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 .
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 2, 3, 5-9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0065379; already cited in parent case) in view of Provencio (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0223970 A1)
Regarding claim 2:
Cowburn teaches: a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device (see para. 301, which teaches machine-readable media storing computer programs for execution by a processor), cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving image data of a dental arch of a patient (paras. 71 or 186, acquiring scanned image data of a dental arch of a patient);
determining a treatment outcome for a dental treatment of the dental arch of the patient (see e.g. para. 5, “display hypothetical dental restorations and options in real time, from any angle and perspective”. Hypothetical dental restorations correspond to determined treatment outcomes of the dental arch (treatment related to the restoration procedure). See also claim 1 for additional teaching).
Regarding performing a cephalometric analysis and remaining features of claim 1, consider the following.
In analogous art, Provencio teaches:
performing a cephalometric analysis with respect to a face of the patient associated with the treatment outcome to determine one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient in the treatment outcome (Provencio, Fig. 2 and para. 33, which states that: “As shown in FIG. 2, user interface screen 200 may include a pre-surgical profile image 202 of an individual with the pre-surgical cephalometric tracing 100 of FIG. 1 overlaid upon image 202, and a planned post-surgical image 204 of the same individual with a planned post-surgical cephalometric tracing 206 overlaid upon image 204.” The post-surgical cephalometric tracing corresponds to a cephalometric analysis associated with treatment outcome (post-surgical)); and
updating the treatment outcome in view of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics (para. 35-37, via surgical planning, modify/change post-surgical cephalometric landmarks to desired outcomes. This corresponds to the updating step. Note: Cowburn also teaches that updating proposed/planned models is known in surgical prep (see claim 1)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 2, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, the operations further comprising: generating a representation of the treatment outcome and a representation of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient prior to updating the treatment outcome (Provencio, paras. 33-35, this is taught by the post-surgical image 204 that has cephalometric tracing overlaid on the patient’s face);
outputting the representation of the treatment outcome and the representation of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics to a display (Provencio, Figs. 2-3);
generating a representation of the updated treatment outcome (Provencio, a user/medical professional can modify the image to generate an updated treatment outcome. See paras. 33-37); and
outputting the representation of the updated treatment outcome to the display (Id. with respect to Provencio; alternatively, Cowburn teaches that outputting updated treatment models is known (see Cowburn, claim 1)), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, the operations further comprising:
performing an updated cephalometric analysis with respect to an updated face of the patient associated with the updated treatment outcome to determine one or more updated post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the updated face of the patient in the updated treatment outcome;
generating a representation of the one or more updated post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face; and
outputting the representation of the one or more updated post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face to the display, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Applicant’s claim 5 is basically updating the cephalometric analysis (taught by Provencio and mapped in claims 2-3), with respect to an updated patient face and updated treatment outcome to determine updated post-treatment ceph characteristics. This is obvious over the prior art, both in terms of surgical/treatment planning (updating post-treatment characteristics as claimed). Alternatively, this is also obvious and taught as part of the updated and post-surgical ceph facial model, as taught by Provencio and mapped above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the representation of the treatment outcome, the representation of the one or more post- treatment cephalometric characteristics, and the representation of the updated treatment outcome are generated as visual overlays that are output over the image data, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Provencio teaches that overlaying graphics on patient image data is known (paras. 33-35), as well as overlaying ceph characteristics (both current and post-surgery) (Id.) and a planned post surgical image. Id. See also Fig. 2. Modifying the applied references, in view of Provencio, such to use overlaying graphics over images, per Provencio, such graphics being the representation of treatment outcome (planned post-surgical image), post-treatment ceph characteristics (post-surgical ceph tracing), and updated treatment outcome (changes made, update the post-surg image), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
Cowburn teaches; the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the display comprises an augmented reality display (e.g. para. 210 and Fig. 1: 16, this is an AR display such as e.g. Google Glass, Oculus Rift, Microsoft HoloLens, Meta Spaceglasses, etc.), and
wherein the representation of the treatment outcome, the representation of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics, and the representation of the updated treatment outcome are generated as visual overlays that are output over a real-world scene viewed by a wearer of the augmented reality display (Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the representations, as mapped in claim 3, are generated as overlays over a real-world scene (by definition, augmented reality, and shown in Fig. 1 of Cowburn), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art). See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8:
Provencio teaches: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, the operations further comprising: performing the cephalometric analysis with respect to a current face of the patient (Fig. 2: 202, and mapping to claim 2 above), this is a current image of patient, pre-surgical);
generating a representation of one or more current cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient (Fig. 2: 202); and
outputting the representation of the one or more current cephalometric characteristics of the face to the display (Fig. 2: 202).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to have as much image analysis as possible to better plan surgical operations.
Regarding claim 9:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the cephalometric analysis with respect to at least one of the current face of the patient or the post-treatment face of the patient is performed using at least one of the image data, intraoral scan data of the dental arch, or x-ray data of the dental arch, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Cowburn teaches obtaining scanned image data of arches (para. 217). Modifying the applied references, such that the ceph analyses as per Provencio is performed using the scanned arch data as per Cowburn, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art). See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12: see also claim 2.
Cowburn teaches: a system (Fig. 1: 10 system) comprising: a computing device (para. 208, system has one or more devices) comprising a memory device (Fig. 1: 14 compute readable medium) and a processing device (Fig. 1: 12 processor) operatively coupled to the memory device (see Fig. 1), the computing device configured to
The functions of claim 12 corresponds to the method of claim 2; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 15: see claim 5.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 16: see claim 6.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 17: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 19: see claim 8.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies,
Regarding claim 20: see claim 9.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies,
Regarding claim 21: see claim 2.
The method of claim 21 corresponds to the steps of claim 2; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Claims 4, 10, 11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowburn in view of Provencio and further in view of Yuan, P. (2014). Development of a Novel Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation (CASS) System for Orthognathic Surgery (Doctoral dissertation) (“Yuan”).
Regarding claim 4:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, wherein the representation of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face comprise at least one of one or more alignment indicators, one or more distance indicators, or one or more angle indicators with respect to features of the face of the patient, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Provencio teaches generating/displaying ceph characteristics of a face, including for post-treatment (see Fig. 2: 204, 206). These ceph characteristics are displayed indicators as line segments and landmarks (Provencio, para. 8 and claim 8). Re: indicators as at least one of alignment, distance, or angle indicators, Yuan teaches that it is known for a cephalometric analysis to include measurements that include: “angle, distance, orientation, ratio and other computation using the landmarks (Figure 24)” (see page 25, last paragraph, which is part of Section 3.3: Module 3: Cephalometric Analysis). See also pages 26-28. Modifying the applied references, such to include indicators of alignment, distance or angle, as part of the ceph characteristics being displayed per Provencio, when Yuan teaches that alignment (orientation), distance and angle are all measurements done for a cephalometric analysis, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art). See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additional motivation would be to display as indicators measurements that are part of a complete and thorough cephalometric analysis.
Regarding claim 10:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, the operations further comprising: receiving acceptance of the updated treatment outcome (Cowburn, para. 267, obtaining user approval or acceptance, here for a 3D model, of proposed treatment); and
generating an orthodontic treatment plan that is configured to reposition teeth of the patient to achieve the updated treatment outcome (Yuan, Sections 3.4-3.5, generate computerized surgical plan from simulation).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 10, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, wherein the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient comprise one or more distances and/or angles describing positions of features of the face of the patient relative to each other, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Provencio teaches generating/displaying ceph characteristics of a face, including for post-treatment (see Fig. 2: 204, 206). These ceph characteristics are displayed indicators as line segments and landmarks (Provencio, para. 8 and claim 8). Re: characteristics comprising one or more distances and/or angles describing positions of facial features relative to each other, Yuan teaches that it is known for a cephalometric analysis to include measurements that include: “angle, distance, orientation, ratio and other computation using the landmarks (Figure 24)” (see page 25, last paragraph, which is part of Section 3.3: Module 3: Cephalometric Analysis). See also pages 26-28. Modifying the applied references, such to have included the above, when Yuan teaches that distance and angle are all measurements done for a cephalometric analysis, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art). See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additional motivation would be to display as indicators measurements that are part of a complete and thorough cephalometric analysis.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 4.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 18: see claim 10.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relevant to dental and/or medical imaging.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613