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 .
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 13-15 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 13-15 refer to computer program and computer program code – which can be transitory in nature. Examiner suggest using the phrase “non-transitory computer readable media”.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ellspermann (US 2019/0343452 A1 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 13, Ellspermann teaches: A computer program comprising computer program code means which is adapted, when said program is run on a computer, to implement a method (paragraph 0028) comprising:
receiving a sensed external ear canal air pressure (figure 15); and
processing the sensed ear canal air pressure to detect bruxism or temporomandibular joint disorders from the sensed ear canal air pressure; and
generating an output signal indicating the detected bruxism or temporomandibular joint disorders (paragraph 0031-0045).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatzilias et al. (US 2015/0039087 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann (US 2019/0343452 A1 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Hatzilias teaches: A system for detecting and distinguishing between bruxism and temporomandibular joint disorders (paragraph 0004), comprising:
A sensor arrangement for sensing (element 93); and
a processor for processing the sensed metric (paragraph 0033-0034), wherein the processor is configured to:
detect bruxism or a temporomandibular joint disorder from the sensed metric; and
generate an output signal indicating the detected bruxism or temporomandibular joint disorders (paragraph 0033-0034).
While Hatzilias is open to the use of any appropriate sensor, Hatzilias does not explicitly mention the sensor being an air pressure sensor and the metric being ear canal pressure.
Ellspermann teaches the use of and air pressure sensor to sense the canal air pressure (figures 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system to include the sensor being an air pressure sensor and the metric being ear canal pressure as the substitution of one sensor for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 2, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1, comprising a microphone for audio detection and the processor is for performing audio analysis (Hatzilias - paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 3, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to detect clicking or popping sounds or sounds emerging from teeth grinding or clicking sounds relating to temporomandibular joint disorders (Hatzilias - paragraph 0035).
Regarding Claim 4, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the air pressure sensor arrangement comprises a speaker which is operated in a microphone pressure sensing mode (Ellspermann – paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 5, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the air pressure sensor arrangement is part of a pressure sensing earbud or a pair of pressure sensing earbuds (Hatzilias – figure 12; Ellspermann – figure 10).
Regarding Claim 8, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to analyze the sensed ear canal pressure to detect characteristic pressure patterns and repetition rates (Hatzilias paragraph 0035; Ellspermann – paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 9, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to detect bruxism by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal pressure;
determine if grinding or clenching jaw movements are present; and
detect bruxism based on a frequency of grinding or jaw clenching movements which exceeds a threshold (Hatzilias – paragraph 0031-0035).
Regarding Claim 11, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1. Hatzilias does not mention wherein the processor is configured to analyze the sensed ear canal pressure to detect whether the user is awake or asleep and is thereby able to distinguish between awake bruxism and sleep bruxism. Ellspermann teaches wherein the processor is configured to analyze the sensed ear canal pressure to detect whether the user is awake or asleep and is thereby able to distinguish between awake bruxism and sleep bruxism (Ellspermann - paragraph 0063-0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include wherein the processor is configured to analyze the sensed ear canal pressure to detect whether the user is awake or asleep in order to be able to distinguish between awake bruxism and sleep bruxism
Regarding Claim 12, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: An oral care system comprising:
the system of claim 1. Hatzilias does not explicitly mention an oral care device.
Ellspermann teaches an oral care device (paragraph 0072-0074). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include an oral care device to project the user from harm (prevent grinding).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann, further in view of Hiwale et al. (EP 3936046 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Hiwale.
Regarding Claim 6, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann teach: The system of claim 1, but do not mention wherein the air pressure sensor arrangement is for obtaining a differential pressure measurement from the two ears, either simultaneously or sequentially.
Hiwale teaches wherein the air pressure sensor arrangement is for obtaining a differential pressure measurement from the two ears, either simultaneously or sequentially (paragraph 0054; 0119; 0125). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include wherein the air pressure sensor arrangement is for obtaining a differential pressure measurement from the two ears, either simultaneously or sequentially for a more accurate assessment of a subjects health condition.
Regarding Claim 7, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann, further in view of Hiwale teach: The system of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to use the differential pressure measurement to differentiate between (i) bruxism and temporomandibular joint disorders. Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann do not explicitly mention ear/nose/sinus pathologies.
Hiwale teaches the use of differential pressure for ear/nose/sinus pathologies (paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include ear/nose/sinus pathologies to improve the accuracy of the system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann, further in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP 3810026 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 10, Hatzilias in view of Ellspermann The system of claim 1, but does not mention wherein the processor is configured to detect temporomandibular joint disorders by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal pressure;
determine if jaw closing movements are present;
determine a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed from pressure change amplitudes and rate of change of pressure changes; and
detect temporomandibular joint disorders based on a function of a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed.
Matsumoto teaches: wherein the processor is configured to detect temporomandibular joint disorders by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal pressure;
determine if jaw closing movements are present;
determine a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed from pressure change amplitudes and rate of change of pressure changes; and
detect temporomandibular joint disorders based on a function of a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed (paragraph 0021-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include wherein the processor is configured to detect temporomandibular joint disorders by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal pressure;
determine if jaw closing movements are present;
determine a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed from pressure change amplitudes and rate of change of pressure changes; and
detect temporomandibular joint disorders based on a function of a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed to get a more accurate assessment of temporomandibular joint disorders.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellspermann in view of Hatzilias et al. (US 2015/0039087 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Hatzilias.
Regarding Claim 14, Ellspermann teaches: The computer program of claim 13, wherein the implemented method comprises detecting bruxism by:
Identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal air pressure;
determine if grinding or clenching jaw movements are present (paragraph 0032-0045); but does not explicitly mention detecting bruxism based on a frequency of grinding or jaw clenching movements which exceeds a threshold.
Hatzilias teaches detecting bruxism based on a frequency of grinding or jaw clenching movements which exceeds a threshold (paragraph 0031-0035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include detecting bruxism based on a frequency of grinding or jaw clenching movements which exceeds a threshold to allow for an accurate assessment of a user’s health.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellspermann, further in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP 3810026 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 15, Ellspermann teaches: The computer program of claim 13, but does not mention wherein the implemented method comprises detecting temporomandibular joint disorders by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal air pressure;
determine if jaw closing movements are present;
determine a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed from pressure change amplitudes and rate of change of pressure changes; and detect temporomandibular joint disorders based on a function of a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed.
Matsumoto teaches: wherein the processor is configured to detect temporomandibular joint disorders by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal pressure;
determine if jaw closing movements are present;
determine a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed from pressure change amplitudes and rate of change of pressure changes; and
detect temporomandibular joint disorders based on a function of a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed (paragraph 0021-0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include wherein the processor is configured to detect temporomandibular joint disorders by:
identifying types of jaw movement from the sensed ear canal pressure;
determine if jaw closing movements are present;
determine a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed from pressure change amplitudes and rate of change of pressure changes; and
detect temporomandibular joint disorders based on a function of a jaw movement range and jaw movement speed to get a more accurate assessment of temporomandibular joint disorders.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights