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) submitted on 1/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 31 and 35-46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 31, the limitation “obtaining a primary relative jaw motion data set at a primary point in time using an intraoral scanner, where the primary jaw motion data set represents a relative motion between an upper jaw and a lower jaw.” should end with a comma instead of a period.
In claims 35-46, each claim should begin with “The method according claim…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a computer program product comprising instructions. The computer program product itself does not a physical or tangible form and is therefore considered to be software per se, which is ineligible subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
Claim(s) 31, 33, and 43-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US20190236785) in view of Fisker et al (US20190060042).
Regarding claim 31, Alvarez teaches a method for monitoring changes in jaw motion over time (fig. 3), wherein the method comprises the steps of,
obtaining a primary relative jaw motion data set at a primary point in time using an intraoral scanner, where the primary jaw motion data set represents a relative motion between an upper jaw and a lower jaw (figs. 8-14; para. [0038], The inputs to the method are a mandible scan, maxilla scan, and the following five bite pose scans: closed (centric/maximum intercuspation); open; forward or protrusive (and optionally retrusive); lateral left; and lateral right; para. [0043]),
obtaining a secondary relative jaw motion data set at a secondary point in time using an intraoral scanner, where the secondary relative jaw motion data set represents a relative motion between the upper and the lower jaw (figs. 8-14; para. [0038], The inputs to the method are a mandible scan, maxilla scan, and the following five bite pose scans: closed (centric/maximum intercuspation); open; forward or protrusive (and optionally retrusive); lateral left; and lateral right; para. [0048], As a result, the virtual articulation obtained at a given time can be re-called at any further time for the same patient by registering a time-fix part of the oral cavity),
wherein the method further comprises a computer implemented method (para. [0037]), where the computer implemented method comprises the steps of,
receiving the primary relative jaw motion data set and the secondary relative jaw motion data set (step 22 in fig. 3 which would be repeated for each relative jaw motion data set),
obtaining a model class representing desired and/or regularising properties of articulation (para. [0040], The movement of the mandible from the closed pose to any of the other poses can be described, for each pose, as the combination of a rotation matrix (the composite of three rotations around the coordinate axes x, y, z) and a translation vector of the origin of coordinates. This combination (rotation plus translation vector) is usually called a “3D transformation matrix” or more narrowly a “rigid body transform.”),
obtaining a primary model parameters by fitting (para. [0044]-[0045] best fit) the primary relative jaw motion data set to the model class (steps 23, 25, and 27 in fig. 3), and
obtaining a secondary model parameters by fitting (para. [0044]-[0045] best fit) the secondary relative jaw motion data set to the model class (steps 23, 25, and 27 in fig. 3).
Alvarez fails to teach determining monitoring information based on comparing the primary model parameters with the secondary model parameters, and displaying the monitoring information.
However Fisker teaches determining monitoring information based on comparing primary model parameters with secondary model parameters (para. [0132]), and displaying the monitoring information (576 in fig. 5; para. [0149]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Fisker into the method of Alvarez. The motivation to combine Fisker and Alvarez would be to determine the anatomical correct distance and movement can from a transformation matrix which locally aligns first and second 3D tooth models (para. [0009] of Fisker).
Regarding claim 33, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein the model class is a digital representation of an articulator (claims 3 and 4 of Alvarez).
Regarding claim 43, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein the step(s) of obtaining the primary and/or secondary relative jaw motion data set comprises obtaining at least a first and a second primary and/or secondary bite scan (para. [0038], [0043] of Alvarez) at a primary and/or secondary point in time respectively (para. [0048] of Alvarez), each comprising at least a part of the upper and the lower jaw in relation to each other at different jaw motion positions (figs. 10-14 and para. [0038] of Alvarez) using an intraoral scanner (para. [0043] of Alvarez).
Regarding claim 44, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein a primary reference framework is established by determining correspondences between the at least first and the second primary bite scans (para. [0045]-[0047] of Alvarez) and a secondary reference framework is established by determining correspondences between the at least first and the second secondary bite scans (para. [0045]-[0047] of Alvarez).
Regarding claim 45, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein framework correspondences are determined between the primary reference framework and the secondary reference framework (para. [0038], [0048] of Alvarez; para. [0017]-[0018], [0131] of Fisker).
Regarding claim 46, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein obtaining the primary and/or secondary relative jaw motion set further comprises a first primary and/or secondary alignment of the upper and lower jaw of the at least first digital 3D representation based on the first primary and/or secondary bite scan (para. [0038], [0045]-[0047] of Alvarez), and a second primary and/or secondary alignment of the upper and lower jaw of the at least first digital 3D representation based on the second primary and/or secondary bite scan (para. [0038], [0045]-[0047] of Alvarez).
Regarding claim 47, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 31 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 31 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above. Furthermore, the modified system of Alvarez teaches a scanning probe for receiving images of the dental object (para. [0034] of Alvarez, intra-oral scanner), a peripheral output device for visualising a digital 3D representation of the dental object (16 in fig. 1 of Alvarez) and a computer processor coupled to the scanning probe and the peripheral output device (20 in fig. 1 of Alvarez), wherein the computer processor is configured to receive data from the scanning probe and output computed data to the peripheral output device (para. [0034], [0037] of Alvarez).
Regarding claim 49, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 31 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 50, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 31 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 32, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US20190236785) and Fisker et al (US20190060042) in view of Ito (US20130151208).
Regarding claim 32, the modified method of Alvarez fails to teach a method wherein the model class describes six degrees of freedom.
However Ito teaches wherein a model class (para. [0056]) describes six degrees of freedom (para. [0054]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Ito as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ito into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Ito and Alvarez would be to reproduce six-degrees-of-freedom triaxial maxillary and mandibular movements of a patient at high precision (para. [0033] of Ito).
Regarding claim 34, the modified method of Alvarez fails to teach a method wherein the model class is a digital representation of a standardized human jaw.
However Ito teaches wherein a model class is a digital representation of a standardized human jaw (para. [0040], the mandibular movement program according to the embodiment can be expressed in the form of theoretical formulae; para. [0043], an average mandibular movement; para. [0163]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Ito as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ito into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Ito and Alvarez would be to reproduce six-degrees-of-freedom triaxial maxillary and mandibular movements of a patient at high precision (para. [0033] of Ito).
Regarding claim 35, the modified method of Alvarez fails to teach a method wherein the model class is deterministic.
However Ito teaches wherein a model class is deterministic (para. [0054]-[0057], the equations are determined).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Ito as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Ito into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Ito and Alvarez would be to reproduce six-degrees-of-freedom triaxial maxillary and mandibular movements of a patient at high precision (para. [0033] of Ito).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US20190236785) and Fisker et al (US20190060042) in view of Kopelman (US20190269546).
Regarding claim 36, the modified method of Alvarez fails to teach a method wherein the model class is stochastic.
However Kopelman teaches wherein a model class is stochastic (para. [0111], [0117]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Kopelman as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Kopelman into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Kopelman and Alvarez would be to provide improved treatment of obstructive sleep apnea with decreased undesirable side effects (para. [0005] of Kopelman).
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US20190236785) and Fisker et al (US20190060042) in view of Adams (US20120107763).
Regarding claim 37, the modified method of Alvarez fails to teach a method wherein the monitoring information is displayed by numerically displaying at least one of the primary and secondary model parameters.
However Adams teaches wherein monitoring information is displayed by numerically displaying at least one of primary and secondary model parameters (figs. 1-2; para. [0063], In one embodiment the system provides an analysis that can be used as a document graphic or multi dimensional computer graphic representation, of the biomechanical model data compared to relative positions of anatomical structures or the relationship between anatomical structures; para. [0076], the data can be used to produce a list of the settings to allow laboratory technicians to manually adjust physical or virtual articulators).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Adams as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Adams into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Adams and Alvarez would be to easily correlate cranio-mandibular functions and structure for treatment and data management (para. [0039] of Adams).
Regarding claim 38, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein monitoring information comprises changes between the primary model parameters and the secondary model parameter (para. [0054] of Adams, The biomechanical model as imaged for a patient at one time can be compared to biomechanical model created at another time and can also be used for diagnostic purposes. Such diagnostics with three dimensional range of motion with six degrees of freedom could include, orientation of the planes of mandible to maxilla, such as the occlusal plane, the rotation and translation of the temporomandibular joints and the impacts of muscle activity FIG. 14 on the biomechanical model).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US20190236785) and Fisker et al (US20190060042) in view of Sabina et al (US20190231491).
Regarding claim 39, the modified method of Alvarez fails to teach a method wherein the monitoring information is visualised as a heat map.
However Sabina teaches wherein monitoring information is visualized as a heat map (fig. 8A; para. [0174], In FIG. 8A, the two scans have been aligned and compared, and differences shown by a color indicator, e.g., a heat map).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Sabina as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Sabina into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Sabina and Alvarez would be to simplify and display volumetric data from a patient's oral cavity in a manner that may be easily understood by a user (para. [0115] of Sabina).
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez et al (US20190236785) and Fisker et al (US20190060042) in view of Gutman et al (US20080261168).
Regarding claim 40, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method comprising comparing the primary model parameter and the secondary model parameter (para. [0132] of Fisker).
The modified method of Alvarez fails to teach using a border movement However Gutman teaches using a border movement (para. [0041], The four border movements are the right and left lateral, protrusion and jaw hinging movements. The four aforementioned border movements are typical of a traditional recording process as currently used by dental professionals; para. [0045]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Alvarez and Fisker with Gutman as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Gutman into the method of Alvarez and Fisker. The motivation to combine Fisker, Gutman and Alvarez would be to maintain the integrity and association between both jaws in its reference coordinate system, enabling a digital representation and proper storage of the scanned data for future display and analysis (para. [0048] of Gutman).
Regarding claim 41, the modified method of Gutman teaches a method wherein the primary relative jaw motion data set and the secondary relative jaw motion data set at least partly represent one or more border movement positions of the upper and lower jaw (para. [0038] of Alvarez; para. [0041]-[0042] of Gutman).
Regarding claim 42, the modified method of Alvarez teaches a method wherein the primary model parameters and the secondary model parameters (para. [0044] of Alvarez; para. [0132] of Fisker) represent border movements (para. [0041]-[0042] of Gutman).
Related Art
Hanssen et al (US20190021651) – see para. [0053]-[0057]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights