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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-9, 13-15 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 14, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A, Sub-species a, claims 1-5, 10-12 and 16 in the reply filed on August 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
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: “an optical imaging system..for capturing images…” in claim 1 and “apparatus configured to implement the primary function…” in claim 3.
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.
The “optical imaging system” has been interpreted as corresponding to a camera or contact microscope, as set forth in paragraph [0033] of Applicant’s PG-Pub 2025/0359763 specification, and equivalents thereof.
The “apparatus” has been interpreted as corresponding to toothbrush bristles, an oral irrigator nozzle or a powered toothbrush drive train, or a head of a dental tool, as set forth in paragraphs [0034]-[0035] of Applicant’s PG-Pub, 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 10, --- the --- should be inserted before “contact”.
In claim 1, in line 11, --- the --- should be inserted before “oral”.
In claim 4, in line 2, --- the --- should be inserted before “contact”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 10-12 and 16 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 1 recites the limitation "the mouth" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 1, in lines 8 and 12, it is unclear as to whether the “images”/”one or more images” are referring to one or more of the “images” set forth in line 4 of the claim or referring to different images. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the former.
With regards to claim 1, in line 10, the claim refers to “the device is configured to detect contact”. However, claim 1 is directed to the “device”, and is set forth as comprising a body, an optical imaging system and a processor. It is unclear as to whether the body, the optical imaging system, the processor, a combination of one or more of these elements and/or an unclaimed further structure of the device is configured to detect the contact, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the “device” can correspond to any of the above.
With regards to claim 16, in line 2, it is unclear as to whether the “images” are referring to same “images” set forth in line 4 of claim 1, the “images in line 8 of claim 1, the “one or more images” set forth in line 12 of claim 1, or are referring to different images. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the “images” in claim 16 is referring to the same stored images set forth in claim 1.
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 1-5, 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “oral tissue in contact with the optical imaging system” in line 5 and “contact of the image collection surface with oral tissue” in lines 10-11 which encompasses a human organism (i.e. oral tissue). Examiner suggests using language such as – oral tissue adapted to be in contact with the optical imaging system”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0359777) in view of Pesach’538 (US Pub No. 2020/0214538).
With regards to claim 1, Pesach et al. disclose a device for use in the mouth, configured to implement a primary function (i.e. moving and/or vibrating to clean dental surfaces; paragraph [0166]), wherein the device comprises:
a body (103) (paragraph [0165], referring to the device (102) comprising a body (103); Figure 1);
an optical imaging system (106) mounted at the body for capturing images of oral tissue in contact with the optical imaging system, wherein the optical imaging system has an image collection surface (i.e. FOV or the physical camera structure) and the capturing of images comprises a secondary function of the device (paragraph [0171], referring to the dental device (102) including at least one imager (106) with a field of view (FOV) (108); paragraphs [0116], [0134], [0148], [0248]-[0250], [0284], referring to the imager being configured to collect images of inside the oral cavity, wherein the images include the user’s oral cavity; paragraphs [0146], [0177], referring to the collected data comprising of optical images and the imager (106) including a visible wavelength optical imager or infrared imager; Figures 1-3); and
a processor (110) for controlling the collection and/or storage of images by the optical imaging system (paragraphs [0179]-[0181], referring to the imager (106) being connected to one or more processor (110), wherein the processor is connected to a memory (112); paragraph [0167], referring to the processor receiving tracking data and generating, based on the data, control signals to send to an actuator instructing movement of the imager of the dental device; Figure 1),
wherein the device is configured to detect contact of the image collection surface with oral tissue to be imaged (paragraphs [0285]-[0287], referring to contact data being collected by one or more pressure sensors of the dental device, e.g., collected by measuring deflection of a flexible neck of the toothbrush, wherein contact and/or level of contact between the toothbrush bristles and the user mouth portions (e.g. teeth) is determined using measurement of toothbrush bristle deflection; paragraphs [0349]-[0351], referring to the device comprising a sensor configured to measure contact and/or pressure of contact between the toothbrush and dental surfaces, wherein the toothbrush includes one or more pressure or force sensor e.g., strain gauge on a region of the toothbrush which bends under pressure (e.g., on a neck of the toothbrush e.g. neck 160, note that the camera can also be located on the neck of the toothbrush or opposite the tooth bristles that is contact with the mouth, such as depicted in Figure 3, referring to cameras (392, 393); paragraph [0234], [0236]); paragraph [0246], referring to the imager (392) located on the dental device head (304), such as on a portion of base (334) lacking bristles; Figures 1-3, note in Figure 3, a camera (392) is located opposite the tooth bristles, and therefore the contact determination would provide a determination of contact of the camera (392) surface with oral tissue (i.e. mouth) to be imaged), and
wherein the processor is configured to store one or more images at least during said contact (paragraphs [0349]-[0351] referring to measuring deflection, which is used to determine contact and/or a level of contact between the toothbrush bristles and the user mouth portion, being measured optically, e.g. using one or more imager (e.g. of the toothbrush), which would inherently requiring the storage of said images during said contact; Figure 1).
However, Pesach et al. do not specifically disclose that the contact detection is used to identify images of interest for further analysis or transmission.
Pesach’538 discloses a dental measurement device including a stylus (116) and including an imager that includes one or more cameras (106) configured to collect images of dental objects in proximity to the dental measurement device (Abstract; paragraph [0229]). 3D measurements (i.e. measurement data) may be acquired using the camera of the intraoral scanner (IOS) to generate a 3D model of the mouth portion (paragraphs [0236]-[0240]). The device can automatically start collecting measurements (i.e. which include the 3D measurements acquired using the camera, see paragraphs [0236]-[0240]) when the device sensor(s) recognize a pre-determined situation, such as when the device sensor(s) recognize a sufficient contact between a device stylus and a tooth and/or when the image processing of images collected indicated that the device is in position with respect to dental objects and appropriate for measurement of the objects (paragraphs [0269], [0449], [0452], [0474], note that contact detection above a threshold is therefore used to identify images of interest for further analysis (i.e. for the 3D model generation) or transmission; Figure 17).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the contact detection of Pesach et al. be used to identify images of interest for further analysis or transmission, as taught by Pescach’538, in order to determine when there is sufficient contact for providing automatic collection of images to create a 3D model of the mouth (paragraphs [0236]-[0240], [0449], [0452]).
With regards to claim 2, Pesach et al. disclose that the optical imaging system comprises a fixed focus camera and/or a contact microscope, for contact imaging (paragraph [0301], referring to the toothbrush head including one or more of a camera and a projector; Figure 1, wherein the imager (106) has a fixed focus at least at an instantaneous time point).
With regards to claim 3, Pesach et al. disclose that the device further comprises an apparatus configured to implement the primary function (i.e. brushing/cleaning of teeth) to a first oral tissue (teeth), and wherein the optical imaging system is configured to implement the secondary function (i.e. imaging) to a different second oral tissue (i.e. underneath the tongue (i.e. gums), tonsils, etc.) (paragraphs [0165]-[0166], referring to the device including a toothbrush head (104) configured to move and/or vibrate to clean dental surfaces in contact with the toothbrush; paragraph [0151], referring to images collected of regions including underneath the tongue, of the throat and/or tonsils, etc.; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 4, Pescah’538 disclose that the processor is configured to apply a first contact threshold to detect when contact is made and to store the one or more images in response to said contact (paragraphs [0449]-[0452], referring to the use of thresholds to determine when contact suitable for collection of dental measurements occurs, when the dental measurements includes acquiring images for generating a 3D model of the mouth (see paragraphs [0236]-[0240]); Figure 17).
With regards to claim 5, Pesach et al. disclose that the processor is configured to detect the contact based on detection of an image focus (i.e. deflection of a flexible neck of the toothbrush) of images and/or reflected light intensity level captured by the optical imaging system (paragraphs [0350]-[0351], referring to deflection being measured optically “e.g., using one or more imager (e.g. of the toothbrush)”, wherein deflection of a flexible neck of the toothbrush is measured optically, for example, by an imager of the toothbrush which has a FOV which includes the toothbrush neck).
With regards to claim 10, Pesach et al. disclose that the device further comprises an oral care or treatment device (i.e. toothbrush), and wherein the primary function is to clean or treat oral tissue (paragraphs [0165]-[0166], referring to the device including a toothbrush head (104) configured to move and/or vibrate to clean dental surfaces in contact with the toothbrush).
With regards to claim 11, Pesach et al. disclose that the device comprises an oral cleaning device (paragraphs [0165]-[0166], referring to the device including a toothbrush head (104) configured to move and/or vibrate to clean dental surfaces in contact with the toothbrush).
With regards to claim 12, Pesach et al. disclose that the device further comprises a platen having a front side from which oral cleaning elements extend, wherein the image collection surface (392) is on a back side or lateral side of the platen (paragraph [0246], referring to the imager (392) being located on a portion (i.e. back side) of the base (334) lacking bristles, wherein the base would necessarily have a flat/platen/planar formation in order to provide the appropriate arrangement of bristles for tooth brushing; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 16, Pesach’538 disclose that the processor is further configured to apply a second contact threshold to cease storing images (paragraph [0452], referring to the collection of measurements being dependent upon the desired contact being over a threshold and under a threshold force, wherein it follows that if contact is outside the range defined by the two thresholds, then the collection of measurements, which include the collection of images (see paragraphs [0236]-[0240]; Figure 17) to generate a 3D mouth model, stops and thus storage of said images stops as well).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richter et al. (US Patent No. 10,064,711) discloses a toothbrush system including a camera (125) integrated into the bristle portion (115) of the toothbrush (column 5, lines 35-40; Figure 4).
Vashi (US Pub No. 2013/0061412) disclose a toothbrush that includes a bristle-head section (20) and a camera-head section (21), wherein the bristle-head section (20) can separate from the camera-head section (21) after the head (1) is separate from the handle (paragraph [0054]; Figure 30).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights