Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on July 31, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 31, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 20, 2023 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The preamble of the claim is unclear as to what the claim is directed towards. The claim is written such that it does not have a clear preamble and it is not clear what is the preamble and what is the body of the claim. The applicant should amend the claim so the that preamble and body of the claim are clear. It is noted that for examination purposes, the preamble of the claim is being interpreted as -A method-, such that the method generally requires the steps of positioning a first set of markers on an upper and lower jaw of a patient and a second set of markers on the patients face at common anatomical points, having the patient preform jaw movements, including opening and closing the mouth such that the teeth are in occlusion, providing a device having cameras to record the movement, using the images from the cameras to combine with a 3D scan of the patients jaw that was taken previously, determining dislocation of the first set of markers during the chewing motion, analyzing the dislocation of the markers and sending the final outcome from the analyzing to a haptic device to deliver a response to the user regarding the degree of dislocation. However, the claim needs to be amended to more clearly claim the limitations. The limitations were interpreted as best understood, however, are very unclear. More detail regarding specific limitations and how they are interpreted is provided below, the above interpretation is a very general interpretation, such as an overview of how the limitations are being interpreted.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “bidirectional synchronizing of the digital movement image acquisition technology with haptic technology” is unclear. It is noted that proper antecedent basis for “the digital movement image acquisition technology” is not provided. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the method including the step of acquiring digital movement move the patient, combining the digital movement data with scanned data of the intra oral cavity of the patient (i.e. the claimed synchronizing) and using the combined data to provide an output which is delivered to a haptic feedback mechanism, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 1, the limitation “the feedback principle” is unclear. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim it as a well-known principle, such as a law, or just that the image acquisition is based on feedback. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the image analysis is based feedback from the image acquisition, such that the image data is analyzed and based on that, feedback is provided, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further the limitation “using Motion Capture technology, based on the position identification of optical markers and recording their movements in camera systems” is unclear in view of the claimed digital movement image acquisition technology. It is unclear if the motion capture is the same or different than the digital movement technology. It is noted that for examination purposes, they are being interpreted as the same, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
The limitations with respect to the claimed “camera systems” is unclear. It is noted that the applicant claims “at least two systems” and then further claims “or one centrally positioned” and “whereas each system”. It is unclear if at the claimed centrally positioned one is optional or if the option is between the two systems and the centrally located system. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the centrally located camera system is optional, such that the system with at least two systems is required by the claim, however, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
Further the limitation “at least one, preferably three, cameras” is unclear. It is unclear if the three cameras is being claims or if it is just a preference and not required by the claim. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as requiring three since the applicant claims three cameras in detail. The same issue applies to all the citations of “preferably” throughout the claim. It is noted that each citation of “preferably” is being interpreted as requiring the limitation following it, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 1, the claim limitations in parathesis are unclear as to if they are being positively claimed or not. Throughout the claims, the applicant has included several elements in parathesis that seems to be clarifying limitations or preferences. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are not being considered as being positively claimed, however, their presence in the claims makes the claims unclear and the applicant should amend the claims accordioning.
Further on line 13 of the claim, the applicant has “(preferably with the focus from 35 mm and a diaphragm from f. 1.4, and at least one colour camera…. It appears that the applicant has not provided a closed parathesis after the 1.4, such that the applicant is then further claiming a color camera. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claim is being interested as a closed parathesis is after 1.4, such that the color camera is positively claimed.
Further the limitations including “enabling the recording of in.direclty fixed markers…or M2 markers - -preferably with technology…” are unclear, such as if the applicant is claiming fixing the markers and how they are fixed and which markers are required. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation with respect to the markers are being interpreted as requiring the step of affixing markers to the patient on both an upper and lower jaw. The step requiring one of the different methods including fixing an internal part either directly to the patient teeth or on implants installed in the patients jaw such that the markers extend from the internal part to be positioned outside the patient’s mouth when then internal part is fixed on the patients jaw or directly fixing markers to the patients’ teeth, such that the markers are within the oral cavity when positioned on the teeth. However, the applicant should amend the claims to clarify what is being claimed.
Further it is unclear if the applicant is claiming both the M1 and M2 markers. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as only 1 type of marker on the teeth/jaw. Such that either the markers affixed to an internal component (figs. 1, 1a) or the markers fixed to the teeth (fig. 2). It is noted that the limitation is interpreted as the marker are affixed to both jaw however.
Further the M2 markers affixed to the veneer surface of the teeth are unclear in view of the M2 markers affixed to the face. It is unclear if the markers are the same or different, such as they are both claimed as M2. It is noted that the marker affixed to the face are being interpreted as different markers, such that two different sets of markers are being positively claimed. The markers affixed to the teeth/implant either directly or indirectly and the markers affixed to the face. The applicant should amend the claim to clarify that different between the marker by providing them with different names.
It is noted that the two different sets of markers are being interpreted as being used in the image analysis of the chewing motion to determine the claimed dislocation of the markers on the teeth/implants/jaw.
The limitation of “stitching 3D scans” is unclear as it is not clear if the method requires the step of scanning the oral cavity or where the data comes from. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed limitations are being interpreted as requiring the step of scanning the intra oral cavity of the patient to acquire 3D scan data of the intraoral cavity of the patient, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
The limitation “enabling the conversion of these marker dislocation into the number of collisions” is unclear. It is not clear what the “marker dislocation” entails and how they are dislocated and further what “the number of collisions” is . It is noted that for examination purposes that the limitations are being interpreted as during chewing motion, the markers are moved, i.e. dislocated, due to the chewing force. The dislocation being cause by a “collision” of the upper and lower jaw/teeth. However, the limitation of converting the dislocation of the markers “into the number of collisions” is unclear. It is unclear how the amount the marker can be dislocated can be converted into a “number” of collisions such that the collision cases the dislocation of the marker. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed “number of collisions” is being interpreted the amount, such as the degree of the dislocation, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further the limitation “the vibrations are read by haptic devices” are unclear. It is noted that the limitation “the vibrations” is not provided with proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what the vibrations are and where they come from (such as what structure is providing them).
Further the limitations with respect to the vibrations, haptic device (all of the limitations on page 2 of the claim” and “enabling the mapping/control theses collision-made dislocation, converted into vibrations, by the tactile sense at a frequency..” are unclear. As best understood, the limitations are being interpreted as the degree of dislocation is converted to a vibration corresponding to the degree of dislocation, such that a larger dislocation would result in a stronger vibration then a smaller dislocation. Those “vibrations” are some how provided to the user to inform them of the degree of dislocations to the user.
In view of the deficiencies above, the claim was interpreted as best understood.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations with respect to “the positioning of the implants” is unclear as the applicant has not claimed a method of positioning implants only that there can be implants in the mouth. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the applicant is requiring that the markers are affixed to the implants, such that the internal part of the marker elements is affixed to implants in the jaw. Such that the internal element is affixed to supragingival elements of the implants, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. The other limitations in the claim are being interpreted as to the structure of the marker element including the internal and external parts.
With respect to claim 3, it is noted that the limitation unclear as to what is being claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitations are being interpreted as limiting the markers to being fixed directly on the teeth internally (see above with respect to claim 1).
The claims were interpreted as best understood, however, the applicant should amend all the claim to clarify what is being claimed. It is noted that claim 1 was reviewed in detail and the specific issues point out in claim 1 also apply to the same issue present in the dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of Hanssen teaches visualizing displacement of teeth during collision, however, does not specifically teach the method including the attachment of markers, imaging the markers during chewing motion, analyzing the image data to determined the displacement of the markers and provided the degree of displacement to the user in the form of a haptic feedback which is vibration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 8/14/2025