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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2202 in figure 21
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 2200 in figure 21
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “further provide a mounting site” in lines 1-2 should read “further provides a second mounting site”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the arch of the prosthetic teeth is a full arch of prosthetic teeth" in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is in reference to the full arch that is functionally claimed in claim 3 or an additional full arch. The Examiner notes that this will be interpreted as functional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Groscurth et al. (US 20220096203, hereinafter Groscurth).
Regarding Claim 1, Groscurth discloses an apparatus for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 2a-4d, 17-18g), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance (200, 300, 400; figure 4d) for affixing within a jaw of a patient (101; figure 4d), wherein the dental appliance is sized and shaped to substantially reside within an arch created by an alveolar ridge of the jaw (figures 4a-4d; paragraph [0102]; the Examiner notes that substantially is being interpreted as “majority” of the device is located within the arch created by the alveolar ridge), the dental appliance providing a mounting site (303; figure 4c) for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot (the Examiner notes that the tracking mechanism of a surgical robot is functionally recited. Therefore the device is capable of having a tracking mechanism at the mounting site; further paragraph [0099] discloses element 303 is a handle/connector therefore it is a mounting site as it receives another component, therefore capable of having a tracker mounted on it).
Regarding Claim 4, Groscurth discloses the device as claimed in Claim 3. Groscurth discloses the arch of prosthetic teeth is a full arch of prosthetic teeth (figures 4d and 18a; paragraph [0139]).
Regarding Claim 11, Groscurth discloses a method (figures 2a-4d, 17-18g) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 4a-4d), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance (200, 300, 400; figure 4d) for affixing within a jaw of a patient (101; figure 4d), wherein the dental appliance is sized and shaped to substantially reside within an arch created by an alveolar ridge of the jaw (figures 4a-4d; paragraph [0102]), the dental appliance providing a mounting site (200 and 400; figure 4c) for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot (paragraph [0141]).
Regarding Claim 14, Groscurth discloses the method as claimed in Claim 13. Groscurth discloses the arch of prosthetic teeth is a full arch of prosthetic teeth(figures 4d and 18a; paragraph [0139]).
Regarding Claim 17, Groscurth discloses the device as claimed in Claim 11. Groscurth discloses the jaw comprises a maxilla (figure 4a; paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 20, Groscurth discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Groscurth discloses using the dental appliance to hold down a tongue of the patient (the Examiner notes that anything additional in the mouth on the hard palate will reduce the space for the tongue to lay, therefore holding it down; Figures 4a-12c).
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itsuki (US 20240016574).
Regarding Claim 1, Itsuki discloses an apparatus for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 1-12c), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance (1; figure 1) for affixing within a jaw of a patient (paragraph [0074]), wherein the dental appliance is sized and shaped to substantially reside within an arch created by an alveolar ridge of the jaw (figure 4; paragraph [0074]; the Examiner notes that substantially is being interpreted as “majority” of the device is located within the arch created by the alveolar ridge), the dental appliance providing a mounting site (101; figure 4) for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot (the Examiner notes that the tracking mechanism of a surgical robot is functionally recited. Therefore the device is capable of having a tracking mechanism at the mounting site; further paragraph [0075] discloses element 30 is a handle/connector therefore it is a mounting site as it receives another component, therefore capable of having a tracker mounted on it).
Regarding Claim 6, Itsuki discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Itsuki discloses the jaw comprises a maxilla (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 9, Itsuki discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Itsuki discloses the dental appliance is further configured to hold down a tongue of the patient (the Examiner notes that anything additional in the mouth on the hard palate will reduce the space for the tongue to lay, therefore holding it down; Figures 1-12c).
Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Batstone et al. (US 20250161009, hereinafter Batstone).
Regarding Claim 1, Batstone discloses an apparatus for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 1-8), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance (100; figure 7) for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 4), wherein the dental appliance is sized and shaped to substantially reside within an arch created by an alveolar ridge of the jaw (figure 4; the Examiner notes that substantially is being interpreted as “majority” of the device is located within the arch created by the alveolar ridge), the dental appliance providing a mounting site (124; figure 5) for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot (the Examiner notes that the tracking mechanism of a surgical robot is functionally recited. Therefore the device is capable of having a tracking mechanism at the mounting site; further figure 4 depicts element 124 is a connector therefore it is a mounting site as it receives another component, therefore capable of having a tracker mounted on it).
Regarding Claim 5, Batstone discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Batstone discloses affixing comprises rigidly affixing with respect to the jaw (paragraph [0075] discloses 101 can accommodate screws 5 to be placed in the hard palate).
Regarding Claim 8, Batstone discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Batstone discloses the dental appliance is configured to make at least three points of contact with the jaw (figures 1-5; paragraph [0079] discloses attaching micro screws through respective screw holes (123a and 123b)).
Regarding Claim 9, Batstone discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Batstone discloses the dental appliance is further configured to hold down a tongue of the patient (the Examiner notes that anything additional in the mouth on the hard palate will reduce the space for the tongue to lay, therefore holding it down; Figures 1-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Batstone discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Batstone discloses affixing comprising affixing with at least one screw (paragraph [0079]).
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batstone et al. (US 20250161009, hereinafter Batstone) in view of Pettersson et al. (US 20110060558, hereinafter Pettersson).
Regarding Claim 1, Batstone discloses an apparatus for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 1-8), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance (100; figure 7) for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 4), wherein the dental appliance is sized and shaped to substantially reside within an arch created by an alveolar ridge of the jaw (figure 4; the Examiner notes that substantially is being interpreted as “majority” of the device is located within the arch created by the alveolar ridge).
Batstone does not disclose the dental appliance providing a mounting site for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot.
Pettersson discloses an apparatus (2; figures 2-3) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figure 3), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 3), providing a mounting site for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot (210; figure 2; paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the device to have a mounting site for a tracking mechanism as taught by Pettersson in order for the dentist to correctly position the device.
Regarding Claim 2, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Batstone does not disclose a mounting site for fiducial markers used to image the jaw.
Pettersson discloses an apparatus (2; figures 2-3) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figure 3), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 3), a mounting site for fiducial markers used to image the jaw (210; figure 2; paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Batstone to have an additional mounting site fiducial markers as taught by Pettersson in order to be able to track the device with CT scanning.
Regarding Claim 3, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the device as claimed in Claim 1. Batstone discloses a mounting site (106; figures 1-8) for an arch of prosthetic teeth (111; Figure 7; paragraph [0051]).
Batstone does not disclose the mounting site is a temporary mounting site.
Pettersson discloses an apparatus (2; figures 2-3) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figure 3), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 3), a mounting site (6; figures 3) the mounting site is a temporary mounting site (paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the mounting site of Batstone to be a temporary mounting site as taught by Pettersson in order to generate a first data set to compare to.
Regarding Claim 11, Batstone discloses a method (figures 1-8) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 1-8), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance (100; figure 7)for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 4), wherein the dental appliance is sized and shaped to substantially reside within an arch created by an alveolar ridge of the jaw (figure 4).
Batstone does not disclose the dental appliance providing a mounting site for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot.
Pettersson discloses an apparatus (2; figures 2-3) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figure 3), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 3), providing a mounting site for a tracking mechanism of a surgical robot (210; figure 2; paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the device to have a mounting site for a tracking mechanism as taught by Pettersson in order for the dentist to correctly position the device.
Regarding Claim 12, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Batstone does not disclose connecting, to the mounting site, fiducial markers used to image the jaw.
Pettersson discloses an apparatus (2; figures 2-3) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figure 3), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 3), connecting, to the mounting site, fiducial markers used to image the jaw (210; figure 2; paragraph [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the mouthing site of Batstone to have fiducial markers as taught by Pettersson in order to be able to track the device with CT scanning.
Regarding Claim 13, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Batstone discloses a mounting site (106; figures 1-8) for an arch of prosthetic teeth (111; Figure 7; paragraph [0051]).
Batstone does not disclose the mounting site is a temporary mounting site.
Pettersson discloses an apparatus (2; figures 2-3) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figure 3), the apparatus comprising: a dental appliance for affixing within a jaw of a patient (figure 3), a mounting site (6; figures 3) the mounting site is a temporary mounting site (paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have modified the mounting site of Batstone to be a temporary mounting site as taught by Pettersson in order to generate a first data set to compare to.
Regarding Claim 15, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Batstone discloses affixing comprises rigidly affixing with respect to the jaw (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 16, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Batstone discloses affixing comprising affixing with at least one screw (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 19, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Batstone discloses affixing within the jaw comprises creating at least three points of contact between the dental appliance and the jaw (figures 1-5; paragraph [0079] discloses attaching micro screws through respective screw holes (123a and 123b)).
Regarding Claim 20, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method as claimed in Claim 11. Batstone discloses using the dental appliance to hold down a tongue of the patient (the Examiner notes that anything additional in the mouth on the hard palate will reduce the space for the tongue to lay, therefore holding it down; Figures 1-8).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batstone et al. (US 20250161009, hereinafter Batstone) in view of Frush (US 3638309).
Regarding Claim 7, Batstone discloses the device of claim 1. Batstone does not disclose the dental appliance comprises registration members that are designed to reside in hamular notches of the jaw.
Frush discloses a dental appliance (figures 1-4) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 1-4), affixing a dental appliance within a jaw of a patient (figure 1), the dental appliance comprises registration members (see illustrated figure 1) that are designed to reside in hamular notches of the jaw (60; figure 1; column 5, lines 35-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dental appliance of Batstone to have the registration members that reside in the hamular notches as taught by Frush in order to ensure the device is positioned correctly within the jaw and stabilize the device when in use.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batstone et al. (US 20250161009, hereinafter Batstone) in view of Pettersson et al. (US 20110060558, hereinafter Pettersson) in view of Frush (US 3638309).
Regarding Claim 18, Batstone as modified by Pettersson discloses the method of claim 18. Batstone does not disclose affixing within the jaw comprises placing registration members that are designed to reside in hamular notches of the jaw.
Frush discloses a dental appliance (figures 1-4) for providing a stable reference and mounting point within a patient’s jaw (figures 1-4), affixing a dental appliance within a jaw of a patient (figure 1), affixing within the jaw comprises placing registration members (see illustrated figure 1) that are designed to reside in hamular notches of the jaw (60; figure 1; column 5, lines 35-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the dental appliance of Batstone to have the registration members that reside in the hamular notches as taught by Frush in order to ensure the device is positioned correctly within the jaw and stabilize the device when in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772