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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim amendments 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.
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, 10, 11, 12, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, P. (2014). Development of a Novel Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation (CASS) System for Orthognathic Surgery (Doctoral dissertation) (“Yuan”), with or without Ferraro, J. W. (1997). Cephalometry and cephalometric analysis. In Fundamentals of Maxillofacial Surgery (pp. 233-245). New York, NY: Springer New York (“Ferraro”).
Regarding claim 2:
Yuan teaches: a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device cause the processing device to perform operations (page ii, a computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) software system with six modules, the computer being the processing device, the modules and/or surgical simulation being instructions and operations, in combination with page 14, memory, for storing the software) comprising:
receiving image data of a dental arch of a patient (Yuan teaches obtaining CT images of patient to: (1) fabricate a patient specific bite-jig relevant to the maxillomandibular relationship (p. 7); and (2) generate several other patient models to generate a composite skull model, including a CT mandible model, CT upper dental model, lower dental model, and teeth markers model (pages 11-13). These CT images teach image data of a dental arch, which would be needed to generate the listed models. See also Fig. 11);
determining a treatment outcome for a dental treatment of the dental arch of the patient (see e.g. page 6: “correcting maxillary midline deviation” as a treatment outcome of the dental arch, and/or page 1, to correct facial deformities, including dentofacial deformities, TMJ, and others listed);
performing a cephalometric analysis (page 5, last paragraph, the third module is “Cephalometric Analysis”, described further in Section “3.3 Module 3: Cephalometric Analysis”) with respect to a face of the patient that would result from the treatment outcome to determine one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient that would result from the treatment outcome (per Section 3.3, “Each cephalometric analysis is a group of linear, angular and orientational measurements” …the section describes in detail the ceph analysis, which includes recording initial coordinates of patient landmarks for moving, orientating, per surgical planning. This teaches that the ceph analysis is done to visualize post-treatment ceph characteristics of the face from treatment outcome), wherein the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics are indicative of estimated changes to the face of the patient caused by the treatment outcome (see page 2, last paragraph, which describes part of Yuan’s motivation/innovation for its system, such to help surgeons “visualize the skeletal effects of a surgery on the facial skeleton”. A ceph analysis is a visualization of post-treatment estimated changes to the face caused by the treatment outcome); and
updating the treatment outcome in view of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics (page 23, Ceph analysis is done to “plan the treatment”. Planning includes updating).
Further to the above last two function/steps of claim 2:
performing a cephalometric analysis with respect to a face of the patient that would result from the treatment outcome to determine one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient that would result from the treatment outcome, wherein the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics are indicative of estimated changes to the face of the patient caused by the treatment outcome; and
updating the treatment outcome in view of the one or more post-treatment cephalometric characteristics,
The examiner respectfully further offers that many of the above claim features regarding a cephalometric analysis, and its relation to face characteristics, and treatment planning whereby post-treatment cephalometric characteristics are indicative of estimated changes to the face, respectfully recite a clinically accepted definition of cephalometry and cephalometric analysis, at least as of 1997.
See below teachings from Ferraro, as taken from Chapter 13 of “Fundamentals of Maxillofacial Surgery (1997)”:
From page 233:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
From page 240:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
From page 241:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
From page 244:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in addition to Yuan, Ferraro gives further clinical definition and description to the cephalometric analysis of Yuan, which include determining one or more post-treatment ceph characteristics of the face that would result from treatment (estimated changes), and updating the treatment outcome in view thereof. These steps are especially important, per Ferraro, “to determine whether the procedures will compromise the soft tissues of the neck, nose, or lips so as to produce a result that may be dentally correct but cosmetically a disaster” (quoting page 241, portion included above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applied reference(-s), Yuan, with or without Ferraro, 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 10:
Yuan teaches: the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, the operations further comprising: receiving acceptance of the updated treatment outcome (Yuan, patient agrees to surgery, such as the patients in Figs. 1 and 2 of completed surgeries); 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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of Yuan, to have obtained the above, motivated to perform procedures where the patient is fully informed.
Regarding claim 11:
Yuan or Ferraro teach: 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 (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)
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 above, motivated to make use of known medical analyses or procedures to achieve desired outcomes.
Regarding claim 12: see also claim 2.
Yuan teaches: a system (computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) system; the work of Yuan’s thesis and title) comprising: a computing device (Abstract, computer) comprising a memory device (page 14, memory of computer) and a processing device (Abstract, computers have processors) operatively coupled to the memory device (Abstract, so computer and processor can execute the software modules listed at page ii via software stored in memory), 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 18: see claim 10.
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 3-6, 8, 9, 13-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, with or without Ferraro, and further in view of Provencio (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0223970 A1).
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) (alternatively Yuan, Section 3.3. visualizations during ceph analysis are taught, this is directly related to treatment outcome; see also mapping in claim 2);
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) (alternatively, Yuan, Section 3.3); and
outputting the representation of the updated treatment outcome to the display (Id. with respect to Provencio; alternatively, Yuan, teaches that displaying updated treatment outcomes as part of its system is known. See Sections 3.3-3.5, and Introduction, for example), 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 4:
Yuan teaches: 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 (Yuan teaches that it is known for a ceph 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 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 that would result from 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 of the patient; and
outputting the representation of the one or more updated post-treatment cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient 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 Yuan, with or without Ferraro, 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 8:
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 the cephalometric analysis with respect to a current face of the patient (see Yuan, with or without Ferraro, mapped in claim 2 above);
generating a representation of one or more current cephalometric characteristics of the face of the patient (Provencio Fig. 2: 202) (alternatively, Yuan’s model displays visualizations); and
outputting the representation of the one or more current cephalometric characteristics of the face to the display (Provencio, Fig. 2: 202) (alternatively, Yuan’s model displays visualizations, and to show characteristics of the face, such to avoid cosmetic nightmares, per Ferraro, as mapped in claim 2, would have been obvious and motivated to one of ordinary skill),
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 9:
Yuan or Ferraro teach: 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 face of the patient that would result from the treatment outcome 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 (Yuan, see mapping to claim 2, CT image data) (Ferraro, page 233, x-ray data).
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 13: see claim 3.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 14: see claim 4.
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 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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan, with or without Ferraro, and further in view of Provencio and Cowburn (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0065379)
Regarding claim 7:
The applied references to claim 3 do not teach augmented reality display. Consider the following.
In analogous art, 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 17: see claim 7.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
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 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
Prosecution Insights