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
Newly submitted claim 13 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: A restriction requirement was sent on 3/31/2025 that required an election between the method and system. It is noted that the applicant elected the method without traverse on 7/31/2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 13 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The substitute specification filed January 19, 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: a proper marked up copy has not been provided.
While it is noted that a marked-up copy has been provided, it is not proper in that it contains additions that are not underlined. Specifically the lines above the amended title, the added headings, new paragraphs related to figures 1-4, the new paragraph at the bottom of page 17.
It also appears that there is new matter in the substitute specification.
It is noted that the applicant submitted what appears to be a substitute specification on 12/10/2025 that contains some of the amended specification, however, the substitute specification submitted on 1/19/2026, for the most part, does not appear to be amended from that version on the specification, but the original. However, there does seem to be some parts in the specification submitted on 1/19/2026 that include some of the amendments from that version. It is noted that for examination purposes, none of the substitute specifications are entered as it is not clear what changes have been made. It is suggested that that applicant only make amendments from the originally filed specification as it is the only version that has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The preamble of the claim has been amended to read “comprising the synchronization of DIC (digital image correlation) or acquisition technology”. It is noted that support for the method comprising the alternatives is not provided. It is noted that the originally filed speciation and claims provided support for “synchronizing of the digital movement image acquisition technology with haptic technology”
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 and 6-12 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 claim is being interpreted as a method for analyzing jaw movement which comprising synchronization of DIC or acquisition technology. Such that either the DIC or acquisition technology uses haptic technology for analysis of mastication based on feedback and utilizes motion capture technology. However, the applicant should amend the preamble 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 “utilising Motion Capture technology, wherein said motion capture is based on the positional identification of optical markers and the recording of their movements via 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation including “alternatively the second configuration” is unclear in view of the limitation “the camera systems are arranged into at least two configurations”. Such that it appears that the claim requires two configurations, therefore, it is unclear how the second configuration is an alternative. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation of the second configuration is being interpreted as being required, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
Further with respect to claim 1, it is unclear if the applicant is claiming multiple camera systems including the claimed configurations or a singular camera system having the configurations. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as a singular camera system having the 2 claimed configurations.
Further with respect to claim 1, the applicant claims that the first configuration “consists of 2 cameras” and the second configuration “consists of a single camera”, however the applicant further claims “each of the systems has at least one to three cameras”. It is unclear how what the applicant is trying to claim with respect to “each of the systems” as the applicant has claimed “the camera systems” are arranged to have the first and second configurations as claimed. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim multiple systems having the first and second configurations or trying to reference the claims configurations. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as referencing the camera system (singular) having the claimed configurations. However, when interpreted as discussed above, it is unclear how the singular system can have one to two cameras, as the applicant has limited the first configuration to consist of two cameras and the second configuration to consist of one camera. Therefore the system is required to have three cameras. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 1, it is unclear if the first configuration including the 2 cameras related to the claimed unit consisting of two monochromatic or colour cameras or if the unit with the two cameras in in addition to the first configuration. It is noted that for examination purposes, the unit is being interpreted as the first configuration consisting of the two cameras, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 1, it is unclear if the claimed “at least one colour camera” is related to the claimed second configuration consisting of one camera or if it is in addition to it. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed colour camera is being interested as being the single camera of the second configuration, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
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 with respect to claim 1, the limitations including “preferably”, “preferred”, or “advantageously” are unclear as to if they limitations are required or just preferred (i.e. not required). It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to clarify that the limitation is required by removing the limitation preferably”, “preferred”, and “advantageously”.
Further with respect to claim 1, the limitation including “a lower framer rate” is unclear. It is unclear what it is lower relative to as the claim currently only requires one camera of the claimed system. However, it is noted that for examination purposes, the claim is required to have all three cameras in the first and second configuration and therefore the colored camera having the lower frame rate is being interested as having a lower frame rate than the cameras of the claimed unit, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 1, the claim is directed towards a method, however, there seem to be no method steps claimed. The limitations including “said cameras recording M1 markers”, “the operation of the cameras is synchronized”, “the method further comprises simultaneous video recording”, “dislocations of the M1 markers” and so on seem to imply that a method is being carried out such that the marker are applied to the teeth, the user moves the jaw to create mastication movements and the cameras are used to record the movements, however, the method does not clearly state that the steps are carried out. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to clearly claim the steps of the method that are being carried out including the application of the markers and movement of the jaw.
Further that applicant claims the M1 markers being affixed to the teeth but then later claims the teeth of specific upper and lower jaws. It is unclear if the markers are affixed to the teeth of both upper and lower jaws or just one of the upper or lower jaws. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the markers being applied to the teeth of both the upper and lower jaw, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further the limitation “further comprises simultaneous video recording and stitching of 3D scans into the video” is unclear as to if the claimed cameras are capturing the videos and the scans or if an additional scanner is used to capture the scans. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interested as the method further requiring the step of scanning the teeth and using those scans along with the video that is captured from the claimed cameras as claimed, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarity what is being claimed.
The limitation “said collisions generate vibrations are read by haptic devices…are transmitted to the haptic device for real-time rendering” is unclear . Further the limitations with respect to the vibrations, haptic device (all of the limitations on pages 3-4 of the claim” and “enables monitoring of amplitude changers in the provisional angle...” 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 somehow provided to the user to inform them of the degree of dislocations to the user. It is unclear how those vibrations are delivered to the user and how the user would use this information to monitor changes.
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. Claim 1 only implies that markers are attached to teeth. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim in addition to the markers being placed on the teeth, implants are placed in the mouth or if the teeth in which the markers are placed on are supported by an implant. It is further unclear how the method of claim 1 is further limited by the steps of claim 2. Such that how are the markers and information from the markers of claim 2 used related to that of the independent claim. Such that it this a step preformed before the placement of the markers on teeth supported by the implants or after. It is suggested that that applicant amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 3, it is noted that the limitation unclear as to what is being claimed. Such that the limitation “characterized in that in cases where insufficient space” is unclear as to if any of the limitations are being claimed in cases where there is sufficient space. Further it is noted that in the independent claim, the applicant has claimed affixing the marker M1 of teeth, and therefore, it is unclear how the method of claim 1 is being further limited by the limitations of claim 3.
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.
With respect to claim 6, the limitation “recording the positions and movements of said markers” is unclear as it is not clear how the markers are moving. It is suggested that the applicant include the step of the user moving their jaw with the markers, such as mastication movements are provided in order to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 6, the limitation of “acquiring and processing digital image data… reconstruct three-dimensional movement patterns” is unclear. It is unclear if the data is from the recorded positions and movements obtained from the cameras, or if there is an additional step of obtaining digital data that includes three-dimensional movement patterns that are different than the movement recorded by the cameras. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to clarify how the digital data is related to the data obtained from the cameras to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 6, the limitations in the last 4 lines of the claim are unclear. The limitation “converting the movement and collision data” unclear as to what data the applicant is trying to claim. The applicant has claimed “recording the positions and movements of said markers”, however, has not claimed any steps of the method for recording collisions. Therefore, it is unclear what data the applicant is trying to claim. Further it is unclear how the haptic feedback is provided to the user in the method. Such as is the user holding a device that vibrates to alert them of a collision and the degree of the collision, such that a larger vibrational force for a larger collision. The applicant should amend the claim to clarify how the haptic feedback is being provided to the user and how that information is being used in the claimed method.
With respect to claim 9, the stitching of video data with scans is unclear. It is unclear if the video data is the data obtained from the cameras or if the method requires an additional step of acquiring video data and if the scans are obtained by the scanner. Such the claimed method does not claim the steps of obtaining videos and scans. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claim to require the method to obtains videos and scans and how those are obtained. It is noted for examination purposes, the scans are being interpreted as being obtained from the scanner and the video from the cameras, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 11, the limitation of “the movement analysis” is unclear as the applicant has not claimed a step requiring “movement analysis”. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the recording of the positions and movement of the markers, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed. Further it is unclear what analysis is performed in the time intervals as claims, such as is a photo or scan taken every 0.001 seconds, or is a position in a video analyzed at that time frame. Further it is unclear how the tooth movement does not exceed the claimed range, such as how the method would limit tooth movement.
With respect to 12 it is unclear how the claimed method can control the mobility and prevent overloading as claimed. It is noted that the method is directed towards analyzing movements of the jaw and includes the steps of affixing markers to teeth and using cameras of record movements. Therefore, the method does not require any steps that would control the mobility and prevent overloading. It is suggested that the applicant add limitations as to how the method prevent the overloading and control mobility as claimed in order to clarify how the claimed method achieves the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 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.
The prior art of Neumeyer teaches placing markers on a user teeth and using cameras to record positions and movements of the markers.
The prior art of Brodkin teaches placing markers on a user teeth and using cameras to record positions and movements of the markers.
The prior art of Arai teaches placing sensors on the teeth to record three-dimensional movement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights