DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gibbs et al. (2016/0151117).
Regarding claim 1, Gibbs et al. discloses an electronic device 200, comprising:
an interface circuit 100 configured to communicate with a handheld tool 104 (Figs. 2-3), wherein the electronic device 200 is configured to:
receive measurement information 208 associated with the handheld tool during a dental procedure on an individual (paragraph [0054] “provide continuous real time data 208 representing the drill's position and orientation and the detected location of the surgical area, such as the location of the jaw bone”);
dynamically determine a sequence of operations for creating a dental osteotomy during the dental procedure based at least in part on the measurement information ([0062] “The sequence of drill bits 110… may be determined from a database that correlates a selected implant model with the surgical tool sequence”); and
provide information associated with the determined sequence of operations (Figs. 3-8; paragraphs [0052] “The display 100 provides a continuously updated rendering of three-dimensional objects in the surgical area of interest with an overlay of a graphical guidance indicator 102 and a three-dimensional depiction of the surgical tool (e.g., drill) 104”; [0063] “a change in the drill bit diameter… can affect the guidance indicator…” “[0064] “The orientation/angulation of the drill 104 is given… This helps to quickly convey to the surgeon how to correct the orientation/location of the drill”).
Regarding the newly incorporated limitations, Gibbs et al. discloses the handheld tool 104 comprises a type of drill (Figs. 2-8); and dynamically determine a sequence of operations (Figs. 3-8; [0062] “The sequence of drill bits 110… may be determined from a database that correlates a selected implant model with the surgical tool sequence”.
wherein the sequence of operations comprises: a rotation speed of the drill; or a torque of the drill; or a rotational energy used to insert an implant into the dental osteometry (Figs. 3-8; [0062] “The sequence of drill bits 110… may be determined from a database that correlates a selected implant model with the surgical tool sequence”; paragraph [0056] “The ability to depict the rotation of the X mark 114 relative to the reticle 116 provides a visual sense of rotary motion”).
Applicant argued that Gibbs et al. disclosure [0056] “ability to depict rotation… provides a visual sense of rotary motion” is a qualitative metric, while the recited claim elements are quantitative. However, such arguments are not persuasive. Gibbs et al. disclosure of [0062] “The sequence of drill bits 110… may be determined from a database that correlates a selected implant model with the surgical tool sequence” together with [0056] “ability to depict rotation…” clearly indicates that a sequence of operations of the surgical tool is determined and such sequence of operations includes a rotation. As such, all rotation inherently has a rotation speed, a torque, and a rotational energy, as claimed. It is noted that the claim does not require the sequence to be a sequential change in electrical drawn, speed, torque or rotation energy. The claim only requires the sequence to include the existence of these elements.
Per claims 4-5, the preparation of the dental osteotomy comprising: drilling into bone and the measurement information corresponds to resistance of the individual's bone (paragraphs [0007]-[0008] “rotate the drill about the tip to the position the drill at the correct angular orientation… Drill into the tooth or bone, counteracting the drill's tendency to deviate from the desired trajectory as the bit twists into the bone”).
Per claims 6-7, wherein the measurement information comprises a three-dimensional (3D) position of the handheld tool, and wherein the 3D position is relative to oral anatomy of the individual or to a planned final position of an implant (paragraph [0050] “providing information on the position of the drill tip within the anatomy”; paragraph [0052] “continuously updated rendering of three-dimensional objects in the surgical area of interest with an overlay of a graphical guidance indicator 102 and a three-dimensional depiction of the surgical tool”).
Per claim 9, the measurement information corresponds to or comprises: a position of the handheld tool (paragraph [0050] “providing information on the position of the drill tip within the anatomy”).
Per claims 10-11, the measurement information corresponds to or comprises: a position of the handheld tool; wherein the determined sequence of operations comprises an output of a pretrained predictive model; wherein the pretrained predictive model comprises: a neural network; or a supervised-learning model (paragraphs
[0054] “a database 206 of stored data representing multiple drills and drill bits. Based on the particular drill and drill bit being used (which can be inputted by the personnel at the time of the surgical procedure or could be automatically detected by the system, such as by optically detecting a code (e.g., bar or 2D graphical code) on the surgical tool or by detecting an RFID chip in the tool), the system 200 selects the appropriate graphical representation of the surgical drill and depicts it in the visual display 100”;
[0062] “The sequence of drill bits 110… may be determined from a database that correlates a selected implant model with the surgical tool sequence”;
[0063] “a change in the drill bit diameter… can affect the guidance indicator…”;
[0064] “The orientation/angulation of the drill 104 is given… This helps to quickly convey to the surgeon how to correct the orientation/location of the drill”).
Per claims 12-13, the information comprises: a depth of the dental osteotomy, a width of the dental osteotomy, or a shape of the dental osteotomy; wherein the information comprises a sequence of tools to use during the dental procedure (paragraph [0052] “the trajectory could be a complex trajectory involving the use of multiple instruments, having different shapes, sizes and capabilities”;
[0054] “During the course of the operation, the surgeon may use several drill bits to form the implant hole. By correctly depicting the drill bit length and diameter, the system permits accurate depiction of the drill depth into the jaw bone”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbs et al. in view of Coss et al. (5,538,423).
As to claim 8, Gibbs et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed as applied to claim 1 as detailed above, but is silent to measurement information that correspond to power consumption as a function of time of the handheld tool during the dental procedure. Coss et al. discloses an apparatus for providing measurement information that correspond to power consumption as a function of time of the handheld tool during the dental procedure (Fig. 8; abstract “the control unit determines the electrical current and voltage applied to or generated by the drill motor to calculate the rotation speed and the torque at the tool bit”; column 13 lines 4-32 “The power supplied at the motor power line propagates… at a point in time… indicating the amount of current drawn … sensor 510 determines… this current consumption … on the motor”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gibbs et al. by providing measurement information that correspond to power consumption as a function of time of the handheld tool in order accurately calculate the rotation speed and torque at the tool bit as explicitly taught by Coss.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments regarding the ground of rejection under Gibbs et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Gibbs et al. does not disclose rotation speed, torque, rotational energy as claimed, that Gibbs et al.’s disclosure [0056] “ability to depict rotation… provides a visual sense of rotary motion” is a qualitative metric, while the recited claim elements are quantitative. However, Gibbs et al.’s disclosure of [0062] “The sequence of drill bits 110… may be determined from a database that correlates a selected implant model with the surgical tool sequence” together with [0056] “ability to depict rotation…” clearly indicate that a sequence of operations of the surgical tool is determined and such sequence of operations includes a rotation. As such, all rotation inherently has a rotation speed, a torque, and a rotational energy. It is noted that the claim does not require the sequence to be a sequential change in electrical drawn, speed, torque or rotation energy. The claim only requires the sequence to include the existence of these elements.
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 under Gibbs et al. in view of Coss et al., Applicant relied on the same arguments that Coss does not disclose rotation speed, torque, rotational energy. It is maintained that Gibbs et al. discloses such claimed elements as reasoned above.
Conclusion
7. 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 Examiner HAO D. MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772