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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to robotic dental system, classified in A61B34/30.
II. Claims 14-16, drawn to method of preparing for robotic dental procedure, classified in A61C1/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of invention I can be used in a materially different process of using than the process of invention II, specifically placing the robotic arm within the mouth of the subject by manually placement during initial set up.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions having acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. .
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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.
During a telephone conversation with George Jakosche on 10/31/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention II, claim14-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-13 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
(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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukumoto et al (US 2018/0185103).
Regarding claim 14, Mukumoto discloses s method of preparing for a robotic dental procedure (figure 5), the method comprising:
providing a robotic dental system (figures 1 and 2), which comprises:
a treatment system (medical treatment assisting system 1), which comprises:
a robotic arm (multi joint arm 34), a distal end of which is configured to be coupled to an end effector (surgical tool 2), the robotic arm comprising one or more motors (robot driving device 44, which par 59 discloses as a motor); and
a platform (top panel 6 of mounting table 4), to which a proximal end of the robotic arm is coupled (see figure 1), the platform (6) comprising a coupling portion (position tracking device 12), which is rigidly coupled to a dental clamp (attachment 16), which is configured to be rigidly clamped to one or more teeth of a subject (par 43 discloses the attachment is a mouthpiece and figure 3 shows the mouthpiece attached to the teeth of a patient), the platform (4) and coupling portion(12) being configured such that, when the dental clamp is rigidly clamped to the one or more teeth and the dental clamp is rigidly coupled to the coupling portion, a position and orientation of the platform remain fixed, relative to the one or more teeth (see figures 1 and 3, par 41-43 discloses the position tracking device when initiated establishes the treatment position for the robot therefore the rotation and orientation of the known position and orientation of the platform and dental clamp would be set as this information is used to guide the surgical tool);
a base (see figure 1, the bottom part of the system 1 that is beneath the planning device 18); and
a suspension system (mounting table driving mechanism 10 of supporting portion 8), which mechanically couples the platform with the base (see figure 1), supports a weight of the treatment system, and is configured such that, when the robotic dental system is operating in a treatment mode, with the dental clamp rigidly clamped to the one or more teeth and the dental clamp rigidly coupled to the coupling portion, the suspension system permits the position and orientation of the platform to change, relative to the base, in response to forces applied by the one or more teeth to the dental clamp, thereby accommodating changes in a position, orientation, and both of the one or more teeth by enabling corresponding changes in the position, orientation, or both of the platform (par 38 discloses the supporting portion 8 supporting the top panel 6 and par 39 discloses the driving mechanism being motorized and driving the top panel 6 of the table 4 in the X, Y and Z direction);
wherein the method further comprises:
rigidly clamping the dental clamp to the one or more teeth of the subject (see par 43 and figure 3); and, thereafter,
introducing the distal end of the robotic arm into a mouth of the subject, using the one or more motors of the robotic arm (par 36 and 50 discloses the surgical tool 2 entering the mouth of the patient during the operation using the guide robot).
Regarding claim 15, Mukumoto further discloses repositioning the platform of the treatment system to a location proximate the subject, using the suspension system (par 39-40 disclose positioning the top panel 6 using the drive mechanism and par 73-76 discloses the movement of the treatment assistant device/position the attachment 16 to an appropriate range to complete the treatment plan).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukumoto et al as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hyun et al (KR 10-2022-0116716A).
Regarding claim 16, Mukumoto discloses the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 15, and further discloses the suspension system is an active suspension system and operating at least one motor (par 39 discloses the driving mechanism has a motor), but fails to base on input from at least one force sensor the suspension system moving the platform to said location proximate the subject.
However, Hyun teaches a robotic arm and manipulation member using an external force detection sensor to detect and record external forces applied by the manipulation member and move the robot arm based on the information detected in relation to the patient (par 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mukumoto to include at least one force sensor which based on the input force moves the platform in accordance to the subject, specifically proximate to the subject as taught by Hyun for the purpose of providing real-time feedback to the suspension system in response to any movement by the subject.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNEL N BELK whose telephone number is (571)272-9671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Fri. 11:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/S.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799