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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 18 were amended.
Claims 2, 3, 6-9 and 16 were cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts the following (Remarks, pages 9-10) :
“In the claimed invention, a user can check a position of contact between the upper-jaw
tooth row and the lower-jaw tooth row based on the distance between the upper-jaw tooth row and the lower-jaw tooth row during the jaw motion. To achieve this advantageous effect, the claimed invention recites processing circuitry (the computer) that generates the video data
including a plurality of frames showing the point cloud of the upper-jaw tooth row and the lower-jaw tooth row to which an indicator is added. Further, the indicator changes according to a distance between each point in the point cloud of the upper-jaw tooth row and each point in the point cloud of the lower-jaw tooth row, the distance changing in accordance with the jaw motion. Thereby, the user can easily check the premature contact position of the upper- jaw tooth row and the lower-jaw tooth row using the video generated by the processing circuitry.
In contrast, Jensen describes a system that allows a user to monitor changes in jaw motion over time (see paragraphs [0013] and [0014]). To achieve this approach, Jensen teaches
that the computer obtains the primary relative jaw motion data set at the first patient visit, and after six months, the computer obtains secondary relative jaw motion data set again (see
paragraphs [0055] and [0071]). That is, Jensen's invention checks the deviation of the jaw
motion over time by comparing the past relative jaw motion dataset (the primary relative jaw motion data set) with the current relative jaw motion data set (the secondary relative jaw motion data set). On the other hand, Jensen fails to disclose or suggest that the computer shows
the changes in the distance between the upper-jaw tooth row and the lower-jaw tooth row
during the real-time movement of a single jaw movement. Therefore, the features of the
claimed invention are clearly different from the teachings of Jensen's invention. Thus, Jensen does not teach the claimed invention, at least, because Jensen fails to disclose or suggest these features of the claimed invention.”
While the argument is understood, it is not consistent with what the claims actually recite. Specifically, the feature “real-time” is not recited in any claim. A careful check of the disclosure as originally filed does not mention real-time. A recitation of video does not automatically invoke real-time as video maybe stored and recalled at a later time for further analysis. Another observation is that Jensen does indeed suggest real-time as a possibility (par. 0084).
PNG
media_image1.png
123
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the reasons stated above, the prior art rejections of Jensen, individually and in combination with Imgrund are maintained.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C.
102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20250295480A1, hereinafter, “Jensen” in view of US20020150859A1, hereinafter, “Imgrund”.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 18 are now amended incorporating variations of features previously recited in dependent claims 3 and 6-9, now canceled. Therefore, the grounds for rejections of previously recited claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 respectively, are fully incorporated herein for the rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 10-15 and 17-20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7332. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 17:00.
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.Vu Le can be reached at 2-7332. 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.
/VU LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights