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 § 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 1-7 and 9-21 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.
Claim 1 recites, “A method for tracking a motion trajectory of jaw bone … acquiring a motion trajectory of a preset identification point, wherein the identification point is disposed at jaw bone of the user;”
As recited, it is unclear whether, “jaw bone” and “jaw bone of the user” are the same or different elements of the claim. Additionally, as recited, it is unclear whether, “preset identification point and the identification point” are the same or different.
Claims 2-7 and 11-14 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected similar to claim 1 above, for reciting similar indefinite language.
Claims 15-21 are rejected for depending from claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected similar to claim 1 above, for reciting similar indefinite language.
Claim 2 recites, “… before acquiring the motion trajectory of the preset identification point, further comprising:
acquiring position information of the identification point, and judging whether the position information of the identification point is matched with preset position information of the identification point;
in a case that the position information of the identification point is matched with preset position information of the identification point, executing the step of acquiring a motion trajectory of a preset identification point;
in a case that the position information of the identification point is not matched with preset position information of the identification point, sending out a prompt.”
As recited, it is unclear whether, “the motion trajectory and a motion trajectory” are the same or different. Similarly, it is unclear whether, “the preset identification point and a preset identification point”, are the same or different.
Claims 3-7 are rejected for reciting similar indefinite language as claim 2.
Claim 11 recites, “… jaw bone as claimed in acquiring a first jaw bone three-dimensional model of a user … acquiring a motion trajectory of a preset identification point”
As recited, it is unclear whether, “a first jaw bone , a motion trajectory and a preset identification point” are same or different than similar elements claimed in claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are rejected similar to claims 3-7 above.
Claim 9 is rejected similar to claim 1 above.
Claims 15-21 are rejected similar to claims 2-7 above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the facial scanner" in limitation 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the facial scanner" in limitation 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter (US 20180344437 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Richter discloses a method for tracking a motion trajectory of jaw bone (Richter [0028], “method disclosed … track movement of the mandible (tracking a motion trajectory of jaw bone)”), comprising:
acquiring a first jaw bone three-dimensional model of a user (Richter [0034], “a three-dimensional scans of the upper and lower arches 22 are obtained with the mandible (a mandible/jaw bone three-dimensional model of a user based on 3D scans of the user)”; [0041], “motion of the virtual articulator can be achieved”);
acquiring a motion trajectory of a preset identification point, wherein the identification point is disposed at jaw bone of the user (Richter [0028], “attaching at least one reference point marker 10 (a preset identification point) … on the patient's mandible 14 (identification point is disposed at jaw bone of the user) … marker 10 (preset identification point) will be used to track movement of the mandible … account for vertical movements of the mandible relative to the maxilla (a motion trajectory)”).
Richter does not expressly disclose
determining a motion trajectory of the first jaw bone three-dimensional model according to the motion trajectory of the identification point, for tracking motion trajectory of jaw bone of the user.
However, Richter suggests
determining a motion trajectory of the first jaw bone three-dimensional model according to the motion trajectory of the identification point, for tracking motion trajectory of jaw bone of the user (Richter [0028], “The mark or marker 10 will be used to track movement of the mandible (a motion trajectory of the marker/identification point used to track motion trajectory of jaw bone of the user)”; [0031], “simulate the movement of the patient's mandible (determining a motion trajectory of the first jaw bone three-dimensional model based on a marker/identification point and thereby tracking the motion trajectory of the mandible/jaw bone)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track a patient’s mandibular movements based on a marker placed on the patient’s mandible via a 3D representation of the patient’s mandible. This would have been done to create an accurate representation of a patient’s jaws and thereby enabling providers to create a proper treatment plan for each individual patient.
Regarding claim 6, Richter discloses the method for tracking the motion trajectory of jaw bone as claimed in claim 1, after determining the motion trajectory of the first jaw bone three-dimensional model according to the motion trajectory of the identification point, for tracking motion trajectory of jaw bone of the user, further comprising:
sending a display signal to a preset display device so that the motion trajectory of jaw bone of the user is displayed by the display device (Richter [0020], “FIG. 3 illustrates the centric relation position of the patient's teeth, and movement markers placed on the patient's mating front teeth. The markers allowing the system to track the movements of the jaw relative to the stationary marker on the upper mandibule.”).
Claim 9 recites an electronic device which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the electronic device of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Richter discloses the method for tracking the motion trajectory of jaw bone as claimed in claim 1,
acquiring a first jaw bone three-dimensional model of a user comprises: acquiring the first jaw bone three-dimensional model by an intraoral scanner (Richter [0013], “the data describing the maxilliary and mandibular teeth is obtained from scanning devices, such as the iTero Element® intraoral scanner”);
acquiring a motion trajectory of a preset identification point comprises: acquiring the motion trajectory of the identification point through the facial scanner (Richter [0028], “three-dimensional mapping images may be created with a commercially-available dental scanner”).
Regarding claim 14, The method for tracking the motion trajectory of jaw bone as claimed in claim 1, wherein the identification point is pasted on a target, and the target is pasted at the jaw bone of the user;
or, the identification point is pasted on the jaw bone or teeth of the user (Richter [0028], “placing or attaching at least one reference point marker 10 on a tooth 12 or on the patient's mandible 14.”).
Claim 19 recites an electronic device which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 6. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 6 above is considered applicable to the electronic device of claim 19.
Claim 20 recites an electronic device which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 11. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 11 above is considered applicable to the electronic device of claim 20.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Cha (US 20080124681 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Richter discloses the method for tracking the motion trajectory of jaw bone as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose after determining the motion trajectory of the first jaw bone three-dimensional model according to the motion trajectory of the identification point, for tracking motion trajectory of jaw bone of the user, further comprising:
sending a display signal to a preset display device so that the three-dimensional coordinates of the identification point are displayed by the display device.
However, Cha discloses
sending a display signal to a preset display device so that the three-dimensional coordinates of the identification point are displayed by the display device (Cha [0020], “displaying coordinate axis by setting a three dimensional coordinate system … corresponding to a previously set data to the three dimensionally scanned model, and coordinate setting recognizing each point (identification point) on the scanned model”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richter with Cha to display the 3D co-ordinate of a marker on the display. This would have been done to enable users to easily visualize and verity that the marker is set correctly and making any necessary adjustments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 12-13, 15-18 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Jaisson (US 20220156953 A1) discloses (Jaisson [0009], “match the virtual models of the dental arches and a mandibular marker, by pointing in the mouth of the patient at least four determined points of the dental arches by means of a stylet.”), which reads on, “position information of the identification point is matched with preset position information of the identification point”
Sachdeva et al discloses (Sachdeva [0120], “displays that appear that prompt the user to enter or vary the selected variable parameter”).
However, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose claim 2 as a whole. In particular, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose, “in a case that the position information of the identification point is not matched with preset position information of the identification point, sending out a prompt.”
Claims 3-5 and 12-13 are allowed for depending from claim 2.
Claim 15 is allowable similar to claim 2 above for reciting similar language as claim 2.
Claims 16-18 and 21 are allowed for depending from claim 15.
Conclusion
See the notice of references cited (PTO-892) for prior art made of record, including art that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights