to any judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04.
The Examiner notes that Claim 23 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 creating a ratiometric image is not a process that can be practically performed in the human mind and therefore is not directed to any judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200146556 A1, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Kim) in view of Kumada et al (US 20090075228 A1, hereinafter Kumada).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a system (See Figs. 4-5) for an oral inspection device (Element 200, Fig. 5), the system comprising:
a light emission module (Element 260, Fig.5; “The light source 260 may include a light emitting diode (LED), a laser light source, a halogen lamp, and other light sources capable of emitting light”, [0034]) configured to emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest (“The first feature of the composite device 10 for medical image capturing according to the present invention is that the device is not composed of one type of light source 260 for applying light to a target tooth of which an image is to be captured, but various types of light sources emitting light of different wavelength ranges”, [0044]);
two optical filters having different respective passbands (“the camera unit being further provided with: a first wavelength filter allowing only light having a wavelength range of 380 nm to 420 nm to be emitted from the light source; and a second wavelength filter allowing only light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm to be emitted from the light source”, [0017]), each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass filtered fluorescence (“In order to acquire a tooth image using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), light having a wavelength range of 400 nm to 410 nm is required, and in order to acquire a tooth image using transillumination, light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm is required”, [0035]); and
a sensor module (Element 240, Fig. 5) configured to detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data (“the camera unit 240 is provided with a dual-bandpass filter 244 transmits light having a wavelength range of 450 nm to 650 nm and light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm, such that a general intraoral image, a tooth image captured using [quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF)], and a tooth image captured using transillumination are transmitted”, [0071]).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the system being a dentine-enamel boundary detection system; and
a processor module configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module.
However, Kumada, which is also directed towards a system for an intraoral inspection device (See [0014]-[0015]), teaches the system being a dentine-enamel boundary detection system (“the image processing unit may compare the intensity of the scattered light obtained by the detecting unit with a predetermined threshold value and form the scattered light image capable of identifying the boundary between the enamel layer and the dentine layer”, [0014]); and
a processor module (Element 4, Fig. 1) configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary (Element A3, Fig. 6) in the oral region of interest (“In the image processing unit 4, when the obtained scattered light image G2 is binarized with respect to a predetermined threshold, a scattered light image G3 can be generated in which a boundary A3 between the enamel layer A1 and the dentine layer A2 is clearly shown, as shown in FIG. 6”, [0086]) by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module (Element 3, Fig. 1; “The image processing unit 4 is designed so as to form a fluorescence image based on the intensity of fluorescence detected by the detecting unit 3”, [0075]; “a surface of the tooth A facing an adjacent tooth, is excited by illumination light in an infrared region, which is not likely to be scattered, and the fluorescence image G1 including this caries fluorescence image with a high contrast is combined with the scattered light image G of the overall tooth A in which the boundary A3 between the enamel layer A1 and the dentine layer A2 is clearly shown by using the difference in scattering properties”, [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to comprise a dentine-enamel boundary detection system with a processor module configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest, as taught by Kumada, because this can assist in identifying cavities, as suggested by Kumada (See Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kim discloses the dentine-enamel boundary detection system according to claim 1, wherein the light emission module is configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of 405 to 450 nm (“For example, the multiple light sources 260 include a first light source 261 for emitting white light, a second light source 262 for emitting light having a wavelength range of 380 nm to 420 nm”, [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kim discloses the dentine-enamel boundary detection system according to claim 1, wherein the two optical filters include a blue filter configured to preferentially pass filtered fluorescence having a wavelength of between 430 nm and 560 nm (“the camera unit 240 is provided with a dual-bandpass filter 244 transmits light having a wavelength range of 450 nm to 650 nm”, [0071]) and a red filter configured to preferentially pass filtered fluorescence having a wavelength of 560 nm or more (“the camera unit 240 is provided with a dual-bandpass filter 244 transmits light ...light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm”, [0071]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kim discloses the dentine-enamel boundary detection system according to claim 1. Modified Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein: the sensor module is configured to detect a time of arrival at the sensor module of the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding time data, and the processor module is further configured to process the time data output by the sensor module to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest.
However, Kumada teaches wherein: the sensor module is configured to detect a time of arrival at the sensor module of the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding time data (“the image processing unit 4 generates a fluorescence image based on the intensity of fluorescence detected by the light detector 11 when the second illumination light L2 is emitted”, [0115]), and the processor module is further configured to process the time data output by the sensor module to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest (“a surface of the tooth A facing an adjacent tooth, is excited by illumination light in an infrared region, which is not likely to be scattered, and the fluorescence image G1 including this caries fluorescence image with a high contrast is combined with the scattered light image G of the overall tooth A in which the boundary A3 between the enamel layer A1 and the dentine layer A2 is clearly shown by using the difference in scattering properties”, [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim with Kumada, because this can assist in identifying cavities, as suggested by Kumada (See Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kumada, and further in view of Logozzo (WO 2016012824 A1, hereinafter Logozzo).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim discloses the dentine-enamel boundary detection system according to claim 5. Modified Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the sensor module comprises a single photon avalanche photodiode. However, Logozzo, which also discloses an intraoral inspection device (See Abstract), teaches wherein the sensor module comprises a single photon avalanche photodiode (“The optical elements contained within the acquiring unit 2 are constituted preferably by ... SPAD (single photon avalanche photodiodes)”, 11:11-14). As both the sensor module of modified Kim and the single photon avalanche photodiode of Logozzo are known sensing devices in the optical signal sensing art), one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element ( the single photon avalanche detector of Logozzo) for another ( the sensor of modified Kim), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (the sensing of an optical signal).
Claims 9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kumada, and further in view of Te Velde et al (EP 3888589 A1, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Te Velde).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kim discloses the dentine-enamel boundary detection system according to claim 1. Modified Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the processor module is configured to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest. However, Te Velde teaches wherein the processor module (Element 130, Fig. 14) is configured to identify the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest (“an interdental space detection component is proposed for detecting an interdental space”, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the interdental gap detection of Te Velde to the system of modified Kim, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses an oral inspection or treatment device (Element 200, Fig. 5) comprising:
a system comprising:
a light emission module (Element 260, Fig.5; “The light source 260 may include a light emitting diode (LED), a laser light source, a halogen lamp, and other light sources capable of emitting light”, [0034]) configured to emit light to irradiate an oral region of interest (“The first feature of the composite device 10 for medical image capturing according to the present invention is that the device is not composed of one type of light source 260 for applying light to a target tooth of which an image is to be captured, but various types of light sources emitting light of different wavelength ranges”, [0044]),
two optical filters having different respective passbands (“ the camera unit being further provided with: a first wavelength filter allowing only light having a wavelength range of 380 nm to 420 nm to be emitted from the light source; and a second wavelength filter allowing only light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm to be emitted from the light source”, [0017]), each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass filtered fluorescence (“In order to acquire a tooth image using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), light having a wavelength range of 400 nm to 410 nm is required, and in order to acquire a tooth image using transillumination, light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm is required”, [0035]), and
a sensor module (Element 240, Fig. 5) configured to detect the filtered fluorescence and output corresponding sensor data (“the camera unit 240 is provided with a dual-bandpass filter 244 transmits light having a wavelength range of 450 nm to 650 nm and light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm, such that a general intraoral image, a tooth image captured using [quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF)], and a tooth image captured using transillumination are transmitted”, [0071]); and
a body (Element 100, Fig. 1).
Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the system being a dentine-enamel boundary detection system, comprising:
a processor module configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module; and
a cleaning tool head operably coupled to the body.
However, Kumada, which is also directed towards an intraoral inspection device (See [0014]-[0015]), teaches the system being a dentine-enamel boundary detection system (“the image processing unit may compare the intensity of the scattered light obtained by the detecting unit with a predetermined threshold value and form the scattered light image capable of identifying the boundary between the enamel layer and the dentine layer”, [0014]) comprising:
a processor module (Element 4, Fig. 1) configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary (Element A3, Fig. 6) in the oral region of interest (“In the image processing unit 4, when the obtained scattered light image G2 is binarized with respect to a predetermined threshold, a scattered light image G3 can be generated in which a boundary A3 between the enamel layer A1 and the dentine layer A2 is clearly shown, as shown in FIG. 6”, [0086]) by processing the sensor data output by the sensor module (Element 3, Fig. 1; “The image processing unit 4 is designed so as to form a fluorescence image based on the intensity of fluorescence detected by the detecting unit 3”, [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to comprise a dentine-enamel boundary detection system with a processor module configured to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest, as taught by Kumada, because this can assist in identifying cavities, as suggested by Kumada (See Abstract).
Te Velde, which is also directed towards an oral inspection or treatment device (See Abstract), teaches a cleaning tool (Element 54, Fig. 12) head operably coupled to the body (Element 110, Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cleaning tool of Te Velde to modified Kim because combining diagnostic and therapeutic tools into the same device provides the advantage of cost-effectiveness and more comprehensive use to an end user.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim discloses the oral inspection or treatment device according to claim 11. Modified Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein one or both of the light emission module and the sensor module of the dentine-enamel boundary detection system are provided on the cleaning tool head. However, Te Velde teaches wherein one or both of the light emission module (“The light source and sensor may be arranged in the body portion of an oral care device, but transported to and from the tip using an optic fibre”, [0026]) and the sensor module of the dentine-enamel boundary detection system (This limitation is claimed in the alternative and does not need to be taught by the reference in order for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim to be anticipated) are provided on the cleaning tool head (See Figs. 8 and 12; “The interdental probe 12 comprises a first optical channel 30a and a second optical channel 30b for delivering light to two light-exit positions 32a, 32b on the interdental probe 12 for detecting respective distances of the two light-exit positions with respect to teeth on two sides of the interdental probe”, [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim with the light emission module of Te Velde, for the advantage of combining two elements into one to save space and/or manufacturing costs.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kim discloses the oral inspection or treatment device according to claim 11. Modified Kim discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein, on identification of the presence of an interdental gap in the oral region of interest, the oral inspection or treatment device is configured to apply a treatment to the identified interdental gap in the oral region of interest. However, Te Velde teaches (“he interdental space detection component may be integrated in a brush head with integrated flossing function. The fluidic flossing function may selectively be switched on at the interdental space, thereby saving flossing fluid and preventing ineffective flossing outside the interdental space”, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim with the treatment application of Te Velde, improve the effectiveness of the combined diagnostic/treatment device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kumada and Te Velde, and further in view of Kambara et al (US 20190110690 A1, hereinafter Kambara)
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kim discloses the oral inspection or treatment device according to claim 11, wherein the processor module is provided as part of a controller module located within a remote device, wherein the remote device and the oral inspection or treatment device are configured for communication with one another to allow for exchange of signals and/or data.
However, Kambara teaches wherein the processor module (Elements 21-24, Fig. 1) is provided as part of a controller module located within a remote device (Element 20, Fig. 1), wherein the remote device and the oral inspection or treatment device are configured for communication with one another to allow for exchange of signals and/or data (“the dental health assessment assisting apparatus 20 is an apparatus configured to receive the fluorescence image of the tooth from the imaging apparatus 10 and to process the fluorescence image, thereby generating dental health assessment data which helps dentists assess dental health. The imaging apparatus 10 and the dental health assessment assisting apparatus 20 are cable-connected to each other by a Universal Serial Bus (USB) cable, a network cable, or the like. Alternatively, the imaging apparatus 10 and the dental health assessment assisting apparatus 20 may be wirelessly connected to each other via WiFi (registered trademark), Bluetooth (registered trademark), or the like”, [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kim with the remote device of Kambara, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16, 18-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumada in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 16, Kumada discloses a method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary in an oral region of interest (See [0014]-[0015], comprising steps of:
irradiating an oral region of interest with light (“an irradiating unit 2 irradiating a tooth A with illumination light including an infrared region”, [0071]);
detecting light reflected from or emitted by the oral region of interest (“ detecting unit 3 detecting light emitted from a caries portion B of the tooth A by irradiation with the illumination light from the irradiating unit 2”, [0071]), said light comprising filtered fluorescence (“ a detecting unit separately detecting fluorescence generated from a caries portion by irradiation with the illumination light and scattered light of the illumination light at the tooth”, Abstract);
outputting sensor data corresponding to the detected filtered fluorescence (“an image processing unit 4 forming an image based on the intensity of light detected by the detecting unit 3”, [0071]; this means the sensor data from element 3 must have been output to element 4); and
processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest (Element A3, Fig. 6) based on the filtered fluorescence (“In the image processing unit 4, when the obtained scattered light image G2 is binarized with respect to a predetermined threshold, a scattered light image G3 can be generated in which a boundary A3 between the enamel layer A1 and the dentine layer A2 is clearly shown, as shown in FIG. 6”, [0083]).
Kumada discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the filtered fluorescence having passed through two optical filters having different respective passbands, each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass said filtered fluorescence. However, Kim teaches the filtered fluorescence having passed through two optical filters having different respective passbands (“the camera unit being further provided with: a first wavelength filter allowing only light having a wavelength range of 380 nm to 420 nm to be emitted from the light source; and a second wavelength filter allowing only light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm to be emitted from the light source”, [0017]), each of the two optical filters arranged to filter a portion of fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass said filtered fluorescence (“In order to acquire a tooth image using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), light having a wavelength range of 400 nm to 410 nm is required, and in order to acquire a tooth image using transillumination, light having a wavelength range of 800 nm to 1300 nm is required”, [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the filters of Kim to the method of Kumada, because all of the claimed elements (e.g., the optical filters) were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kumada discloses the method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary according to claim 16. Modified Kumada discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the light irradiating the oral region of interest has a wavelength in a range of 405 to 450 nm. However, Kim teaches wherein the light irradiating the oral region of interest has a wavelength in a range of 405 to 450 nm (“, wherein the light irradiating the oral region of interest has a wavelength in a range of 405 to 450 nm”, [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kumada with the irradiation wavelength of Kim, because light in this particular range is useful for detecting early cavities (See [0003] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kumada discloses the method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary according to claim 16, wherein:
outputting sensor data corresponding to the detected light (“the image processing unit 4 generates a fluorescence image based on the intensity of fluorescence detected by the light detector 11 when the second illumination light L2 is emitted”, [0115]) comprises outputting time data identifying the time of arrival at which said light is detected (“wherein the detecting unit detects the fluorescence or the scattered light in synchronization with switching timing of the illumination light by the illumination light switching unit”, Claim 11; therefore, the detection unit must possess time data identifying when to detect said illumination light), and
processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine-enamel boundary in the oral region of interest comprises processing the time data (“a surface of the tooth A facing an adjacent tooth, is excited by illumination light in an infrared region, which is not likely to be scattered, and the fluorescence image G1 including this caries fluorescence image with a high contrast is combined with the scattered light image G of the overall tooth A in which the boundary A3 between the enamel layer A1 and the dentine layer A2 is clearly shown by using the difference in scattering properties”, [0088]).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Kumada discloses the method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary according to claim 16, wherein irradiating an oral region of interest with light comprises irradiating an oral region of interest with polarised light (“In addition, in the above structure, the dental observation apparatus may further comprise: a first polarizing member disposed between the first irradiating unit and the tooth”, [0024]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumada in view of Kim, and further in view of Lomnes et al (US 20090236541 A1, hereinafter Lomnes).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kumada discloses the method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary according to claim 16. Modified Kumada discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine- enamel boundary in the oral region of interest comprises creating a ratiometric image of the oral region of interest based on the ratio of intensity of filtered fluorescence passed through the two optical filters. However, Lomnes, which is also directed towards detecting fluorescent light from a living body (See Abstract), teaches creating a ratiometric image of the region of interest based on the ratio of intensity of filtered fluorescence (“the imaging systems use multiple fluorescent detection bands for ratiometric imaging. This feature can be useful, for example, when the target to be visualized is an active enzyme or if it changes in the local environment”, [0066]) passed through the two optical filters (“The beam splitter 126 splits the image information into different paths either spectrally, for example with the use of dichroic filters, or by splitting the image with a partially reflective surface. The beam splitter 126 divides the fluorescence emission from the remainder of the light. The fluorescence emission travels through a filter 129 and then to the fluorescence camera 128”, [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the ratiometric imaging of Lomnes to the method of modified Kumada such that processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine- enamel boundary in the oral region of interest comprises creating a ratiometric image of the oral region of interest based on the ratio of intensity of filtered fluorescence passed through the two optical filters, because ratiometric imaging can be beneficial for measuring changes in environment from one region to another, such as a dentine-enamel boundary (See Lomnes, [0066]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumada in view of Kim, and further in view of Seibel et al (US 20150010878 A1, hereinafter Seibel).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Kumada discloses the method for detecting a dentine-enamel boundary according to claim 19. Modified Kumada discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine- enamel boundary in the oral region of interest comprises creating a fluorescence lifetime image based on the time data. However, Seibel, which also discloses an oral inspection device (See Abstract), teaches creating a fluorescence lifetime image based on the time data (“In various embodiments, the SFE may be configured to provide multi-modal and multi-wavelength imaging capabilities...Additional modalities may be provided by including near-ultra-violet (NUV) and near-infrared (NIR) laser wavelengths to achieve fluorescence lifetime imaging”, [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fluorescence lifetime imaging of Seibel to the method of modified Kumada, such that wherein processing said sensor data to identify the presence of a dentine- enamel boundary in the oral region of interest comprises creating a fluorescence lifetime image based on the time data, because this extra imaging modality can provide additional data and insight on the dentine-enamel boundary.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 7 and 21 are not currently rejected under prior art, as the claim limitation “each of the two polarisation filters having orthogonal polarisations, each of the two polarisation filters arranged to filter a portion of the fluorescence emitted from oral structures in the oral region of interest to pass polarised fluorescence” is not currently rejected under prior art. The closest prior art(s) disclose two polarization filters having orthogonal polarizations, where one, not each of the two polarisation filters is arranged to filter a portion of the fluorescence emitted from oral structures while the other filter is arranged in the path of the light source (see: US 20120013722 A, US 20240065578 A1; US 20090075228 A1; US 20120237890 A1; US 20100053607 A1), or a single filter arranged to switch between orthogonal polarization states to filter one polarized fluorescence at a time (see: US 20090275145 A1 [0075]). However, this prior art does not suggest or make obvious two orthogonal polarization filters, each in the path of light emitted from the oral structure of interest to pass two different polarized fluorescent light beams.
Claims 22-23 are not currently rejected under prior art by virtue of dependence on Claim 21.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Jung (US-20010043330-A1).
See Rueggeberg (US-6391281-B1).
See Thompson (US-20090253094-A1).
See Wong (US 20120013722 A).
See Van Der Poel (US-20150164335-A1).
See Deane (US-20170000352-A1).
See Subhash (US-20220240786-A1).
See Danesh (US-20230270341-A1).
See Presura (US-20240065578-A1).
See Liang (US 20120237890 A1).
See Yaroslavsky et al (US 20100053607 A1).
See Vermeulen (WO-2014097135-A1).
See Subhash (WO-2022169544-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights