Status under America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings (Figures 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 8, 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d, , filed October 7, 2024) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (b)(1) because black and white photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications because they reproduce poorly. Conventional drawings are a practical medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
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.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 4, the “such as” limitation is indefinite. The metes and bounds of the claim are unreasonably indefinite as it is unclear what elements, structures or devices meet the “such as” requirement. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Note further dependent claim 3, which requires that “the surgical tool is a handpiece used directly by a dentist” – it is unclear how the “dental handpiece” reasonably meets the “such as a robot arm” limitation of parent claim 1.
In claim 5, line 3, the “capturing images of the jawbone inside the teeth of a patient” is not understood. A jawbone is not “inside the teeth of a patient,” but rather the jawbone supports a patient’s teeth. In lines 8-11, the limitation “automatically acquiring an image having a similar angle to the 2D image captured in real time through a camera among the 3D reconstructed images based on the images captured through the CBCT imaging unit, if surgical planning is made by a dentist” is not understood by the examiner. It is unclear what 2D image is being referred to or what the basis is for “the 3D reconstructed images.” Clarification is required.
In claim 6, line 1, there is no antecedent basis for “the dental treatment method according to claim 4.” It appears as though applicant intends for the claim to be dependent on claim 5.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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 1-3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglese et al (US 2019/0046276) in view of Johnson (US 2019/0333627).
Regarding claim 1, Inglese et al disclose a dental treatment system comprised of a cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT) system 120 for capturing images of a patient’s teeth and jawbone (note paragraph [0021]); a camera/imaging device 210 mounted on surgical tool 60 for capturing real time images of the treatment region and surgical instrument (“such as a drill tip”)(note in particular paragraph [0104]); and a processor 220 for processing the real time images from the camera/imaging device 210 and feedback circuitry 240 providing feedback signal that are used to “control and provide information about procedures underway using the instrument[/surgical tool] 60” (paragraph [0104]). Inglese et al fail to disclose that the processor 220 processing the real time images that are used to control the surgical tool 60 uses an AI (Artificial Intelligence) algorithm (“AI server”) or that the “control” of the surgical tool 60 includes “determine whether to continue surgery or issue a warning according to a recognized result” as required by claim 1.
In regard to the AI/Artificial Intelligence limitation, it is initially noted that applicant’s written description provides few details on the claimed “AI server” with regard to how the AI server works or the data on which the AI server is trained, other than generally that the AI technology is used to recognize “whether the tooth and gum area selected from the CBT image is the same as the image captured in real time through the camera 300” (written description paragraph [48]). The use of AI or trained neural networks for recognizing and identifying particular teeth and their orientation in dental images is known in the prior art as taught for example by Johnson who teaches that AI technology improves the efficiency of such image processing (note e.g. abstract; paragraph [0009]). To have merely incorporated a trained AI algorithm in the Inglese et al processor 220 that is used to process the real time images as taught by Johnson in order to improve the efficiency of the Inglese et al image recognition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the teaching by Johnson.
In regard to the limitation that the “AI server . . . determine whether to continue surgery or issue a warning according to a recognized result,” Inglese et al disclose that the processor 220 processing the real time images is used to “control” the surgical tool 60 (paragraph [0104]), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the control includes a determination as to whether to continue the surgery or issue a warning. One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have reasonably found it obvious in practicing the Inglese et al invention for the processor 220 control of the surgical tool to include stopping the tool and issuing a warning if the processor determines from the image comparison feedback that the drill tip (for example, paragraph [0104]) is out of position and not operating as desired.
In regard to claim 2, the camera/image sensor 210 of Inglese et al meets the “mini camera” limitation. In regard to claim 3, the surgical tool 60 of Inglese et al meets the ‘handpiece” limitation.
In regard to claim 5, Inglese et al disclose the use of a CBCT system for capturing images of a patient’s teeth and jawbone (note paragraph [0021]); the selection of a teeth/gingival area to be treated in the captured images (e.g. paragraph [0092]); automatically acquiring an image in real time through a camera at a similar angle (e.g. paragraph [0096] and/or [0104]); the real time image is analyzed and a target position 40 is determined (e.g. paragraph [0098]); and the surgery performed while receiving real time information (e.g. paragraph [0102]). Inglese et al substantially teaches all the method steps of claim 5 with the exception of those related to the use of an “AI analysis” for determining the target coordinates, entry angle and depth and then “transmitting the analyzed result to an AI server” which provides real time information of the tooth and gum area being treated. As noted above, applicant’s description regarding the use of AI provides few details as to how the AI works or the data on which the AI algorithm is trained, and is little more than “use AI” to make some determinations. Johnson teaches that it is known in the prior art to use AI technology to improve the efficiency of dental image processing (note e.g. abstract; paragraph [0009]) including the identification in real time images of particular teeth structures anomalies and conditions. To have merely incorporated a trained AI algorithm in the Inglese et al processor 220 to locate/determine a target position in real time images in view of the teaching by Johnson of the use of AI in dental imaging would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention.
In regard to claim 6, the surgical tool 60 of Inglese et al is a handpiece operated by a dentist; the surgical tool 60 includes a camera/imaging device 210 mounted on surgical tool 60 for capturing real time images and transferring the information to the processor; the Inglese et al processor 220 (modified with an AI algorithm as taught by Johnson) then compares the real time images with the CBCT images and the desired treatment and controls the operation of the surgical tool based on the determination (i.e. approves the procedure allowing it to proceed if the handpiece is within a given range (the proper position)).
I regard to claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have reasonably found it obvious in practicing the Inglese et al invention for the processor 220 control of the surgical tool to include stopping the tool and issuing a warning if the processor determines from the image comparison feedback that the drill tip (for example, paragraph [0104]) is out of position and not operating as desired.
Claims 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglese et al (US 2019/0046276) and Johnson (US 2019/0333627), as applied above, and in further view of Chen et al (US 2021/0346099).
In Inglese et al the surgical tool 60 is a hand piece that is operated the dentist/surgeon rather than a surgical tool that is controlled by a “dental robot.” The use of robotics for operating such surgical dental tools is known in the art as taught for example by Chen et al in order to improve the accuracy and performance of the operation (note e.g. paragraph [0002]). To have modified the Inglese et al procedure to utilize a robotic system that operates the surgical tool in order to improve the accuracy and performance as taught by Chen et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claims 8 and 9, note the remarks above with respect to claim 4, and claims 6 and 7 respectively.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 571 270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712
Prosecution Insights