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 .
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 § 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 9-20 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the one or more teeth" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the patient’s teeth’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the measured capacitance" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the value" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first physical quality" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the one or more teeth" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the patient’s teeth’.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the one or more signals" in Lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the one or more signals" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more teeth" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the patient’s teeth’.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more signals" in Line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the one or more signals" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the measured capacitance" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the value" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first physical quality" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one or more teeth" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should read ‘the patient’s teeth’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 8-20 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 8-20).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 8-20, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from claim 8:
wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a corrective force vector from the one or more signals and positions of the one or more sensors.
From claim 9:
wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a rate of movement for the one or more teeth based on the one or more signals and positions of the one or more sensors.
From claim 10:
wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a value of the spatially distributed strain based at least on the measured capacitance.
From claim 11:
wherein the external signal processing device is configured to determine whether the value of the first physical quality is less than a threshold value, the threshold value corresponding to a specified reduction in a force applied by the polymeric shell to the one or more teeth in accordance with a first stage of the orthodontic treatment plan.
From claim 12:
12. A system comprising:
a) one or more dental repositioning appliances comprising:
i) a polymeric shell having a plurality of cavities shaped to fit over a patient's teeth and configured to reposition the patient's teeth in accordance with an orthodontic treatment plan,
ii) an intersecting array of microfluidic channels embedded within the polymer shell, and
iii) one or more sensors configured to measure a spatially distributed strain in the polymeric shell based at least in part on a distance between two or more channels of the intersecting array of microfluidic channels; and
b) an external signal processing device configured to receive and process the one or more signals from the one or more dental repositioning appliances.
These bolded limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 8-20 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for calculate, determine, receive, and process merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering step (receive) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool to calculate, determine, receive, and process.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to calculate, determine, receive, and process. The claims do not apply the obtained response measurement to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows (further see underlined limitations above):
-“ A dental repositioning appliance comprising: a polymeric shell having a plurality of cavities shaped to fit over a patient's teeth and configured to reposition the patient's teeth in accordance with an orthodontic treatment plan; an intersecting array of microfluidic channels embedded within the polymer shell; and one or more sensors configured to measure a spatially distributed strain in the polymeric shell based at least in part on a distance between two or more channels of the intersecting array of microfluidic channels. further comprising a wireless transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit one or more signals corresponding to the spatially distributed strain to an external signal processing device.” As recited in claims 1 and 6 to which claims 8-11 are dependent on.
- “A system comprising:a) one or more dental repositioning appliances comprising: i) a polymeric shell having a plurality of cavities shaped to fit over a patient's teeth and configured to reposition the patient's teeth in accordance with an orthodontic treatment plan, ii) an intersecting array of microfluidic channels embedded within the polymer shell, and iii) one or more sensors configured to measure a spatially distributed strain in the polymeric shell based at least in part on a distance between two or more channels of the intersecting array of microfluidic channels; and b) an external signal processing device configured to” in claim 12
-“ a wireless transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit one or more signals corresponding to the spatially distributed strain to the external signal processing device.” in claim 17
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s Specification Paragraph 0039 for the sensors and Paragraph 0095 for the appliance structure and Paragraph 0180 for the wireless transmitter
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0194-0198) which discloses that the processor and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The dental repositioning appliance merely indicates filed of use. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 13-14, 16, and 17 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Claims 15 and 18-19 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Claim 20 merely further describes the dental appliance indicating field of use
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani et al. (US 2018/0000565) in view of Cheng et al. (Reference U on PTO-892; 2011).
Regarding claim 1, Shanjani teaches a dental repositioning appliance (Abstract) comprising:
a polymeric shell (Paragraphs 0090-0091; ‘a polymeric shell appliance’) having a plurality of cavities shaped to fit over a patient's teeth and configured to reposition the patient's teeth in accordance with an orthodontic treatment plan (Paragraph 0090; ‘appliances having teeth receiving cavities that receive and reposition teeth, e.g., via application of force due to appliance resiliency’);
Shanjani teaches a network of sensors for measuring strain in the shell (Paragraph 0105; ‘The monitoring device 300 can include any number of sensors… strain gauges (e.g., resistive- or MEMS-based)’) but Shanjani is silent on the intersecting array of microfluidic channels and the sensor measuring strain using those channels.
Cheng teaches an intersecting array of microfluidic channels (Page 2282; ‘the major part of the sensor is a mechanically reconfigurable and reversibly deformable patch antenna, which consists of two layers of liquid metal alloy filled microfluidic channels in a silicone elastomer.’); and
one or more sensors configured to measure a spatially distributed strain in the polymeric shell based at least in part on a distance between two or more channels of the intersecting array of microfluidic channels (Page 2282; ‘The elastic patch antenna can withstand repeated mechanical stretches while still maintaining its electrical function to some extent, and return to its original state after removal of the stress. Additionally, its electrical characteristics at frequency of operation are highly sensitive to mechanical strains. Consequently, not only is this antenna a radiator for transmitting and receiving RF signals like any other conventional antennas, but also acts as a reversible large-area strain sensor in the integrated device.’; the functionality of the strain sensor would be based on the stretching of the channels and thus based somewhat on the distance between two more channels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Cheng because it would enable real-time remote monitoring of physiological parameters (Page 2282 of Cheng) and because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of microfluidic strain sensor of Cheng).
Regarding claim 2, Shanjani is silent on the intersecting array of microfluidic channels and the sensor measuring strain using those channels. Cheng teaches wherein the intersecting array of microfluidic channels are filled with a conductive fluid (Page 2282; ‘liquid metal alloy filled microfluidic channels’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Cheng because it would enable real-time remote monitoring of physiological parameters (Page 2282 of Cheng) and because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of microfluidic strain sensor of Cheng).
Regarding claim 3, Shanjani is silent on the intersecting array of microfluidic channels and the sensor measuring strain using those channels. Cheng teaches wherein the conductive fluid comprises a liquid metal alloy (Page 2282; ‘liquid metal alloy filled microfluidic channels’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Cheng because it would enable real-time remote monitoring of physiological parameters (Page 2282 of Cheng) and because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of microfluidic strain sensor of Cheng).
Regarding claim 4, Shanjani is silent on the intersecting array of microfluidic channels and the sensor measuring strain using those channels. Cheng teaches wherein the metal alloy comprises eutectic Gallium-Indium (Page 2283; ‘injecting eutectic gallium and indium (EGaIn) fluid alloy into elastomeric channels’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Cheng because it would enable real-time remote monitoring of physiological parameters (Page 2282 of Cheng) and because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of microfluidic strain sensor of Cheng).
Regarding claim 5, Shanjani teaches wherein the one or more sensors are selected from the group consisting of a magnetic stress/strain sensor, a piezoelectric strain sensor, a piezoresistive sensor, an inductive stress/strain gauge, a metal foil strain gauge, a nanoparticle-based strain sensor, an optical strain sensor, and a capacitive sensor (Paragraph 0105; ‘The monitoring device 300 can include any number of sensors… strain gauges (e.g., resistive- or MEMS-based)’).
Regarding claim 6, Shanjani teaches further comprising a wireless transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit one or more signals corresponding to the spatially distributed strain to an external signal processing device (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 7, Shanjani teaches wherein the one or more signals comprise stress data, strain data, displacement data, or any combination thereof (Paragraphs 0024 and 0156).
Regarding claim 9, Shanjani teaches wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a rate of movement for the one or more teeth based on the one or more signals and positions of the one or more sensors (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 12, Shanjani teaches a system (Abstract) comprising:
a) one or more dental repositioning appliances (Paragraphs 0005-0006) comprising:
i) a polymeric shell (Paragraphs 0090-0091; ‘a polymeric shell appliance’) having a plurality of cavities shaped to fit over a patient's teeth and configured to reposition the patient's teeth in accordance with an orthodontic treatment plan (Paragraph 0090; ‘appliances having teeth receiving cavities that receive and reposition teeth, e.g., via application of force due to appliance resiliency’),
b) an external signal processing device configured to receive and process the one or more signals from the one or more dental repositioning appliances (Paragraphs 0108-0109; ‘configured to transmit the data stored in the memory (e.g., sensor data and/or processing results) to a remote device’; ‘the remote device is configured to process and analyze the data from the monitoring device 300, e.g., in order to assess appliance performance, for research purposes, and the like.’)
Shanjani teaches a network of sensors for measuring strain in the shell (Paragraph 0105; ‘The monitoring device 300 can include any number of sensors… strain gauges (e.g., resistive- or MEMS-based)’) but Shanjani is silent on the intersecting array of microfluidic channels and the sensor measuring strain using those channels.
Cheng teaches ii) an intersecting array of microfluidic channels embedded within the polymer shell (Page 2282; ‘the major part of the sensor is a mechanically reconfigurable and reversibly deformable patch antenna, which consists of two layers of liquid metal alloy filled microfluidic channels in a silicone elastomer.’), and
iii) one or more sensors configured to measure a spatially distributed strain in the polymeric shell based at least in part on a distance between two or more channels of the intersecting array of microfluidic channels (Page 2282; ‘The elastic patch antenna can withstand repeated mechanical stretches while still maintaining its electrical function to some extent, and return to its original state after removal of the stress. Additionally, its electrical characteristics at frequency of operation are highly sensitive to mechanical strains. Consequently, not only is this antenna a radiator for transmitting and receiving RF signals like any other conventional antennas, but also acts as a reversible large-area strain sensor in the integrated device.’; the functionality of the strain sensor would be based on the stretching of the channels and thus based somewhat on the distance between two more channels), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Cheng because it would enable real-time remote monitoring of physiological parameters (Page 2282 of Cheng) and because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of microfluidic strain sensor of Cheng).
Regarding claim 13, Shanjani teaches wherein the one or more sensors are selected from the group consisting of a magnetic stress/strain sensor, a piezoelectric strain sensor, a piezoresistive sensor, an inductive stress/strain gauge, a metal foil strain gauge, a nanoparticle-based strain sensor, an optical strain sensor, and a capacitive sensor (Paragraph 0105; ‘The monitoring device 300 can include any number of sensors… strain gauges (e.g., resistive- or MEMS-based)’).
Regarding claim 14, Shanjani teaches wherein the one or more signals generated by the one or more sensors comprise stress data, strain data, displacement data, or any combination thereof (Paragraphs 0024 and 0156).
Regarding claim 16, Shanjani teaches wherein data for the one or more signals is stored locally on a cell phone, a laptop computer, a personal computer, or a computer system or in a cloud-based database (Paragraph 0109).
Regarding claim 17, Shanjani teaches wherein the one or more dental repositioning appliances further comprise a wireless transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit one or more signals corresponding to the spatially distributed strain to the external signal processing device (Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 20, Shanjani is silent on the intersecting array of microfluidic channels and the sensor measuring strain using those channels. Cheng teaches wherein the intersecting array of microfluidic channels are filled with a conductive fluid (Page 2282; ‘liquid metal alloy filled microfluidic channels’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Cheng because it would enable real-time remote monitoring of physiological parameters (Page 2282 of Cheng) and because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of microfluidic strain sensor of Cheng).
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani et al. (US 2018/0000565) in view of Cheng et al. (Reference U on PTO-892; 2011) in further view of Kopelman et al. (US 2019/0192259)
Regarding claim 8, Shanjani is silent on the external device processing the data to calculate a corrective force vector. Kopelman teaches wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a corrective force vector from the one or more signals and positions of the one or more sensors (Paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Kopelman because it allows for better modification of the treatment plan to provide better treatment to the user (Paragraph 0024 of Kopelman).
Regarding claim 15, Shanjani is silent on the external device processing the data to calculate a corrective force vector. Kopelman teaches wherein the external signal processor is further configured to calculate a corrective force vector or a rate of movement for the one or more teeth based at least in part on the one or more signals (Paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Kopelman because it allows for better modification of the treatment plan to provide better treatment to the user (Paragraph 0024 of Kopelman).
Regarding claim 19, Shanjani is silent on the external device processing the data through comparison to a threshold. Kopelman teaches wherein the external signal processing device is configured to determine whether the value of the first physical quality is less than a threshold value, the threshold value corresponding to a specified reduction in a force applied by the polymeric shell to the one or more teeth in accordance with a first stage of the orthodontic treatment plan (Paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Kopelman because it allows for better modification of the treatment plan to provide better treatment to the user (Paragraph 0024 of Kopelman).
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani et al. (US 2018/0000565) in view of Cheng et al. (Reference U on PTO-892; 2011) in further view of Spaid et al. (US 2007/0154895).
Regarding claim 10, Shanjani is silent on the external device processing the data using a measured capacitance. Spaid teaches wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a value of the spatially distributed strain based at least on the measured capacitance (Paragraph 0040; ‘Microfluidic devices can have channels’, ‘Channels can terminate, e.g., in pipettor tubes, in wells of solutions, and/or at intersections with other channels, ‘Detectors can be functionally associated with channels to monitor parameters of interest, such as, e.g., voltages, conductivity, resistance, capacitance,’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani to incorporate the intersecting array of microfluidic channels of Spaid because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of Spaid.
Regarding claim 18, Spaid teaches wherein the external signal processing device is configured to calculate a value of the spatially distributed strain based at least on the measured capacitance (Paragraph 0040; ‘Microfluidic devices can have channels’, ‘Channels can terminate, e.g., in pipettor tubes, in wells of solutions, and/or at intersections with other channels, ‘Detectors can be functionally associated with channels to monitor parameters of interest, such as, e.g., voltages, conductivity, resistance, capacitance,’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani to incorporate the intersecting array of microfluidic channels of Spaid because it would only require the routine skill of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.) in this case the sensors of Shanjani with that of Spaid.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanjani et al. (US 2018/0000565) in view of Cheng et al. (Reference U on PTO-892; 2011) and Spaid et al. (US 2007/0154895) in further view of Kopelman et al. (US 2019/0192259)
Regarding claim 11, Shanjani is silent on the external device processing the data through comparison to a threshold. Kopelman teaches wherein the external signal processing device is configured to determine whether the value of the first physical quality is less than a threshold value, the threshold value corresponding to a specified reduction in a force applied by the polymeric shell to the one or more teeth in accordance with a first stage of the orthodontic treatment plan (Paragraph 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shanjani with Kopelman because it allows for better modification of the treatment plan to provide better treatment to the user (Paragraph 0024 of Kopelman).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM 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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791