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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the relative maximal mouth opening" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “A computer program product comprising computer program code which, when executed on a computing device having a processing system, cause the processing system to perform all of the steps of the method according to claim 8”. However, claim 8 is not a method claim. Therefore, it is not clear as to what steps are being performed by the computer program product.
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 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 13 is drawn to a computer program product having stored thereon a computer program, where the computer program product can be transitory, i.e., is not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media; therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit a claimed computer readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable.
A claim directed to a computer program product having stored thereon a computer program is non-statutory, where the computer readable medium can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a computer program itself, a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure is non-statutory because it is not:
a process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
a machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
a manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
a composition of matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pesach et al. (US 2020/0359777; hereinafter Pesach).
Regarding claim 1:
Pesach discloses an oral care system (see Fig. 1A, toothbrush tracking system 100) comprising:
an oral care device (see Fig. 1A; dental device102); and
a processor (see Fig. 1A; processor 110) configured to:
obtain an image (see Fig. 1A; imager 106, 190 and paragraph [0168]; also see paragraph [0301]) of a user using the oral care device;
process the image to:
identify a portion of the oral care device in the image (see paragraph [0122]-[0123]; at least a portion (i.e., a landmark) of the oral care device is captured by the imager);
determine a relative measurement of the user from the image (see paragraphs [0124]-[0130]; at least a body portion of the user is captured by the imager); and
determine an absolute measurement of the user based on identified portion of the oral care device and the relative measurement (see paragraphs [0209]-[0210]; jaw configuration is interpreted as an absolute measurement of the user, which is calculated based on the 3D relationship; 3D relationship includes the information regarding the identified portion of the oral are device and the relative measurement);
wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain a known length of the portion of the oral care device (see paragraph [0130]; “know dimensions of the dental device”);
process the image to determine a relative length of the portion in the image (see paragraph [0208]; “a jaw configuration is identified using relative position between two or more landmarks”);
determine a calibration factor based on the relative length of the portion and the known length of the portion (see paragraph [0122]; “calibration measurements and/or an anatomical model are used to determine, from the images, the position of the dental device with respect to dental feature/s”); and
apply the calibration factor to the relative measurement thereby to determine the absolute measurement (see paragraph [0294]; “a user is periodically instructed to perform calibration with the dental device”).
Regarding claim 2:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a memory system storing the known length of the portion, wherein the processor obtains the known length of the portion from the memory system (see Fig. 1A; memory 112; also see paragraphs [0130] and [0204]).
Regarding claim 3:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the oral care device comprises a sensor system configured to determine the orientation of the oral care device (see paragraph [0231]; “orientation and/or position is measured using previously collected images and/or using one or more sensor signal e.g. in some embodiments, the dental implement includes one or more accelerometer and/or gyroscope, where accelerometer and/or gyroscope signal/s, for example, provide orientation data”) and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the calibration factor further based on the orientation of the oral care device (see paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 4:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
apply a feature recognition algorithm to the image to identify the portion of the oral care device in the image (see paragraph [0202]; “at least a portion of the dental device is identified in the acquired image. For example, in some embodiments, the dental device includes one or more marking which is identified in image/s.”); and measure the relative length of the identified portion in the image (see paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 5:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: apply a feature recognition algorithm to the image to identify the oral cavity of the user in the image (see paragraph [0168]); and measure the relative maximal mouth opening of the user from the identified oral cavity in the image (see paragraphs [0209]-[0210]).
Regarding claim 6:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the portion of the oral care device comprises at least two markers placed on the oral care device, wherein the distances between the markers are known (see paragraphs [0129]-[0130]).
Regarding claim 7:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the oral care device is a toothbrush, an oral irrigator or a toothbrush with an oral irrigator (see Fig. 1A and [0114]).
Regarding claim 8:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the oral care device comprises one or more cameras, wherein at least one of the cameras is configured to obtain the image of a user using the oral care device (see Fig. 1A; imagers 106 and 190).
Regarding claim 9:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to identify a physiological marker of the user in the image, wherein determining the absolute measurement of the user is further based on the physiological marker (see paragraphs [0174] and [0207]-[0208]).
Regarding claim 10:
Pesach discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the relative measurement is a relative mouth opening (see paragraph [0174]) and wherein the absolute measurement is an absolute mouth opening (see paragraph [0207]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
Claims 11 and 12 recite similar limitations as in claims 1 and 3. Hence, claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 13:
Pesach discloses a computer program product comprising computer program code which, when executed on a computing device having a processing system, cause the processing system to perform all of the steps of the method according to claim 8 (see paragraph [0085]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Serval et al. (US 2019/0200746) discloses an oral hygiene system that captures image of the user’s mouth and face.
Vetter et al. (US 2017/0069083) discloses an apparatus for determining body portion of user to track and analyze user’s teeth brushing locations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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.
/LIXI C SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights