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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on August 28, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5A, and 5B are illegible or missing data due to poor scanning quality.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (US Pub No 20160220196), hereinafter Stapleton, in view of Haws et al. (US Pub No 20190244693), hereinafter Haws.
As to Claim 1, Stapleton teaches a computer-implemented method for generating a graphical user interface based on teeth data (see paragraph [0104], “As described herein, the region 510 displays information regarding the health status of each tooth.”, and see interface in Fig. 5b), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors (see Fig. 8, processor 810), sensor tooth data obtained by one or more sensors, the sensor tooth data corresponding to one or more teeth (see paragraph [0093], “In some cases, some or all of the measurements used to determine the dental health score can be obtained using one or more dental instruments, such as a dental probe. For example, in some implementations, information used to determine the dental health score can be collected using t an electronic system that automatically or semi-automatically collects data regarding a patient's teeth based on the placement of a probe or other measuring device against a specific portions of a patient's teeth”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, tooth identification data from one or more data stores (see paragraph [0039], “The first sets of data can be received from one or more different sources. For example, in some cases, one or more first sets of data can be received from an electronic database (e.g., an electronic database maintained on a single computer system, or distributively maintained across several interconnected computer systems, such as a “cloud” computer system)”),
the tooth identification data including a tooth location assigned to the one or more teeth and/or a shape identification corresponding to the one or more teeth (see paragraph [0004], “The first set of data indicates a physical condition of a tooth at the location,”, and see assigned tooth locations in Fig. 5A);
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the sensor tooth data and the tooth identification data (see paragraph [0004], “The method also includes determining, by the processor, for each location of the plurality of tooth locations, a first score based on the corresponding first set of data, where the first score indicates a hard tissue health of a tooth at the location. ..The method also includes determining, by the processor, for each location of the plurality of tooth locations, a second score…The second score indicates a periodontal health associated with a tooth at the location. The method also includes determining, by the processor, a second aggregate score based at least in part on one or more of the second scores, where the second aggregate score indicates a periodontal health of the patient”);
based on the analyzing, generating, by the one or more processors, a multi-dimensional heatmap representation of the one or more teeth based on the sensor tooth data and the tooth identification data (see paragraph [0104], “As described herein, the region 510 displays information regarding the health status of each tooth. In the example shown, the region 510 includes a graphical representation of each tooth. The health of each tooth can be indicated in a variety of ways, for example through a color code or symbol code…For instance, teeth that have a relatively healthy prognosis can be indicated by a green color, teeth with a less healthy prognosis can be indicated by a yellow color, teeth with an even less healthy prognosis can be indicated by a red color”, and see Fig. 2, where a 2-dimensional heatmap is output, where each color corresponds to the numerical health score values);
and outputting, by the one or more processors, the multi-dimensional heatmap representation to a user interface of a user device (see paragraph [0102], “As an example, the user interface 400 shows a graphical representation of a tooth 450, that visually displays various surfaces of a tooth”).
Stapleton fails to teach generating a user interface based on pet teeth data.
However, in an analogous art, Haws teaches a method for generating a heatmap representation of pet teeth (see paragraph [0002-0004], “Veterinarians chart the teeth of dogs and cats…The present disclosure generally relates to the field of animal dental charting…Each tooth in the set of teeth displayed in a color associated with the received input for at least one of the diagnosis field and the procedure field”, ) comprising,
receiving tooth data, the tooth data corresponding to one or more pet teeth (see paragraph [0074], “The periodontal measurements for this example include a clinical periodontal probing depth (PPD) measured in millimetres from the free gingival margin to the base of pocket…. The measurement may be received in the left (L) box 852L of the periodontal measurement input fields 852”);
and generating, by the one or more processors, a multi-dimensional heatmap representation of the one or more teeth based on the sensor tooth data with tooth identification data (see Fig. 5B, a 2-dimensional heatmap of pet teeth is shown with tooth identification data, where the tooth identification data is the location of each tooth).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use heatmap formation taught by Stapleton for the purpose of generating a heatmap of pet teeth data as taught by Haws. The motivation for doing so would be to produce heatmaps that can speed up diagnoses of an animal. Haws teaches in paragraph [0003] and [0052], “Veterinarians chart the teeth of dogs and cats…Speed of charting is desired for efficiency purposes and for the health and safety of the animal that is anesthetized during dental diagnostics and procedures… The teachings describe aspects of a clinical tool (e.g., dental charting system) that may be used by a veterinarian during dental diagnostics and procedures. The use of the clinical tool may reduce risk to a patient (e.g., dog or cat)” Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Stapleton with the teachings of Haws in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 1.
As to Claim 3, Stapleton in view of Haws teaches the one or more sensors include an imaging sensor and/or a non-imaging sensor (see Stapleton, paragraph [0093], “In some cases, some or all of the measurements used to determine the dental health score can be obtained using one or more dental instruments, such as a dental probe. For example, in some implementations, information used to determine the dental health score can be collected using an electronic system that automatically or semi-automatically collects data regarding a patient's teeth based on the placement of a probe or other measuring device against a specific portions of a patient's teeth”, where the ‘dental probe’ is a non-imaging sensor)..
As to Claim 4, Stapleton in view of Haws teaches transmitting, by the one or more processors, via the one or more sensors, the sensor tooth data to the one or more data stores (see paragraph [0148], “As another example, some implementations the computing devices 910 b-c can be used to control medical instruments (e.g., a device that controls an instrument such as the Diagnodent™ diagnostic device, the Florida Probe system, or any other medical instrument) and/or process medical data (e.g., a device that performs aspects of a JVA examination), and can transmit data to the computing device 910 a for analysis using the process 100”, and see paragraph [0053], “The second sets of data can be received from one or more different sources. For example, in some cases, one or more second sets of data can be received from an electronic database (e.g., an electronic database maintained on a single computer system, or distributively maintained across several interconnected computer systems, such as a “cloud” computer system)”.
As to Claim 5 Stapleton in view of Haws teaches wherein receiving the sensor tooth data includes receiving the sensor tooth data from the one or more data stores (see paragraph [0053], “The second sets of data can be received from one or more different sources. For example, in some cases, one or more second sets of data can be received from an electronic database (e.g., an electronic database maintained on a single computer system, or distributively maintained across several interconnected computer systems, such as a “cloud” computer system)”.
As to Claim 7, Stapleton teaches that the user can input data on a heatmap representation of teeth(see paragraph [0105], “ The user can thus enter data into the computer system by selecting a particular tooth (e.g., by selecting a particular tooth shown in region 510, and selecting particular surfaces of a tooth using the graphical representation 512). For instance, the user can toggle particular portions of the graphical representation 450 to indicate whether certain surfaces are damaged/missing, or healthy”).
However, Stapleton fails to explicitly teach that the heatmap itself is updated in response to the user input. However, Haws teaches teaches outputting, by the one or more processors, one or more display options to the user interface of the user device (see paragraph [0106], “ In some embodiments, the dental charting system 100, 700, 780 may also include functionality to change root outline color and thickness when a “to be treated” or “TBT” diagnosis is assigned to a tooth (i.e., visual identification based upon a diagnosis). When this “TBT” diagnosis is entered in the system 100, 700, 780”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, a selected display option of the one or more display options from a user (see paragraph [0106], “and then either “Apply” 822 or “Save” functionality is selected”);
and updating, by the one or more processors, the multi-dimensional heatmap representation based on the selected display option (see paragraph [0106], “the outline color for the tooth image is changed (e.g., from black to red)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display options taught by Haws with the heatmap generation method taught by Stapleton. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the user to easily observe the necessary procedure for each tooth (see paragraph [0056], “The update will visually reflect the diagnosis and procedure for each tooth 252 within the quadrant”). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the display options taught by Haws with the teachings of Stapleton in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 7.
As to Claim 8, Stapleton in view of Haws teaches method of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional heatmap representation includes a multi-dimensional graphical representation of the sensor tooth data and the tooth identification data (see Stapleton, Fig.5A, where a 2-D representation of each tooth is shown with tooth identification data, and see paragraph , [0104], “In the example shown, the region 510 includes a graphical representation of each tooth. The health of each tooth can be indicated in a variety of ways, for example through a color code”, where the color code reflects the numerically calculated health score).
As to Claim 9, Stapleton in view of Haws teaches a computer system for generating a graphical user interface based on pet teeth data, the computer system comprising:
a memory (see Stapleton Fig. 8, processor 810) having processor-readable instructions stored therein (see paragraph [0145], “The processor 810 is capable of processing instructions stored in the memory 820 or on the storage device 830”);
and one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the processor readable instructions (see Stapleton, Fig. 8, memory 820),
which when executed by the one or more processors configures the one or more processors to perform a plurality of functions disclosed in Claim 1. Thus, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that of Claim 1.
As to Claim 11, Claim 11 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 3 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 3.
As to Claim 12, Claim 12 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 4 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 4.
As to Claim 13, Claim 13 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 5 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 5.
As to Claim 15, Claim 15 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 7 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 7.
As to Claim 16, Claim 16 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 8 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 8.
As to Claim 17, Stapleton in view of Haws teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions (see paragraph [0005], “a non-transitory computer-readable medium includes instructions which, when executed by one or more processors causes”) for generating a graphical user interface based on pet teeth data, the instructions comprising: the same steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that of Claim 1.
As to Claim 19, Claim 19 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 3 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 3.
As to Claim 20, Claim 20 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 4 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 4.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (US Pub No 20160220196), hereinafter Stapleton, in view of Haws et al. (US Pub No 20190244693), hereinafter Haws, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US Pub No 20190320977), hereinafter Anderson.
As to Claim 2, Stapleton in view of Haws fails to explicitly teach wherein the sensor tooth data includes one or more characteristic tags, a sensor identifier, a pet breed, and/or a pet size.
However, in an analogous, Anderson teaches an oral monitoring device which is used to collect sensor data (see paragraph [0134], “In this example, a contact pressure sensor can be provided that senses contact of the user's teeth with the bite member based on a pressure between the body and the bite member”),
Wherein the sensor tooth data contains tags which indicate a sensor identifier (see paragraph [0120], “The usage data may also include other information, such as an identifier indicative of an identity and/or type of a sensor and/or oral appliance”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the identifier taught by Anderson with the teachings of Stapleton in view of Haws. The motivation for doing so would be to ensure that the collected data is analyzed correctly. Anderson teaches in paragraph [0120], “This can be used in order to ensure that collected data is correctly analysed with respect to the particular user of the oral appliance and/or to allow sensors at different locations within the oral appliance to be distinguished”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the sensor identifiers taught by Anderson with the teachings of Stapleton and Haws in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 2.
As to Claim 10, Claim 10 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 2.
As to Claim 18, Claim 18 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 2.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stapleton et al. (US Pub No 20160220196), hereinafter Stapleton, in view of Haws et al. (US Pub No 20190244693), hereinafter Haws, and further in view of Case et al. (US Pub No 20060281044), hereinafter Case.
As to Claim 6, Stapleton in view of Haws teaches collecting, by the one or more processors, additional sensor tooth data over a period of time and analyzing, by the one or more processors, the additional sensor tooth data and the tooth identification data to determine at least one change over the period of time (see Stapleton, paragraph [0004], “The first set of data indicates a physical condition of a tooth at the location”, where the ‘location’ is the tooth identification data, and see paragraph [0099], “Combined with other factors (e.g., a patient's age, and archived data from the patient's past examinations), the dental health score can provide information regarding the rate of carious and periodontal destruction. As such, this allows the dentist to objectively determine whether these disease presentations are actively progressing, or in remission, based on whether the rate of health deterioration exceeds an age-based comparison or a comparison from visit to visit”).
Stapleton in view of Haws fails to explicitly updating teach the multi-dimensional heatmap representation based on the at least one change.
However, in an analogous art of dentistry, Case teaches a method for measuring periodontal disease (see abstract) which comprises:
collecting, by the one or more processors, additional sensor tooth data over a period of time (see paragraph [0015], “The invention incorporates the use of ultrasonic technology to measure the differential depth between both the gum line and the cemento-enamel junction of a tooth and the bottom of a periodontal pocket”, where the ‘differential depth’ is the additional sensor data, and see paragraph [0092], “After their first examination, each time the patient has a new examination, the data from the prior examinations may be digitally and automatically compared to the current data”),
wherein the sensor tooth data contains tooth identification data (see paragraph [0078], “ This permits the dentist to perform the three standard probes on the facial side and the lingual (tongue) side of each tooth”, where the location of each measurement with respect to a tooth is the tooth identification data),
analyzing, by the one or more processors, the additional sensor tooth data and the tooth identification data to determine at least one change over the period of time (see paragraph [0092], “After their first examination, each time the patient has a new examination, the data from the prior examinations may be digitally and automatically compared to the current data…In one aspect of the invention, changes of approximately 0.2-0.5 mm may be detected”); and
updating, by the one or more processors, a multi-dimensional representation of teeth based on the at least one change (see paragraph [0092], “the data from the prior examinations may be digitally and automatically compared to the current data and illustrated with the periodontal system's 200 dental display software. This permits dentists and their patients to identify even relatively minor changes in periodontal pocket depths 112 not otherwise detectable using the current manual probe method. These minor changes may be illustrated with color trend lines that reflect improving, deteriorating or unchanged pocket conditions”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine updated graphical representations taught by Case with the heatmap generation method taught by Stapleton in view of Hays. The motivation for doing so would be to allow dentists to easily identify changes in teeth health over time. Case teaches in paragraph [0092], “This permits dentists and their patients to identify even relatively minor changes in periodontal pocket depths 112”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Case with the teachings of Stapleton and Hays in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 6.
As to Claim 14, Claim 14 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xue et al. (US Pub No 20180360567) teaches obtaining sensor tooth data, and then producing a multi-dimensional model reflecting the sensor tooth data.
Sabina et al (US Pub No 20190231492) teaches a method for creating a multi-dimensional model reflecting sensor tooth data which can be implemented in both human and animal patients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights