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 .
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:
Claim 1, Ln. 12 and Claim 11, Ln. 12, “an image-forming optic,” which is being interpreted as a “spherical lenses, aspherical lenses, reflectors, polarizers, filters, windows, aperture stops, and the like” (Para. [0065]) and functional equivalents thereof.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11, and Claims 2-10 and 12-20 by dependency, are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “using a laser beam output configured to be positioned within a human patient's mouth.” While the Present Specification appears to describe the Claim element “a laser beam output” at Para. [0060], wherein it is stated that “[t]he beam delivery system 112 may include any optical arrangement that transmits the laser beam 108 from an input to an output at a location different from that of the input,” the term “laser beam output” does not itself appear in the Present Specification. No structure is described in relation to the “output” described at Para. [0060], and there is no indication of what in particular is contemplated to be “positioned within a human patient's mouth.” The language of Claim 1 makes a clear attempt to define a structure that is distinct from the hand piece itself. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to discern from the Present Specification what that structure is. Accordingly, the term “laser beam output” is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Claim 11 contains a similar recitation to that addressed above with respect to Claim 1, and stands rejected for the same reasons explains above with respect to Claim 1.
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, 3, 7, 11, 13 and 17, and Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 by dependency, 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.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “at least an image-forming optic configured to form an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor.” The phrase “at an image sensor” is, grammatically, a dangling modifier, and accordingly it is unclear which claim element the limitation “at an image sensor” is intended to modify. For example, the term “at an image sensor” may modify the term “form an optical image” (i.e., forming of the image is done “at an image sensor”), the term “an optical image of the at least a tooth” (i.e., the optical image is an image from a perspective “at an image sensor”), the term “an image-forming optic” (i.e., the “image-forming optic is positioned “at an image sensor”), or something else.
For purposes of this Office Action, the limitation “at least an image-forming optic configured to form an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor” is being interpreted to mean that the optical image is an image from a perspective “at an image sensor.”
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 recites “the optical path.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites “the dental parameter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Claim 11 recites a similar limitation to that of Claim 1 as explained above, and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Regarding Clam 13, Claim 13 recites a similar limitation to that of Claim 3 as explained above, and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Regarding Clam 17, Claim 17 recites a similar limitation to that of Claim 7 as explained above, and is indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/155054 A1 to Dresser et al. (“Dresser”) in view of US 5,051,823 A to Cooper et al. (“Cooper”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Dresser teaches:
A system for dental treatment, the system comprising: (Title, “Preventative dental hard tissue laser treatment systems, methods, and computer-readable media”);
a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser configured to generate a laser beam as a function of a laser parameter, (Para. [00133], “ The laser beam is generated by a laser source 114. An exemplary laser source 114 is a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser…;” Abstract, “The system additionally includes a controller. The controller is configured to control one or more parameters of the laser source…;” Claim 1, “…and, a controller configured to control one or more parameters of the laser beam…”);
comprising one or more of pulse duration and pulse energy; (Para. [0018], “…the at least one laser parameter of the laser beam controlled by the controller includes at least one of: repetition rate, pulse energy, pulse duration, average power, peak power, and wavelength.” (emphasis added));
an articulating arm configured to deliver the laser beam from the laser; (Para. [0152], “A beam delivery system 914 directs the laser beam to a hand piece 916. Exemplary' beam delivery' systems 914 include articulated arms, waveguides, and fiber optics. An exemplary articulated arm is provided by Laser Mechanisms of Novi, Michigan, U.S.A.” (emphasis added));
a hand piece configured to accept the laser beam from the articulating arm (Fig. 9, “hand piece 916;” Para. [0152], “A beam delivery system 914 directs the laser beam to a hand piece 916. Exemplary' beam delivery' systems 914 include articulated arms…”
and direct the laser beam, using a laser beam output configured to be positioned within a human patient's mouth, to at least a tooth of the patient; (Para. [0152], “The hand piece 916 is configured to be used intra-orally (ie., within an oral cavity). Typically, the hand piece 916 includes a focus optic (not shown) that converges the laser beam to a focal region outside of the hand piece 916;” Para. [0153], “…the clinician positions the hand piece 916 so that a focal region of the laser beam is coincident with or near (e.g., +/- lmm, 2mm, 3mm, or 5mm) a surface of a tooth.”);
As explained above, the term “a laser beam output” is being interpreted to mean the point at which the laser beam is output.
wherein the laser beam is configured to treat the at least a tooth of the patient by: removing one or more of calculus and tartar from at least a surface of the at least a tooth; (Para. [0184], “During laser treatment a laser beam is generated and directed toward a surface of dental hard tissue. … As a result of the irradiation of the surface, a temperature of the surface rises…. As a result of the momentary temperature rise biological materials previously on or adhered to the surface of the dental hard tissue (e.g., pellicle, bio-film, calculus, and tartar) are at least partially removed….”);
Dresser does not disclose:
and a camera in sensed communication with the at least a tooth and including: at least an image-forming optic configured to form an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor;
and the image sensor configured to detect visible light and at least an image of the at least a tooth as a function of the optical image.
Cooper describes “A novel dental instrument … which includes both a laser device and an electronic video dental camera” (Abstract). Cooper is analogous art.
Cooper teaches:
and a camera (Figs. 1-2, “camera head 104”);
in sensed communication with the at least a tooth (Col. 4, Ln. 62-67, “…the field of view provided by the means for receiving an image contained in camera head 104 is designed to encompass that area where the laser dental procedure is being performed, i.e. in the case of FIG. 1 the field of view is the portion of tooth 107…”);
and including: at least an image-forming optic configured to form an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor; (Claim 1, “…a camera head located at the distal end of said handle including a means for receiving an image, such that said image includes the area of the mouth to which said laser energy is directed;” Claim 5, “…wherein said means for receiving an image is selected from the group of mirrors, lenses, optical fibers, and filters;” Col. 4, Ln. 43-49);
As explained above, the limitation “at least an image-forming optic configured to form an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor” is being interpreted to mean that the optical image is an image from a perspective “at an image sensor.”
and the image sensor configured to detect visible light and at least an image of the at least a tooth as a function of the optical image. (Col. 4, Ln. 50-53, “…in a preferred embodiment the image sensor is located directly in camera head 104 and receives the image from the patient's mouth via a lens…”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Dresser with the teachings of Cooper (i.e., to modify the device of Dresser so that it includes a camera such as that taught by Cooper) in order to “afford[] [the practitioner-user] significantly improved imaging which enables the practitioner to perform the procedure with a high degree of confidence that the laser energy is directed to the desired area, and only the desired area, within the patient's mouth, thereby making the procedure quicker, more effective, and safer,” and further because “[b]y providing a single dental instrument which is used for both directing the laser energy and providing a view of the operative area, the practitioner can perform the procedure with far greater ease than when utilizing both a laser instrument and a dental mirror for viewing purposes” (Cooper at Col. 3, Ln. 42-57).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
wherein the image sensor is located a greater distance from the laser beam output than a distance between a nearest portion of the articulating arm and the laser beam output; and the handpiece is further configured to facilitate an optical path between the oral tissue and the camera. (Col. 4, Ln. 43-49, “In another embodiment of this invention, the image is transmitted by one or more rod or relay lens assemblies or fiber optic cable, or a combination thereof with or without additional lenses, through a connector (not shown) at the proximal end of handle 101 to an image sensor located in handle 101 or in external video equipment (not shown);” Dresser Fig. 9; Cooper Fig. 7; See Annotated Comparison 1, below).
In the proposed modification of Dresser such that it further includes Cooper’s camera, Cooper’s camera is positioned in the same manner as that of Claim 1 relative to Dresser’s “articulating arm” and “hand piece” (see Annotated Comparison 1, below).
In the embodiment of Cooper’s Col. 4, Ln. 43-49, Cooper’s image sensor is positioned remotely from Cooper’s camera (see Cooper at Col. 4, Ln. 43-49, describing “…an image sensor located in handle 101…”) in Cooper’s “hand piece” (i.e., “handle 101” in Cooper’s Fig. 6; see Annotated Comparison 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1475
1343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although neither Dresser nor Cooper specify any particular distance between either the image sensor and the laser beam output or the articulating arm and the laser beam output, Cooper’s configuration allows Cooper’s image sensor to be placed anywhere along Cooper’s “hand piece” or even at a location remote from Cooper’s “hand piece.”
Positioning Cooper’s “image sensor” relative to Dresser’s “articulating arm” such that Cooper’s “image sensor is located a greater distance from the laser beam output than a distance between a nearest portion of the articulating arm and the laser beam output” amounts to routine optimization within prior art conditions, and thus would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Cooper’s “image sensor” configuration is amendable to its image sensor being located at any distance from the laser beam output (i.e., via fiber optic cables, see Cooper at Col. 4, Ln. 43-49), including such a distance that is “greater … than a distance between a nearest portion of the articulating arm and the laser beam output” as claimed.
The Present Specification does not describe the claimed distance as critical, and does not suggest that the claimed distance is for any particular purpose or to solve any particular problem that distinguishes it from any other distance. See Rejection of Claim 2 under 35 USC 112(a), above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would expect from Cooper’s disclosure at least at Cooper Col. 4, Ln. 43-49 that any distance whatsoever would likely result in success, because Cooper’s configuration of Col. 4, Ln. 43-49 allows for Cooper’s image sensor to be positioned absolutely anywhere via fiber optic coupling.
It would have been a simple matter of routine optimization to position Cooper’s “image sensor” relative to Dresser’s “articulating arm” such that Cooper’s “image sensor is located a greater distance from the laser beam output than a distance between a nearest portion of the articulating arm and the laser beam output,” as such positioning merely entails selecting from Cooper’s essentially infinite range of distances a particular set of distances within Cooper’s infinite range and observing the results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Dresser additionally teaches:
further comprising at least a computing device configured to control the one or more of the pulse duration and the pulse energy to affect treatment. (Para. [0018], “…the at least one laser parameter of the laser beam controlled by the controller includes at least one of: repetition rate, pulse energy, pulse duration, average power, peak power, and wavelength.” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
wherein the at least a computing device is further configured to communicate the at least an image to the remote device concurrently while the laser generates the laser beam (Col. 2, Ln. 47-59, “A dental instrument constructed in accordance with the teachings of this invention includes a handle to be held by the user, a distal portion which is to be placed inside the patient's mouth, a laser light emission port located at or near the distal end, means for transporting laser light from an external laser source to the laser light emission port, and a camera head located at or near the distal end of the device, with the camera head being formed at an angle to the handle in order to provide a field of view which includes the portion of the patient which is being treated by the laser light emanating from the laser light emission port.” (emphasis added)).
Cooper’s camera and laser operate concurrently, and are thus configured in the manner claimed.
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Dresser teaches:
A method of dental treatment, the method comprising: (Title, “Preventative dental hard tissue laser treatment systems, methods, and computer-readable media”);
generating, using a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser, a laser beam as a function of a laser parameter, (Para. [00133], “ The laser beam is generated by a laser source 114. An exemplary laser source 114 is a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser…;” Abstract, “The system additionally includes a controller. The controller is configured to control one or more parameters of the laser source…;” Claim 1, “…and, a controller configured to control one or more parameters of the laser beam…”);
comprising one or more of pulse duration and pulse energy; (Para. [0018], “…the at least one laser parameter of the laser beam controlled by the controller includes at least one of: repetition rate, pulse energy, pulse duration, average power, peak power, and wavelength.” (emphasis added));
delivering, using an articulating arm, the laser beam from the laser; (Para. [0152], “A beam delivery system 914 directs the laser beam to a hand piece 916. Exemplary' beam delivery' systems 914 include articulated arms, waveguides, and fiber optics. An exemplary articulated arm is provided by Laser Mechanisms of Novi, Michigan, U.S.A.” (emphasis added));
accepting, using a hand piece, the laser beam from the articulating arm; (Fig. 9, “hand piece 916;” Para. [0152], “A beam delivery system 914 directs the laser beam to a hand piece 916. Exemplary' beam delivery' systems 914 include articulated arms…”);
positioning a laser beam output of the handpiece within a human patient's mouth; directing, using the laser beam output and the hand piece, the laser beam to at least a tooth of the patient; (Para. [0152], “The hand piece 916 is configured to be used intra-orally (ie., within an oral cavity). Typically, the hand piece 916 includes a focus optic (not shown) that converges the laser beam to a focal region outside of the hand piece 916;” Para. [0153], “…the clinician positions the hand piece 916 so that a focal region of the laser beam is coincident with or near (e.g., +/- lmm, 2mm, 3mm, or 5mm) a surface of a tooth.”);
As explained above, the term “a laser beam output” is being interpreted to mean the point at which the laser beam is output.
treating, using the laser beam, that at least a tooth of the patient by: removing one or more of calculus and tartar from at least a surface of the at least a tooth; (Para. [0184], “During laser treatment a laser beam is generated and directed toward a surface of dental hard tissue. … As a result of the irradiation of the surface, a temperature of the surface rises…. As a result of the momentary temperature rise biological materials previously on or adhered to the surface of the dental hard tissue (e.g., pellicle, bio-film, calculus, and tartar) are at least partially removed….”)
Dresser does not disclose:
forming, using at least an image-forming optic or a camera in sensed communication with the at least a tooth, an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor;
and detecting, using the image sensor, visible light and at least an image of the at least a tooth as a function of the optical image.
Cooper describes “A novel dental instrument … which includes both a laser device and an electronic video dental camera” (Abstract). Cooper is analogous art.
Cooper teaches:
forming, using at least an image-forming optic or a camera in sensed communication with the at least a tooth, an optical image of the at least a tooth at an image sensor; (Figs. 1-2, “camera head 104;” Col. 4, Ln. 62-67, “…the field of view provided by the means for receiving an image contained in camera head 104 is designed to encompass that area where the laser dental procedure is being performed, i.e. in the case of FIG. 1 the field of view is the portion of tooth 107…;” Claim 1);
and detecting, using the image sensor, visible light and at least an image of the at least a tooth as a function of the optical image. (Claim 1, “…a camera head located at the distal end of said handle including a means for receiving an image, such that said image includes the area of the mouth to which said laser energy is directed;” Claim 5, “…wherein said means for receiving an image is selected from the group of mirrors, lenses, optical fibers, and filters;” Col. 4, Ln. 43-49; Col. 4, Ln. 50-53, “…in a preferred embodiment the image sensor is located directly in camera head 104 and receives the image from the patient's mouth via a lens…”)
The Examiner notes that this limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar limitation of Claim 1, the particulars of which interpretation are explained above.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dresser with the teachings of Cooper (i.e., to modify the Dresser so that it includes a camera such as that taught by Cooper) in order to “afford[] [the practitioner-user] significantly improved imaging which enables the practitioner to perform the procedure with a high degree of confidence that the laser energy is directed to the desired area, and only the desired area, within the patient's mouth, thereby making the procedure quicker, more effective, and safer,” and further because “[b]y providing a single dental instrument which is used for both directing the laser energy and providing a view of the operative area, the practitioner can perform the procedure with far greater ease than when utilizing both a laser instrument and a dental mirror for viewing purposes” (Cooper at Col. 3, Ln. 42-57).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
wherein the image sensor is located a greater distance from the laser beam output than a distance between a nearest portion of the articulating arm and the laser beam output, and the method further comprises: facilitating, using the handpiece, an optical path between the oral tissue and the camera. (Col. 4, Ln. 43-49, “In another embodiment of this invention, the image is transmitted by one or more rod or relay lens assemblies or fiber optic cable, or a combination thereof with or without additional lenses, through a connector (not shown) at the proximal end of handle 101 to an image sensor located in handle 101 or in external video equipment (not shown);” Dresser Fig. 9; Cooper Fig. 7; See Annotated Comparison 1, above at Claim 1).
Claim 12 is being interpreted similarly to Claim 2, which is substantively the same as Claim 12. The explanation of Claim 2 above is reiterated with respect to Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Dresser additionally teaches:
further comprising controlling, using at least a computing device, the one or more of the pulse duration and the pulse energy to affect treatment (Para. [0018], “…the at least one laser parameter of the laser beam controlled by the controller includes at least one of: repetition rate, pulse energy, pulse duration, average power, peak power, and wavelength.” (emphasis added)).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
further comprising detecting, using the camera, the at least an image concurrently while the laser generates the laser beam. (Col. 2, Ln. 47-59, “A dental instrument constructed in accordance with the teachings of this invention includes a handle to be held by the user, a distal portion which is to be placed inside the patient's mouth, a laser light emission port located at or near the distal end, means for transporting laser light from an external laser source to the laser light emission port, and a camera head located at or near the distal end of the device, with the camera head being formed at an angle to the handle in order to provide a field of view which includes the portion of the patient which is being treated by the laser light emanating from the laser light emission port.” (emphasis added)).
Cooper’s camera and laser operate concurrently.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/155054 A1 to Dresser et al. (“Dresser”) in view of US 5,051,823 A to Cooper et al. (“Cooper”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,688,262 A to Abraham (“Abraham”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Dresser and Cooper does not disclose:
wherein the optical path comprises one or more of a sodium chloride optic, or a potassium bromide optic
Abraham describes “A laser micromanipulator for surgical applications includes an adaptor attachable to a laser and to a microscope which automatically maintains, preferably using phase detection, the laser beam in focus on tissue during any changes in the working distance by the surgeon manipulating the microscope” (Abstract). Abraham is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
Abraham teaches:
wherein the optical path comprises one or more of a sodium chloride optic, or a potassium bromide optic (Col. 3, Ln. 28-32, “Each lens system LA, LB has both zinc selenide (ZnSe) elements and potassium bromide (KBr) elements for chromatic and spherical aberration correction, forming an aplanatic achromatic lens, as well known in the art.”).
As explained above, the “optical path” of Claim 3 is being interpreted to reference the “optical path” of Claim 2.
The term “optical path” is understood by the Examiner in view of Para. [0078] of the Present Specification to reference the space between the camera and the oral tissue.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Abraham (i.e., to use such a lens containing potassium bromide as taught by Abraham as the lens of either Cooper of Dresser, thus causing the optical path of combined Dresser and Cooper to comprise potassium bromide) in order to chromatic and spherical aberration consistent with well-known methodology for so-doing (Abraham at Col. 3, Ln. 28-32).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
The combination of Dresser and Cooper does not disclose:
wherein the optical path comprises one or more of a sodium chloride optic, or a potassium bromide optic
Abraham describes “A laser micromanipulator for surgical applications includes an adaptor attachable to a laser and to a microscope which automatically maintains, preferably using phase detection, the laser beam in focus on tissue during any changes in the working distance by the surgeon manipulating the microscope” (Abstract). Abraham is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and is thus analogous art.
Abraham teaches:
wherein the optical path comprises one or more of a sodium chloride optic, or a potassium bromide optic (Col. 3, Ln. 28-32, “Each lens system LA, LB has both zinc selenide (ZnSe) elements and potassium bromide (KBr) elements for chromatic and spherical aberration correction, forming an aplanatic achromatic lens, as well known in the art.”).
As explained above, the “optical path” of Claim 3 is being interpreted to reference the “optical path” of Claim 2.
The term “optical path” is understood by the Examiner in view of Para. [0078] of the Present Specification to reference the space between the camera and the oral tissue.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Abraham (i.e., to use such a lens containing potassium bromide as taught by Abraham as the lens of either Cooper of Dresser, thus causing the optical path of combined Dresser and Cooper to comprise potassium bromide) in order to chromatic and spherical aberration consistent with well-known methodology for so-doing (Abraham at Col. 3, Ln. 28-32).
Claims 5-6 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/155054 A1 to Dresser et al. (“Dresser”) in view of US 5,051,823 A to Cooper et al. (“Cooper”) as applied to Claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of US 2014/0363784 A1 to Monty et al. (“Monty”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 4 as explained above.
Dresser additionally teaches:
further comprising a beam scanner configured to scan the laser beam as a function of a scan parameter; (Para. [00183], “… the laser beam is scanned as it is directed toward the surface of the dental hard tissue by a beam scanning system. Exemplary beam scanning systems include Risley prisms, spinning polygon mirrors, voice coil scanners (e.g., Part No. MR-15-30 from Optotune of Dietikon, Switzerland), galvanometers (e.g., Lightning II 2-axis scan head from Cambridge Technology of Bedford, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), and a gantry with a translating focus optic. Scanning methods related to dental laser systems are described in U.8. Patent No. 9,408,673 by N. Monty et al, incorporated herein by reference.”);
The Examiner notes that Para. [0061] makes reference verbatim to the same “exemplary beam scanning systems” as described at Dresser Para. [00183]. See Present Specification at Para. [0061] (“Exemplary beam scanners include, without limitation, Risley prisms, spinning polygon mirrors, voice coil scanners (e.g., Part No. MR-15-30 from Optotune of Dietikon, Switzerland), galvanometers (e.g., Lightning II 2-axis scan head from Cambridge Technology of Bedford, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), and a gantry with a translating focus optic. Scanning methods related to dental laser systems are described in U.S. Patent No. 9,408,673 by N. Monty et al., incorporated herein by reference.”). The Present Specification does not elaborate on what specifically configuring such a beam scanner “to scan the laser beam as a function of a scan parameter” entails.
As both Dresser and the Present Invention use the same beam scanner, Dresser’s beam scanner must be “configured to scan the laser beam as a function of a scan parameter.” If not, this limitation would likely fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
The combination of Dresser and Cooper does not disclose:
and wherein, the at least a computing device is further configured to control the scan parameter
Monty describes “A dental laser system for treatment of hard and/or soft tissue…” (Abstract). Monty is analogous art.
Monty teaches:
and wherein, the at least a computing device is further configured to control the scan parameter (Para. [0109], “The speed of the beam scanning can be determined by the speed of jump from point to point. … The values of these variables may be controlled, e.g., using software executing on the system computer;” Para. [0120], “In FIG. 10C depicting an exemplary scanned beam pattern 1000, the locations of the treatment area towards which the beam guidance system directs the laser beam during each dwell time are shown by dots 1002.”).
This interpretation is supported by Para. [0061] of the Present Specification (“Exemplary non-limiting scan parameters include scan patterns, scan jobs, jump speed, jump delay, mark speed, mark delay, dwell time, and the like. In some cases, scan parameters are a function of the laser parameters or vice versa.”), which lists such “dwell time” as described to be computer-controlled by Monty as such a “scan parameter” as contemplated by Claim 5.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Monty (i.e., to modify the computing device of combined Dresser and Cooper such that it is further configured to control the scan parameter in the manner of Monty) in order to further refine control of the amount of laser energy delivered at a given point in time (Monty at Para. [0109]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Dresser, Cooper and Monty renders obvious the entirety of Claim 5 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the at least an image from the camera; (Col. 3, Ln. 62-66, “At the proximal end (not shown) of handle 101 is located one or more connectors for connection, via a cable assembly (not shown) to a video processor and control unit and a source of laser energy;” Col. 3, Ln. 67 through Col. 4, Ln. 12);
Cooper’s “video processor and control unit” are such a “computing device” as claimed.
and communicate the at least an image to a remote device configured to interface with a remote user (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40, “The dental instrument of this invention also includes means for providing a video image of the area to which the laser energy is directed for viewing on a video screen…”)
Cooper’s “means for providing a video image … for viewing on a video screen” is such a “remote device” as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of combined Dresser, Cooper and Monty with the teachings of Cooper (i.e., to modify Dresser’s “computing device” such that it is additionally configured to receive the at least an image from the camera and communicate the at least an image to a remote device configured to interface with a remote user in the manner of Cooper) in order to “provide[] a magnified view on a video screen of the operative area,” thereby “afford[ing the user-practioner] significantly improved imaging which enables the practitioner to perform the procedure with a high degree of confidence that the laser energy is directed to the desired area, and only the desired area, within the patient's mouth, thereby making the procedure quicker, more effective, and safer” (Cooper at Col. 3, Ln. 44-52).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 14 as explained above.
Dresser additionally teaches:
further comprising: scanning, using a beam scanner, the laser beam as a function of a scan parameter; (Para. [00183], “… the laser beam is scanned as it is directed toward the surface of the dental hard tissue by a beam scanning system. Exemplary beam scanning systems include Risley prisms, spinning polygon mirrors, voice coil scanners (e.g., Part No. MR-15-30 from Optotune of Dietikon, Switzerland), galvanometers (e.g., Lightning II 2-axis scan head from Cambridge Technology of Bedford, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), and a gantry with a translating focus optic. Scanning methods related to dental laser systems are described in U.8. Patent No. 9,408,673 by N. Monty et al, incorporated herein by reference.”);
The Examiner notes that Claim 15 is being interpreted similarly to Claim 5 as the two are substantively the same. The explanation set forth at Claim 5 is reiterated.
The combination of Dresser and Cooper does not disclose:
and controlling, using the at least a computing device, the scan parameter.
Monty describes “A dental laser system for treatment of hard and/or soft tissue…” (Abstract). Monty is analogous art.
Monty teaches:
and controlling, using the at least a computing device, the scan parameter (Para. [0109], “The speed of the beam scanning can be determined by the speed of jump from point to point. … The values of these variables may be controlled, e.g., using software executing on the system computer;” Para. [0120], “In FIG. 10C depicting an exemplary scanned beam pattern 1000, the locations of the treatment area towards which the beam guidance system directs the laser beam during each dwell time are shown by dots 1002.”).
The Examiner notes that Claim 15 is being interpreted similarly to Claim 5 as the two are substantively the same. The explanation set forth at Claim 5 is reiterated.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Monty (i.e., to modify the computing device of combined Dresser and Cooper such that it is further configured to control the scan parameter in the manner of Monty) in order to further refine control of the amount of laser energy delivered at a given point in time (Monty at Para. [0109]).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Dresser, Cooper and Monty renders obvious the entirety of Claim 15 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
further comprising: receiving, using the at least a computing device, the at least an image from the camera; (Col. 3, Ln. 62-66, “At the proximal end (not shown) of handle 101 is located one or more connectors for connection, via a cable assembly (not shown) to a video processor and control unit and a source of laser energy;” Col. 3, Ln. 67 through Col. 4, Ln. 12);
Cooper’s “video processor and control unit” are such a “computing device” as claimed.
and communicating, using the at least a computing device, the at least an image to a remote device configured to interface with a remote user. (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40, “The dental instrument of this invention also includes means for providing a video image of the area to which the laser energy is directed for viewing on a video screen…”)
Cooper’s “means for providing a video image … for viewing on a video screen” is such a “remote device” as claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify combined Dresser, Cooper and Monty with the teachings of Cooper (i.e., to modify Dresser’s “computing device” such that it is additionally configured to receive the at least an image from the camera and communicate the at least an image to a remote device configured to interface with a remote user in the manner of Cooper) in order to “provide[] a magnified view on a video screen of the operative area,” thereby “afford[ing the user-practioner] significantly improved imaging which enables the practitioner to perform the procedure with a high degree of confidence that the laser energy is directed to the desired area, and only the desired area, within the patient's mouth, thereby making the procedure quicker, more effective, and safer” (Cooper at Col. 3, Ln. 44-52).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Dresser, Cooper and Monty renders obvious the entirety of Claim 16 as explained above.
Dresser additionally teaches:
further comprising: controlling, using the at least a computing device, the laser parameter; (Para. [0018], “…the at least one laser parameter of the laser beam controlled by the controller includes at least one of: repetition rate, pulse energy, pulse duration, average power, peak power, and wavelength.” (emphasis added));
Cooper additionally teaches:
and communicating, using the at least a computing device, the dental parameter to the remote device, (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40; Col. 4, Ln. 43-59, Col. 4, Ln. 67 through Col. 4, Ln. 12).
The term “dental parameter” is being interpreted to mean “an image of oral tissue.” See Para. [0009] of the Present Specification in support of this interpretation (“…the dental parameter comprises an image of oral tissue.”). Cooper communicates such an image in the manner claimed via fiber optic cable.
The Examiner notes that Cooper does not communicate Cooper’s image “using at least a network.” This deficiency is addressed below
wherein the remote device is located remotely from the computing device; (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40, “The dental instrument of this invention also includes means for providing a video image of the area to which the laser energy is directed for viewing on a video screen…;” Col. 4, Ln. 43-59, describing an “external” video monitor connected via fiber optic cable)
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Dresser, Cooper and Monty renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
further comprising communicating, using the at least a computing device, the at least an image to the remote device concurrently while the laser generates the laser beam. (Col. 2, Ln. 47-59, “A dental instrument constructed in accordance with the teachings of this invention includes a handle to be held by the user, a distal portion which is to be placed inside the patient's mouth, a laser light emission port located at or near the distal end, means for transporting laser light from an external laser source to the laser light emission port, and a camera head located at or near the distal end of the device, with the camera head being formed at an angle to the handle in order to provide a field of view which includes the portion of the patient which is being treated by the laser light emanating from the laser light emission port.” (emphasis added)).
Cooper’s camera and laser operate concurrently.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/155054 A1 to Dresser et al. (“Dresser”) in view of US 5,051,823 A to Cooper et al. (“Cooper”) and US 2014/0363784 A1 to Monty et al. (“Monty”) as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2002/0183727 A1 to Daikuzono (“Daikuzono”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Dresser, Cooper and Monty renders obvious the entirety of Claim 6 as explained above.
Dresser additionally teaches:
wherein: the at least a computing device is further configured to control the laser parameter; (Para. [0018], “…the at least one laser parameter of the laser beam controlled by the controller includes at least one of: repetition rate, pulse energy, pulse duration, average power, peak power, and wavelength.” (emphasis added));
Cooper additionally teaches:
the remote device is located remotely from the computing device; (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40, “The dental instrument of this invention also includes means for providing a video image of the area to which the laser energy is directed for viewing on a video screen…;” Col. 4, Ln. 43-59, describing an “external” video monitor connected via fiber optic cable)
and the at least a computing device communicates the dental parameter to the remote device… (Col. 3, Ln. 37-40; Col. 4, Ln. 43-59, Col. 4, Ln. 67 through Col. 4, Ln. 12).
The term “dental parameter” is being interpreted to mean “an image of oral tissue.” See Para. [0009] of the Present Specification in support of this interpretation (“…the dental parameter comprises an image of oral tissue.”). Cooper communicates such an image in the manner claimed via fiber optic cable.
The Examiner notes that Cooper does not communicate Cooper’s image “using at least a network.” This deficiency is addressed below
The combination of Dresser, Cooper and Monty does not disclose:
using at least a network.
Daikuzono describes “a medical surgical or dental laser light irradiating apparatus which enables operators as well as third persons to precisely view the treatment” (Abstract). Daikuzono is analogous art.
Daikuzono teaches:
using at least a network. (Para. [0039], “…the image pick-up result may be recorded on an appropriate recording device or transmitted to other display of the computer at the remote area over the communication network such as Internet.”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Daikuzono (i.e., to use such a network as taught by Daikuzono in place of or in addition to Cooper’s fiber optic cables) in order to additionally allow third persons such as assistants and advisers to observe treatment conditions in a precise manner for giving appropriate advice to the operator (Daikuzono at Para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Dresser, Cooper, Monty and Daikuzono renders obvious the entirety of Claim 7 as explained above.
Cooper additionally teaches:
wherein the at least a computing device is further configured to communicate the at least an image to the remote device concurrently while the laser generates the laser beam (Col. 2, Ln. 47-59, “A dental instrument constructed in accordance with the teachings of this invention includes a handle to be held by the user, a distal portion which is to be placed inside the patient's mouth, a laser light emission port located at or near the distal end, means for transporting laser light from an external laser source to the laser light emission port, and a camera head located at or near the distal end of the device, with the camera head being formed at an angle to the handle in order to provide a field of view which includes the portion of the patient which is being treated by the laser light emanating from the laser light emission port.” (emphasis added)).
Cooper’s camera and laser operate concurrently, and are thus configured in the manner claimed.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/155054 A1 to Dresser et al. (“Dresser”) in view of US 5,051,823 A to Cooper et al. (“Cooper”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2021/148764 A1 to Benetti et al. (“Benetti”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
The combination of Dresser and Cooper does not disclose:
wherein the camera comprises a global shutter.
Benetti describes “A dental treatment appliance [that] transmits a pulsed light signal towards the oral cavity and captures images of the oral cavity…” (Abstract). Benetti is analogous art.
Benetti teaches:
wherein the camera comprises a global shutter. (Pg. 5, Ln. 11, “The image capturing means may be in the form of a global shutter camera…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Benetti (i.e., to use such a global shutter camera as taught by Benetti as the camera of Cooper) in order to increase image quality by causing all pixels to be exposed simultaneously and for the same period of time during image capture (Benetti at Pg. 5, Ln. 11-14).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Dresser and Cooper renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
The combination of Dresser and Cooper does not disclose:
wherein the camera comprises a global shutter.
Benetti describes “A dental treatment appliance [that] transmits a pulsed light signal towards the oral cavity and captures images of the oral cavity…” (Abstract). Benetti is analogous art.
Benetti teaches:
wherein the camera comprises a global shutter. (Pg. 5, Ln. 11, “The image capturing means may be in the form of a global shutter camera…”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Dresser and Cooper with the teachings of Benetti (i.e., to use such a global shutter camera as taught by Benetti as the camera of Cooper) in order to increase image quality by causing all pixels to be exposed simultaneously and for the same period of time during image capture (Benetti at Pg. 5, Ln. 11-14)
Art Made of Record Although Not Relied Upon in Any Foregoing Rejection
The Examiner makes note of the following art, which is deemed relevant although not relied upon in any foregoing rejection:
US 2019/0231492 A1 describes “Methods and apparatuses for taking, using and displaying three-dimensional (3D) volumetric models of a patient's dental arch” (Abstract), and describes such a camera as claimed at Paras. [0155] through [0165], and treatment via a dental laser at Para. [0167].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights