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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 2/3/2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim s 1-2, 5, and 7-12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 7-13, respectively of copending Application No. 19/106,944 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application No., 19/100,798
Co-Pending Application No., 19/106,944
1. (Original) A dental plaque detection device comprising:
1. (Original) A dental plaque detection device comprising:
an obtainer that obtains a first image in which a blue-light region is at least partially attenuated from reflected light and fluorescence from a tooth, dental plaque, and a dental calculus inside an oral cavity that are being irradiated with irradiation light of a predetermined wavelength that excites a fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus; and
an obtainer that obtains a first RGB image from reflected light and fluorescence from a tooth, dental plaque, and a dental calculus inside an oral cavity that are being irradiated with irradiation light of a predetermined wavelength that excites a fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus; and
a detector that detects, from the first image, a content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth.
a detector that generates a second RGB image by performing, on the first RGB image, image processing including first image processing, and detects a content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth
in accordance with a value of intensity of fluorescence in the fluorescent substance in the second RGB image, wherein in the first image processing, a natural tooth area without dental plaque or a dental calculus is extracted from the first RGB image, and a gain for each of at least two color components among a red component, a green component, and a blue component of the first RGB image is adjusted so as to equalize a first red pixel average value of red pixel values, a first green pixel average value of green pixel values, and a first blue pixel average value of blue pixel values, the red pixel values, the green pixel values, and the blue pixel values being pixel values of a plurality of first pixels making up the natural tooth area.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2019/150515A1 to Akinori, Oyama.
With regards to claim 1 Akinori discloses a dental plaque detection device (oral care system, paragraphs [0003-0004, 0008, 00048]) comprising: an obtainer that obtains a first image [imaging unit 24, paragraphs [00059-00061] in which a blue-light region is at least partially attenuated from reflected light and fluorescence from a tooth, dental plaque, and a dental calculus inside an oral cavity that are being irradiated with irradiation light of a predetermined wavelength (paragraphs [0004, 00059-00064, 00077, 000118-000119]) that excites a fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus (paragraphs [0003-0004, 00024, 00055, 00077-00080, 00083-00085]); and a detector that detects, from the first image, a content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (paragraphs [0005, 0008, 00019, 00024-0027, 00049, 00056, 000105]).
With regards to claim 2 Akinori discloses wherein the detector generates an HSV image from the first image, and detects, from a value of Value of the HSV image, the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (paragraphs [00055, 00077, 00080]).
With regards to claim 4 Akinori discloses wherein the detector identifies a specific pixel area where one or more fourth pixels among a plurality of fourth pixels of the HSV image are located, the one or more fourth pixels satisfying at least one of the following: Saturation is within a first predetermined range; Hue is within a second predetermined range; and Value is within a third predetermined range, and the detector detects, from a value of the Value of the specific pixel area, the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (paragraphs [00077-00078] HSV having predetermine value range; paragraphs [00079-00080] for detection of content).
With regards to claim 9 Akinori discloses wherein the detector assigns one of three or more gradation levels to each of contents per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth, and the detector generates a third image in which the contents per unit area shown in gradation are superimposed on a second image based on the first image (gradation levels as seen in Figures 12 onwards and paragraphs [00078-00080]).
With regards to claim 10 Akinori discloses an identifier that identifies a type of a tooth imaged; and storage that stores, in association with the type of the tooth identified, a content per unit area of a fluorescent substance contained in dental plaque and a dental calculus adhering to the tooth imaged, the content per unit area having been detected from the tooth imaged (central portion of the teeth as the type of a tooth, paragraphs [000120-000124 and throughout the reference]; storage unit 11, Fig. 10; paragraphs [00088-00097, 000100-000103], and throughout the reference).
With regard to claims 11-12, claims 11-12 are rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 11-12, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/150515A1 to Akinori, Oyama in combination with US 2012/0321759A1 to Marinkovich et al. (hereafter, “Marinkovich”).
With regard to claim 5, Akinori discloses the dental plaque detection device according to claim 1. However, Akinori does not expressly teach wherein the detector generates an HSL image from the first image, and detects, from a value of luminance of the HSL image, the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth.
Marinkovich teaches wherein the detector generates an HSL image from the first image, and detects, from a value of luminance of the HSL image, the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (paragraphs [0086, 0467, 0907]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akinori’s reference to have detector generate HSL image of Marinkovich’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to assess various factors of the skin (a dental set), as suggested by Marinkovich at paragraphs [0113-0116, etc.].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Marinkovich with Akinori to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
With regard to claim 7, Akinori in combination with Marinkovich discloses wherein the detector identifies a specific pixel area where one or more fifth pixels among a plurality of fifth pixels of the HSL image are located, the one or more fifth pixels satisfying at least one of the following: Saturation is within a fourth predetermined range; Hue is within a fifth predetermined range; and Luminance is within a sixth predetermined range, and the detector detects, from a value of the Luminance of the specific pixel area, the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (Akinori discloses HSV as discussed above; Marinkovich discloses HSL as mentioned in claim 5; further these HSL are within predetermined range in combination for detecting dental plaque).
With regard to claim 8, Akinori in combination with Marinkovich discloses wherein the fluorescent substance is porphyrin (Marinkovich: paragraphs [0073, 0105, 0344, 0581, 0861, 0899], table 1 under paragraph [0344]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited art of record fails to teach, disclose or suggest the limitation/features “wherein the first image is a first RGB image, the detector generates a second RGB image by performing, on the first RGB image, image processing including first image processing, in the first image processing, a gain for each of at least two color components among a red component, a green component, and a blue component of an RGB image to be processed is adjusted so as to equalize a first red pixel average value of red pixel values, a first green pixel average value of green pixel values, and a first blue pixel average value of blue pixel values, the red pixel values, the green pixel values, and the blue pixel values being pixel values of a plurality of first pixels making up a portion of the RGB image to be processed that corresponds to the tooth, and the detector generates the HSV image by converting a color space of the second RGB image into an HSV space”, recited in claims 3 and 6
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2011/0070561 A1 – discloses a dental-plaque detection system and dental-plaque detection method which are excellent in the detection accuracy of dental plaques and also capable of improving the situation to stain sites other than dental plaques (such as interdental parts and gums) are provided. The dental-plaque detection system includes a dental-plaque staining agent, which contains at least one selected from yellow pigment of beni-koji, turmeric extracts, and curcumin; and a light-emitting apparatus, which outputs light having a wavelength within a range of 250 to 500 nm to an object in the oral cavity where the dental-plaque staining agent is attached. The dental-plaque detection method includes attaching a dental-plaque staining agent, which contains at least one selected from yellow pigment of beni-koji, turmeric extracts, and curcumin onto an object in the oral cavity; and thereafter irradiating light having a wavelength within a range of 250 to 500 nm onto the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights