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 .
Status of Claims
Pending
1-37
35 U.S.C. 103
1-37
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 06/22/2026, which are in response to USPTO Office Action mailed 03/05/2026. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered with the results that follow: THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-21, 23-26, 28, 30, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes et al. (US 2014/0272789 A1, “Mozes”) in view of Farritor et al. (US 2008/0004634 A1, “Farritor”) and Kohler (US 2015/0257636 A1, “Kohler”).
Regarding Claim 11: Mozes teaches: A dental robotic system, comprising: a fiducial marker adapted to engage a [. . .] object; an articulating arm having (Mozes: [0024] describes a fiducial device designed to form a fiducial marker within the mount of a patient. [0023] describes a guided robotic assistance system. [0026] describes an articulating arm member 350)
a dental tool operably engaged with a distal end thereof and having an end effector adapted to interact with the [. . .] object (Mozes: [0030] describes a cutting device 150 connected to the arm member 350 and designed to provide 6 degrees of freedom or to restrict the movement of the cutting device as needed)
a controller arranged in communication with the articulating arm, the dental tool, and the fiducial marker, the controller being arranged to: determine a disposition of the end effector in relation to the fiducial marker during movement of the end effector to interact with the [. . .] object (Mozes: [0032] describes a start position being dictated by the controller device 450. Once the start is determined, the orientation of the path of the cutting element and the direction/distance/depth from the origin is determined. The cutting device 150 is guided through the entire incision process)
and direct the articulating arm to physically control allowable movement of the dental tool, directly relative to the disposition of the end effector with respect to the fiducial marker engaged with the [. . .] object (Mozes: [0032] describes a start position being dictated by the controller device 450. Once the start is determined, the orientation of the path of the cutting element and the direction/distance/depth from the origin is determined. The cutting device 150 is guided through the entire incision process. [0033] describes a tactile or haptic feedback provided to the user so that is the user deviates from the plan they are alerted).
However, Mozes does not explicitly teach: an optical imaging device engaged with the dental tool or the end effector, and arranged such that a field-of-view thereof includes an interaction between the end effector and the [. . .] object, and a display in communication with the optical imaging device and arranged to display a real-time image of the interaction between the end effector and the [. . .] object received from the optical imaging device.
Farritor, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: and an optical imaging device engaged with the dental tool or the end effector, and arranged such that a field-of-view thereof includes an interaction between the end effector and the [. . .] object (Farritor: [0139] describes a camera with an expanded and adjustable field of view, meaning that the system can have a field of view that includes an interaction between the end effector and the object)
and a display in communication with the optical imaging device and arranged to display a real-time image of the interaction between the end effector and the [. . .] object received from the optical imaging device (Farritor: [0606] describes a surgeon performing the surgery in real time using the stereoscopic display).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes to incorporate the teachings of Farritor to show a field of view of a camera and displaying a real time image on a display. One would have been motivated to do so to solve the issues of limited mobility and limited visual feedback when performing operations ([0004] of Farritor).
However, Mozes-Farritor do not explicitly teach: the object is a visible maxillofacial object.
Kohler, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: the object is a visible maxillofacial object (Kohler: [0002] dental instrument having a video camera for viewing a user's or patient's mouth when utilizing the dental instrument. video output to a wireless device, such as a smart phone, tablet computer or other like computer. [0068] camera may thus be utilized to record or view within a patient's oral cavity where it may otherwise be difficult for the user or a patient to see. dental tool may use dental instrument insert thereon for working on teeth or tissue and camera may provide real-time video as the insert is being used, streaming video to display device or another display device that may accept video stream wirelessly sent from dental tool).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes-Farritor to incorporate the teachings of Kohler to show a visible maxillofacial object. One would have been motivated to do so to solve the issues of limited vision and motion planning during limited mobility and limited visual feedback when performing operations ([0068] of Kohler).
Claim 11’s limitations are more descriptive than claim 1, however, claim 1 is included in claim 11. Therefore claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as in claim 11. Claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 12: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, wherein the dental tool is a drill and the end effector is a drill bit or an abrading bit, wherein the dental tool is an ultrasonic cleaner and the end effector is a cleaning tip, or wherein the dental tool is a pneumatic polisher and the end effector is a polishing tip (Mozes: [0021] describes a drill or boring bit used for perforating the sinus membrane 20 with the tip of the bit).
Claims 2 and 24 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 13: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, wherein the display is mounted on the dental tool, is disposed remotely to the dental tool, or is mounted within a headset adapted to be worn by a user (Farritor: [0201] describes an image display component that can be a TV, which is therefore remote of the dental tool). The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 3 and 25 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 4: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 1, wherein the dental tool is engaged with an articulating arm of a dental robotic system (Mozes: [0026] describes an articulating arm member 350).
Regarding Claim 14: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, wherein the optical imaging device includes a camera, an imaging array, or an optical fiber disposed adjacent the end effector of the dental tool (Farritor: [0277] describes a camera used to allow the surgeon to easily view the area). The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 5 and 26 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 16: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, comprising a light-emitting device arranged to illuminate the visible maxillofacial object or the end effector (Farritor: [0122] describes a device 30 that has a light component to illuminate an area). The reason to combine is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 7 and 28 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 18: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, further comprising a detector engaged with a distal end of a tracking arm, the tracking arm and the detector being in communication with the controller, the detector being arranged in a spaced-apart relationship with the fiducial marker to detect the fiducial marker and to cooperate with the controller to determine a spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker or between the end effector and the fiducial marker (Mozes: [0024] describes a fiducial device designed to form a fiducial marker within the mount of a patient. Figure 5 shows an arm 200 that is connected to a fiducial device 250. Farritor: [0139] describes a camera with an expanded and adjustable field of view, meaning that the system can have a field of view that includes an interaction between the end effector and the object). The reason to combine is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claim 34 is substantially similar to claim 18 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 19: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 18, wherein the detector is an electrical detector, an electromechanical detector, an electromagnetic detector, an optical detector, an infrared detector, or combinations thereof (Mozes: [0033] describes a system that has haptic feedback, which is electromechanical).
Claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 19 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 20: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, comprising a tracking arm having a distal end physically engaged with the fiducial marker, the tracking arm being in communication with the controller and arranged to cooperate with the controller to determine a spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker or between the end effector and the fiducial marker (Mozes: [0024] describes a fiducial device designed to form a fiducial marker within the mount of a patient. Figure 5 shows a arm 200 that is connected to a fiducial device 250. Farritor: [0139] describes a camera with an expanded and adjustable field of view, meaning that the system can have a field of view that includes an interaction between the end effector and the object).
Regarding Claim 21: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: The system of Claim 11, wherein the optical imaging device is arranged in communication with the display via a wireless communication system (Farritor: [0182] describes a wireless connection component which allows the robot to communicate wirelessly with a controller or any other external component). The reason to combine Farritor with Mozes is for the same reason as in claim 11.
Claims 9 and 30 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 6, 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes et al. (US 2014/0272789 A1), Farritor et al. (US 2008/0004634 A1), and Kohler (US 2015/0257636 A1), and further in view of Wang (US 2021/0282895 A1, “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 15: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: the above limitations in claim 11. Mozes-Farritor-Kohler do not teach an optical fiber being run axially and being connected to the distal end of the dentist tool.
Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: The system of Claim 14, wherein the end effector defines an axial channel extending toward a distal end of the dental tool, and wherein the optical fiber is disposed within and extends along the axial channel such that a distal end of the optical fiber is disposed proximate the distal end of the dental tool (Wang: [0029] describes an optical fiber 3-2 connected to the endoscope. Figure 1 and figure 4 show the optical fiber being near the distal end of the dental tool).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes-Farritor-Kohler to incorporate the teachings of Wang to show an optical fiber being run axially and being connected to the distal end of the dentist tool. One would have been motivated to do so that the cables are organized well and do not intrude on anything.
Claims 6 and 27 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 8, 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes et al. (US 2014/0272789 A1), Farritor et al. (US 2008/0004634 A1), and Kohler (US 2015/0257636 A1), and further in view of Ramirez Luna et al. (US 2019/0327394 A1, “Ramirez”).
Regarding Claim 17: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler teach the above limitations in claim 11. Mozes-Farritor-Kohler do not teach an optical imaging device to automatically focus within the field-of-view.
Ramirez, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: The system of Claim 11, wherein the optical imaging device is arranged to automatically focus within the field-of-view (Ramirez: [0563] describes a camera 300 and a processor 4102 that can automatically move the robotic arm 506 and focus/magnification of the camera).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes-Farritor-Kohler to incorporate the teachings of Ramirez to show an optical imaging device to automatically focus within the field-of-view. One would have been motivated to do so to align the camera 300 with an object of interest to provide for recognition of a desired object and its position and orientation within a image ([0563 of Ramirez).
Claims 8 and 29 are substantially similar to claim 12 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 10, 22, 31-33, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mozes et al. (US 2014/0272789 A1), Farritor et al. (US 2008/0004634 A1), and Kohler (US 2015/0257636 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0166333 A1, “Wang2”).
Regarding Claim 22: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler teach the above limitations in claim 11. Mozes-Farritor-Kohler do not teach an augmented virtual representation between an end effector and an object combined with an image not obtained from the optical imaging device.
Wang2, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: The system of Claim 11, wherein the display is arranged to display the real-time image of the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object combined with an image of the visible maxillofacial object not obtained from the optical imaging device, so as to form an augmented virtual representation of the interaction (Wang2: [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Mozes-Farritor-Kohler to incorporate the teachings of Wang2 to show an augmented virtual representation between an end effector and an object combined with an image not obtained from the optical imaging device. One would have been motivated to do so help the operator visualize, target and plan trajectories for structures deep inside the patient ([0190] of Wang2).
Claims 10 and 31 are substantially similar to claim 22 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 32: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: the above limitations in claim 23. Mozes-Farritor-Kohler do not teach wherein the controller is arranged to associate the position data associated with the articulating arm from the one or more sensors, and the imaging data associated with each of a plurality of two-dimensional images of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object captured by the optical imaging device.
Wang2, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: The system of Claim 23, wherein the controller is arranged to associate the position data associated with the articulating arm from the one or more sensors, and the imaging data associated with each of a plurality of two-dimensional images of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object captured by the optical imaging device (Wang2: [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps). The reason to combine is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 33: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler-Wang2 further teach: The system of Claim 32, wherein the controller is arranged to combine together the plurality of two-dimensional images of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object, based on the position data and the imaging data, and to form a three-dimensional augmented virtual representation of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object (Wang2: [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps). The reason to combine is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 36: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler further teach: the above limitations in claim 34. Mozes-Farritor-Kohler do not teach wherein the controller is arranged to associate the position data associated with the articulating arm from the one or more sensors, the imaging data associated with an image of the visible maxillofacial object captured by the optical imaging device, and the spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker with each of a plurality of two-dimensional images of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object captured by the optical imaging device.
Wang2, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: The system of Claim 34, wherein the controller is arranged to associate the position data associated with the articulating arm from the one or more sensors, the imaging data associated with an image of the visible maxillofacial object captured by the optical imaging device, and the spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker with each of a plurality of two-dimensional images of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object captured by the optical imaging device (Wang2: [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps). The reason to combine is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Regarding Claim 37: Mozes-Farritor-Kohler-Wang2 further teach: The system of Claim 36, wherein the controller is arranged to combine the plurality of two-dimensional images of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction between the end effector and the visible maxillofacial object together, based on the position data, the imaging data, and the spatial relationship between the optical imaging device and the fiducial marker, and form a three-dimensional augmented virtual representation of the visible maxillofacial object or the interaction of the end effector with the visible maxillofacial object (Wang2: [0190] describes a screen device 2100 that utilizes 3D map for registration with other 3D images of the patient to create and display augmented virtual images of the patient with overlays of planned trajectories and segmented anatomical structures. Figure 11A – 11B describe 2D images. [0164] describes stitching these images together to create 3D surface maps). The reason to combine is for the same reason as in claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MADISON B EMMETT whose telephone number is (303)297-4231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00 ET.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/MADISON B EMMETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights