DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Specification
The use of the term, “Wifi” & “Bluetooth” at ¶0050 a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Suggested to insert the trademark symbol in place of stating “registered trademark”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: “Red, Green Blue, (RGB)”.
Claim 1: “ included in the natural tooth area”.
Claim 5: “Hue, Saturation, Value (HSV)”.
Claim 5: “a value of Value of the HSV image”.
Claim 8: “Hue, Saturation, Luminance (HSL)”.
Claim 12: “Red, Green Blue, (RGB)”.
Claim 13: “ included in the natural tooth area”.
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.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 11: “a tooth imaged [...] 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.”, render the claim indefinite. Claim 1 already discloses, a tooth and determining a content per unit area of a fluorescent substance contained in dental plaque and a dental calculus adhering to the tooth imaged. Its unclear if this phrase is intended to refer to claim 1 determination step or incorporating a new additional step directed to a different tooth than the tooth identified in claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the tooth in the first RGB image; and storage that stores, in association with the type of the tooth in the first RGB image, the content per unit area of the fluorescence substance contained in the dental plaque and a dental calculus adhering to the tooth imaged. Clarity is needed.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 4-6, & 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)) in view of Shimohira (JP 2014133029 A) in view of Kulovesi (US 20220101405 A1).
Claim 1: Waller discloses: A dental plaque detection device comprising: ([Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment 2-4] - The equipment used consists of the Inspektor™ Pro, the QLF-D Biluminator™ 2 and the QLF™ On-Line tower, all developed and sold by Inspektor Research Systems bv and depicted in Figure 1.)
an obtainer that obtains a first RGB image from reflected light and fluorescence (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a” or “an” can be interpreted as “one or more” (i.e., at least one)) 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 ([Methods and means pg. 2] & [Validation pg. 6-8] The QLF system irradiate the oral cavity with light and excites porphyrins in dental plaque and calculus which emit fluorescence. FIG. 1 is the equipment used that captures images of teeth, dental plaque and calculus inside the oral cavity. [Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment pg. 2-4] two successive pictures are take, one with white-light for reflective light and one filtered OLF image where illuminating light is filtered away to leave fluorescence. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, capturing the RBG images of fluorescence and reflected light via the camera obtainer constitutes a first RGB image from reflected light and fluorescence; Note; [Method & means pg. 2] “QLF™, which stands for Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence [9, 11], raises the visual contrast between sound and pathogenic tissue in the oral cavity. It is based on the fact that various (organic) substances in the mouth absorb light of a certain wavelength (color) and then re-emit the absorbed energy at a different wavelength. By filtering away the illuminating light the fluorescence- or QLF™-image is obtained.”)
a detector that generates a second RGB image by performing, on the first RGB image, image processing including first image processing, ([Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment pg. 2-4] The Inspektor Pro and QLF-D software run on a computer include a detector. The software receives the captured images and performs digital image processing. Specifically, the software selects an area of interest, and computes individual pixel values across color channels and evaluates the pixel intensity ratios against threshold values, see [Analysis and quantification pg. 5] & Table 1 pg. 5. The software processes resulting images blue highlights over the pixels FIG. 3, (a second RGB image), from the original QLF image, see [Equipment pg. 2-4 & Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6]) 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, (The software calculates the Delta R, defined as the percentage increase of the ratio of red to green component relative to sound tissue, which correlates with the porphyrins and bacterial activity, Table 1 Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6, while calculating the RF area in pixels or millimeters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this evaluation of fluorescent substance intensity change, Delta R, over the surface area constitutes as the content per unit area. In other words, Waller discloses an optical index derived directly from the fluorescent pixel intensity.)
Waller fails to disclose:
wherein in the first image processing, a natural tooth area without dental plaque or a dental calculus is extracted from the first RGB image, making up the natural tooth area.
However, Shimohira in the context of dental imaging and image analysis disclose: wherein in the first image processing, a natural tooth area without dental plaque is extracted from the first RGB image, making up the natural tooth area. (¶0027, ¶0035-0036, ¶0048, the image data from the oral cavity is captured in RGB format using the camera. This original (i.e., first RGB) image data is converted to HSV color space to enable area extraction based on color information. In the first image processing, both plaque area B and the tooth surface area A1 is identified based on color thresholding. Specifically, Step S32, ¶0054, the first image processing includes an extraction process, with extraction unit 132 that removes/subtracts the extracted plaque area B from the image data to extract the clean tooth surface area A1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the tooth surface area via this extraction process constitutes as a natural tooth area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first image processing of Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090.
Waller fails to disclose 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
However, Kulovesi in the field of correcting illumination dependent RGB imbalance in a biological color image by using an identified, white anatomical region within the image as an internal color reference discloses, 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 area. (Kulovesi discloses obtaining an input image to identify/extract at least a first region corresponding to a portion of the user eye (i.e., sclera), ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0029-0030. The input image is a colored image of pixel values of red, green and blue components (i.e., the first RGB image), ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0029-0030. Regarding the adjusting gain for at least two color components, see ¶0043-0046. C1 & C2 parameters from the sampled sclera area are determined, ¶0043-0046. Color correction is then performed dividing the red and blue pixel values by these factors while leaving green unchanged. Dividing R and G by C1 and C2 is mathematically equivalent to scaling by gains, thereby adjusting gains for at least two color components (Red and Blue) amount the RGB channels. ¶0043-¶0050, when the gain adjustment is applied to the sampled sclera pixels, by applying these factors equalizes the first red, green, and blue average pixel values across this extracted area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pixel analysis of the first image processing of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Kulovesi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improve uncalibrated imaging of distorted colors, as suggested by Kulovesi, ¶0003.
Claim 4: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller discloses: wherein the first RGB image is an image in which a blue-light region is at least partially attenuated from the reflected light and the fluorescence from the tooth and the dental plaque inside the oral cavity. ([Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment 2-4] The QLF operates in the oral cavity with excitation light at specific wavelengths (i.e., blue light), FIG. 3. The fluorescence signal is captured by filtering away the illuminating light. A direct result of this filtering exhibits an absence of reflection from the illuminating light. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, filtering out the blue excitation light so the camera sensor record the emitted fluorescence without the reflected excitation light constitutes at least partially attenuating a blue-light region from the light entering the camera to from the RGB image.)
Claim 5: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller fails to disclose: wherein the detector generates an HSV image from the second RGB 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.
However, Shimohira is relied upon above discloses: wherein the detector generates an HSV image from the RGB 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 dental calculus adhering to the tooth. (¶0028, ¶0068)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector that generates the second RGB image of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090. The modified combination would disclose the determine generates the HSV image from the second image.
Claim 6: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, Waller fails to disclose: 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.
However, Shimohira is relied upon above 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: 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. (¶0028, ¶0068)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector that generates the second RGB image of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090. The modified combination would disclose the determine generates the HSV image from the second image.
Claim 9: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller discloses: wherein the fluorescent substance is porphyrin ([Methods and means pg. 2)).
Claim 10: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller 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, ([Analysis and quantification pg. 5] & FIG. 5, the simple plaque score form 0 to 5 based on the fluoresce intensity. This is a six level scale that constitutes three or more gradation levels assigned to the detected content per unit area of the fluorescent substance. The ratios difference between no plaque, immature plaque, and mature plaque. This is six level index the ranges of the delta R.) 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 RGB image. (The third image is the generated output by the detector containing the visual analysis layer, FIG. 3 & 5. The visual output of the images are superimposed on the base QLF image, Fig. 3 and specifically FIG. 3c – analysis result of the simple plaque score. And FIG. 6d shows the color-coded two-tone plaque map of (mature vs immature plaque).).
Claim 11: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller discloses: further comprising: an identifier that identifies a type of a tooth imaged; and storage that stores, in association with the type of the tooth identified, ([Methods and means pg. 2] & [Validation pg. 6-8] The QLF system irradiate the oral cavity with light and excites porphyrins in dental plaque and calculus which emit fluorescence. FIG. 1 is the equipment used that captures images of teeth, dental plaque and calculus inside the oral cavity. [Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment pg. 2-4] two successive pictures are take, one with white-light for reflective light and one filtered OLF image where illuminating light is filtered away to leave fluorescence. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, capturing the RBG images of fluorescence and reflected light via the camera obtainer constitutes a first RGB image from reflected light and fluorescence; Note; [Method & means pg. 2] “QLF™, which stands for Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence [9, 11], raises the visual contrast between sound and pathogenic tissue in the oral cavity. It is based on the fact that various (organic) substances in the mouth absorb light of a certain wavelength (color) and then re-emit the absorbed energy at a different wavelength. By filtering away the illuminating light the fluorescence- or QLF™-image is obtained.”) 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. (The software calculates the Delta R, defined as the percentage increase of the ratio of red to green component relative to sound tissue, which correlates with the porphyrins and bacterial activity, Table 1 Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6, while calculating the RF area in pixels or millimeters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this evaluation of fluorescent substance intensity change, Delta R, over the surface area constitutes as the content per unit area. In other words, Waller discloses an optical index derived directly from the fluorescent pixel intensity.)
Claim 12: Waller discloses, A dental plaque detection method comprising: ([Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment 2-4] - The equipment used consists of the Inspektor™ Pro, the QLF-D Biluminator™ 2 and the QLF™ On-Line tower, all developed and sold by Inspektor Research Systems bv and depicted in Figure 1.)
obtaining a first RGB image from reflected light and fluorescence (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a” or “an” can be interpreted as “one or more” (i.e., at least one)) 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 ([Methods and means pg. 2] & [Validation pg. 6-8] The QLF system irradiate the oral cavity with light and excites porphyrins in dental plaque and calculus which emit fluorescence. FIG. 1 is the equipment used that captures images of teeth, dental plaque and calculus inside the oral cavity. [Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment pg. 2-4] two successive pictures are take, one with white-light for reflective light and one filtered OLF image where illuminating light is filtered away to leave fluorescence. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, capturing the RBG images of fluorescence and reflected light via the camera obtainer constitutes a first RGB image from reflected light and fluorescence; Note; [Method & means pg. 2] “QLF™, which stands for Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence [9, 11], raises the visual contrast between sound and pathogenic tissue in the oral cavity. It is based on the fact that various (organic) substances in the mouth absorb light of a certain wavelength (color) and then re-emit the absorbed energy at a different wavelength. By filtering away the illuminating light the fluorescence- or QLF™-image is obtained.”)
generating a second RGB image by performing, on the first RGB image, image processing including first image processing, ([Methods and means pg. 2 & Equipment pg. 2-4] The Inspektor Pro and QLF-D software run on a computer include a detector. The software receives the captured images and performs digital image processing. Specifically, the software selects an area of interest, and computes individual pixel values across color channels and evaluates the pixel intensity ratios against threshold values, see [Analysis and quantification pg. 5] & Table 1 pg. 5. The software processes resulting images blue highlights over the pixels FIG. 3, (a second RGB image), from the original QLF image, see [Equipment pg. 2-4 & Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6]) and detecting 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, (The software calculates the Delta R, defined as the percentage increase of the ratio of red to green component relative to sound tissue, which correlates with the porphyrins and bacterial activity, Table 1 Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6, while calculating the RF area in pixels or millimeters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this evaluation of fluorescent substance intensity change, Delta R, over the surface area constitutes as the content per unit area. In other words, Waller discloses an optical index derived directly from the fluorescent pixel intensity.)
Waller fails to disclose:
wherein in the first image processing, a natural tooth area without dental plaque or a dental calculus is extracted from the first RGB image, making up the natural tooth area.
However, Shimohira in the context of dental imaging and image analysis discloses: wherein in the first image processing, a natural tooth area without dental plaque or a dental calculus is extracted from the first RGB image, making up the natural tooth area. (¶0027, ¶0035-0036, ¶0048, the image data from the oral cavity is captured in RGB format using the camera. This original (i.e., first RGB) image data is converted to HSV color space to enable area extraction based on color information. In the first image processing, both plaque area B and the tooth surface area A1 is identified based on color thresholding. Specifically, Step S32, ¶0054, the first image processing includes an extraction process, with extraction unit 132 that removes/subtracts the extracted plaque area B from the image data to extract the clean tooth surface area A1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the tooth surface area via this extraction process constitutes as a natural tooth area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first image processing of Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090.
Waller fails to disclose: 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 of the area.
However, Kulovesi in the field of correcting illumination dependent RGB imbalance in a biological color image by using an identified, white anatomical region within the image as an internal color reference discloses, 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 of the area. (Kulovesi discloses obtaining an input image to identify/extract at least a first region corresponding to a portion of the user eye (i.e., sclera), ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0029-0030. The input image is a colored image of pixel values of red, green and blue components (i.e., the first RGB image), ¶Abstract, ¶0007, ¶0029-0030. Regarding the adjusting gain for at least two color components, see ¶0043-0046. C1 & C2 parameters from the sampled sclera area are determined, ¶0043-0046. Color correction is then performed dividing the red and blue pixel values by these factors while leaving green unchanged. Dividing R and G by C1 and C2 is mathematically equivalent to scaling by gains, thereby adjusting gains for at least two color components (Red and Blue) amount the RGB channels. ¶0043-¶0050, when the gain adjustment is applied to the sampled sclera pixels, by applying these factors equalizes the first red, green, and blue average pixel values across this extracted area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify pixel analysis of the first image processing of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Kulovesi. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improve uncalibrated imaging of distorted colors, as suggested by Kulovesi, ¶0003.
Claim 13: Waller disclsoes: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the dental plaque detection method according to claim 12 ([Equipment pg. 2-4]).
Claim 2 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)) in view of Shimohira (JP 2014133029 A) in view of Kulovesi (US 20220101405 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Jones et al (US 20240138665 A1)
Claim 2: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller fails to disclose: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, a first area that is the oral cavity, and the natural tooth area is extracted based on the first area.
However, Shimohira in the context of dental imaging and image analysis discloses: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, a first area that is the oral cavity, and the natural tooth area is extracted based on the first area. (¶0052-0056)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extracting of the natural tooth area of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090.
Waller fails to disclose wherein in extracting the area, a first area that is (i) an area in which a luminance value of each of one or more pixels included in an entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold or (ii) an area in which a green pixel value of each of the one or more pixels included in the entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined second threshold is detected, and the area is extracted based on the first area.
However, Jones in the context of dental imaging and analysis discloses: wherein in extracting the area, (¶0067, ¶0082, ¶0096) a first area that is (i) an area in which a luminance value of each of one or more pixels included in an entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold (¶0067, ¶0104, ¶0112, ¶0123 – the luminance value encompass the pixel brightness derived from the RGB channels evaluated within the RBG/HSL image data, the detected area are checked using a tree classifier to evaluate the value or intensity is above the selected threshold.) or (ii) an area in which a green pixel value of each of the one or more pixels included in the entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined second threshold is detected, (¶0067, ¶0084, ¶0123) and the area is extracted based on the first area (¶0082, ¶0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extracting first area of the natural tooth area of modified Waller such that incorporate the teachings of Jones for the advantage of providing an improve system and method being able to identify regions of interest (ROI) in images, areas of isolated fluorescence expanded by 10-contiguous pixels, as suggested by Jones, ¶0082.
Claim 7: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Waller fails to disclose: the detector generates an HSL image from the second RGB 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.
However, Jones in the context of dental imaging and analysis discloses: the detector generates an HSL image from the RGB image, (¶0068-0069, ¶0115, ¶0123). and detects, from a value of luminance of the HSL image (¶0068-0069, ¶0123), the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance (¶0022, ¶0030, ¶0112, Claim 19) contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (¶0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generating of the second image of modified Waller such that incorporate the teachings of Jones. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the visualization of features of the tooth, as suggested by Jones, ¶0069-0072.
Claim 8: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Waller fails to disclose: 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.
However, Jones in the context of dental imaging and analysis 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, (¶0081-0082, ¶0096, ¶0104,) the one or more fifth pixels satisfying at least one of the following: Saturation is within a fourth predetermined range (¶0081); Hue is within a fifth predetermined range (¶0071-0072, , ¶0116, ¶0108); and Luminance is within a sixth predetermined range (¶0104, ¶0112, ¶0123), and the detector detects, from a value of the Luminance of the specific pixel area (¶0112, ¶0116, Claim 19), the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (¶0048, ¶0112, ¶0116, Claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector of modified Waller such that it incorporate the teachings of Jones. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the visualization of features of the tooth, as suggested by Jones, ¶0069-0072.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)) in view of Shimohira (JP 2014133029 A) in view of Kulovesi (US 20220101405 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 20240138665 A1), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Hakomori et al (US 20160166137 A1).
Claim 3: Waller as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Waller fails to disclose: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, an area obtained by removing a dental plaque area and a dental calculus area from the first area is extracted as the natural tooth area.
However, Hakomori in the context of discerning plaque cite, and calculus sites from a tooth side from an oral image discloses: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, an area obtained by removing a dental plaque area and a dental calculus area from the first area is extracted as the natural tooth area (¶0180, ¶0194-0209, FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extracting the natural tooth area of modified Waller to further incorporate the teachings of Hakomori for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus being able to target plaque and calculus removal, as suggested by Hakomori, ¶0067.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
[FIRST REJECTION]
Claim 1, 4, & 9-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 8-10 of (U.S. Application 19/100,798) In view of Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1. U.S. Application 19/100,798 discloses, A dental plaque detection device comprising: (Claim 1: A dental plaque detection device comprising:)
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 (Claim 1: 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;)
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 (Claim 1: 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.) 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 2: The dental plaque detection device according to claim 1, 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.; & Claim 3: The dental plaque detection device according to claim 2, 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.).
U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: in accordance with a value of intensity of fluorescence in the fluorescent substance in the second RGB image,
However, Waller in the context of RBG analysis of dental examinations discloses: in accordance with a value of intensity of fluorescence in the fluorescent substance in the second RGB image, (The software calculates the Delta R, defined as the percentage increase of the ratio of red to green component relative to sound tissue, which correlates with the porphyrins and bacterial activity, Table 1 Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6, while calculating the RF area in pixels or millimeters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this evaluation of fluorescent substance intensity change, Delta R, over the surface area constitutes as the content per unit area. In other words, Waller discloses an optical index derived directly from the fluorescent pixel intensity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of U.S. Application 19/100,798 to further incorporate the teachings of Waller. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the ability and identification of the state of health of the oral cavity and individual tooth elements visually, reproducibly and quantitatively, as suggested by Waller, [Conclusion pg. 19].
Claim 4. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 discloses, wherein the first RGB image is an image in which a blue-light region is at least partially attenuated from the reflected light and the fluorescence from the tooth and the dental plaque inside the oral cavity. (Claim 1- 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. Claim 3: the first image is a first RGB image)
Claim 9. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 discloses, wherein the fluorescent substance is porphyrin (Claim 8: The dental plaque detection device according to claim 1, wherein the fluorescent substance is porphyrin.).
Claim 10. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 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 RGB image (Claim 9: The dental plaque detection device according to claim 1, 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.).
Claim 11. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 discloses, further comprising: 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 (Claim 10: The dental plaque detection device according to claim 1, further comprising: 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.).
Claims 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 11-12 of (U.S. Application 19/100,798) In view of Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)) in view of (US Application 18/834,324). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 12. U.S. Application 19/100,798 discloses: A dental plaque detection method comprising: (Claim 11: A dental plaque detection method comprising:)
obtaining 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 (Claim 11: obtaining 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)
generating a second RGB image by performing, on the first RGB image, image processing including first image processing, and detecting a content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth, (Claim 11: and detecting, 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.) wherein
U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: in accordance with a value of intensity of fluorescence in the fluorescent substance in the second RGB image
However, Waller in the context of RBG analysis of dental examinations discloses: in accordance with a value of intensity of fluorescence in the fluorescent substance in the second RGB image (The software calculates the Delta R, defined as the percentage increase of the ratio of red to green component relative to sound tissue, which correlates with the porphyrins and bacterial activity, Table 1 Analysis and quantification pg. 5-6, while calculating the RF area in pixels or millimeters. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this evaluation of fluorescent substance intensity change, Delta R, over the surface area constitutes as the content per unit area. In other words, Waller discloses an optical index derived directly from the fluorescent pixel intensity.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection of U.S. Application 19/100,798 to further incorporate the teachings of Waller. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the ability and identification of the state of health of the oral cavity and individual tooth elements visually, reproducibly and quantitatively, as suggested by Waller, [Conclusion pg. 19].
U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: 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.
However, US Application 18/834,324 in the context of image processing method imaging processing device, and recording medium discloses, 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 1: An image processing method [...] wherein in the first image processing, a tooth area in an RGB image to be processed is identified, and a gain for each of at least two color components among a red component, a green component, and a blue component of [[an]] the 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 included in the identified tooth area.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first image processing of modified U.S. Application 19/100,798 to incorporate the teachings of US Application 18/834,324. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving the white balance adjustments for the an image capture as suggested by ¶0020.
Claim 13. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 12, U.S. Application 19/100,798 discloses, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the dental plaque detection method according to claim 12 (A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the dental plaque detection method according to claim 11.).
Claim 2 & 5-6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over (U.S. Application 19/100,798) In view of Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Shimohira (JP 2014133029 A) in view of Jones et al (US 20240138665 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 2. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, a first area that is (i) an area in which a luminance value of each of one or more pixels included in an entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold or (ii) an area in which a green pixel value of each of the one or more pixels included in the entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined second threshold is detected, and the natural tooth area is extracted based on the first area.
However, Shimohira in the context of dental imaging and image analysis discloses: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, a first area that is the oral cavity, and the natural tooth area is extracted based on the first area. (¶0052-0056)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extracting of the natural tooth area of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090.
Waller fails to disclose wherein in extracting the area, a first area that is (i) an area in which a luminance value of each of one or more pixels included in an entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold or (ii) an area in which a green pixel value of each of the one or more pixels included in the entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined second threshold is detected, and the area is extracted based on the first area.
However, Jones in the context of dental imaging and analysis discloses: wherein in extracting the area, (¶0067, ¶0082, ¶0096) a first area that is (i) an area in which a luminance value of each of one or more pixels included in an entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined first threshold (¶0067, ¶0104, ¶0112, ¶0123 – the luminance value encompass the pixel brightness derived from the RGB channels evaluated within the RBG/HSL image data, the detected area are checked using a tree classifier to evaluate the value or intensity is above the selected threshold.) or (ii) an area in which a green pixel value of each of the one or more pixels included in the entire pixel area of the first RGB image is greater than or equal to a predetermined second threshold is detected, (¶0067, ¶0084, ¶0123) and the area is extracted based on the first area (¶0082, ¶0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extracting first area of the natural tooth area of modified Waller such that incorporate the teachings of Jones for the advantage of providing an improve system and method being able to identify regions of interest (ROI) in images, areas of isolated fluorescence expanded by 10-contiguous pixels, as suggested by Jones, ¶0082.
Claim 5. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: wherein the detector generates an HSV image from the second RGB 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.
However, Shimohira is relied upon above discloses: wherein the detector generates an HSV image from the RGB 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 dental calculus adhering to the tooth. (¶0028, ¶0068)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector that generates the second RGB image of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090. The modified combination would disclose the determine generates the HSV image from the second image.
Claim 6. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 5, U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: 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.
However, Shimohira is relied upon above 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: 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. (¶0028, ¶0068)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector that generates the second RGB image of modified Waller to incorporate the teachings of Shimohira. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the accuracy of extracting plaque areas and tooth surface areas, as suggested by Shimohira, ¶0090. The modified combination would disclose the determine generates the HSV image from the second image.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over (U.S. Application 19/100,798) In view of Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)) in view of Shimohira (JP 2014133029 A) in view of Jones et al (US 20240138665 A1), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Hakomori et al (US 20160166137 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 3. U.S. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 2, U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, an area obtained by removing a dental plaque area and a dental calculus area from the first area is extracted as the natural tooth area.
However, Hakomori in the context of discerning plaque cite, and calculus sites from a tooth side from an oral image discloses: wherein in extracting the natural tooth area, an area obtained by removing a dental plaque area and a dental calculus area from the first area is extracted as the natural tooth area (¶0180, ¶0194-0209, FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extracting the natural tooth area of modified Waller to further incorporate the teachings of Hakomori for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus being able to target plaque and calculus removal, as suggested by Hakomori, ¶0067.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over (U.S. Application 19/100,798) In view of Waller et al (“Application of QLFTM for Diagnosis and Quality Assessment in Clinical Practice.” (2012)), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Jones et al (US 20240138665 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 7. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: wherein the detector generates an HSL image from the second RGB 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.
However, Jones in the context of dental imaging and analysis discloses: the detector generates an HSL image from the RGB image, (¶0068-0069, ¶0115, ¶0123). and detects, from a value of luminance of the HSL image (¶0068-0069, ¶0123), the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance (¶0022, ¶0030, ¶0112, Claim 19) contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (¶0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generating of the second image of modified Waller such that incorporate the teachings of Jones. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the visualization of features of the tooth, as suggested by Jones, ¶0069-0072.
Claim 8. Application 19/100,798 as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 7, U.S. Application 19/100,798 fails to disclose: 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.
However, Jones in the context of dental imaging and analysis 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, (¶0081-0082, ¶0096, ¶0104,) the one or more fifth pixels satisfying at least one of the following: Saturation is within a fourth predetermined range (¶0081); Hue is within a fifth predetermined range (¶0071-0072, , ¶0116, ¶0108); and Luminance is within a sixth predetermined range (¶0104, ¶0112, ¶0123), and the detector detects, from a value of the Luminance of the specific pixel area (¶0112, ¶0116, Claim 19), the content per unit area of the fluorescent substance contained in the dental plaque and the dental calculus adhering to the tooth (¶0048, ¶0112, ¶0116, Claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detector of modified Waller such that it incorporate the teachings of Jones. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as the visualization of features of the tooth, as suggested by Jones, ¶0069-0072.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights