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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Drawings and Specification
In view of the specification amendments of 07/29/26, the drawings of 09/29/24 are now accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For reasons discussed in the previous action, claims 1-12 and 14-20 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al (US PgPub 20180263725) in view of CN Pat ‘920 (CN115553920A) (Both original and machine translation are attached – see machine translation for citations).
With respect to claim 1, Pesach et al discloses:
A system for estimating a position and an orientation of a dental tool (figures 1A-B; abstract states, “In some embodiments, a marker, optionally a magnetic marker, is coupled to position movements of a rotatable dental tool.”; Paragraph 0039 states, “According to some embodiments, the system further comprises an orientation sensor configured to sense an orientation of the drill tool, wherein the position tracker is further configured to calculate the position of the preparing portion based on the sensed orientation.”)
a plurality of electromagnets removably affixed to an object positioned in a patient’s mouth, wherein the object is movable at least based on movements of the patient’s mouth (figure 1A, references 144 and 150 and paragraphs 0118-0122 disclose an electromagnet on a dental tool and an electromagnetic field sensor placed on a tooth. However, throughout its disclosure, Pesach et al also discloses multiple variations that anticipate elements of the claimed limitation. For example, paragraph 0090 states, “Optionally, the magnetic field generator and the magnetic sensor are reversed in relative position, with the magnet fixed to the jaw, for example as an electromagnet assembly configured to produce a rotating magnetic field when operated; and with the sensor affixed to the dental tool.” Paragraph 0091 states, “Optionally, the magnetic sensor is affixed intraorally on both jaws … or a plurality of sensors …” Paragraph 0186 states, “In some embodiments, a plurality of magnets 144 is provided …” Clearly, Pesach anticipates the basic principle of pairing electromagnets and magnetic field sensors (which the examiner broadly construes to serve as magnetometers) in a dental context, where the magnetic and sensor elements can be varied, in terms of location of placement and number of elements used. The examiner considers that the teachings of Pesach, as a whole, anticipate the claimed limitation.)
a plurality of magnetometers affixed to the dental tool, wherein the dental tool is non-stationary (figure 1A, references 144 and 150 and paragraphs 0118-0122 disclose an electromagnet on a dental tool and an electromagnetic field sensor placed on a tooth. However, throughout its disclosure, Pesach et al also discloses multiple variations that anticipate elements of the claimed limitation. For example, paragraph 0090 states, “Optionally, the magnetic field generator and the magnetic sensor are reversed in relative position, with the magnet fixed to the jaw, for example as an electromagnet assembly configured to produce a rotating magnetic field when operated; and with the sensor affixed to the dental tool.” Paragraph 0091 states, “Optionally, the magnetic sensor is affixed intraorally on both jaws … or a plurality of sensors …” Paragraph 0186 states, “In some embodiments, a plurality of magnets 144 is provided …” Clearly, Pesach anticipates the basic principle of pairing electromagnets and magnetic field sensors (which the examiner broadly construes to serve as magnetometers) in a dental context, where the magnetic and sensor elements can be varied, in terms of location of placement and number of elements used. The examiner considers that the teachings of Pesach, as a whole, anticipate the claimed limitation.)
at least one processor (paragraphs 0027-0029, 0045, and 0049 disclose processor) configured to:
drive the plurality of electromagnets with at least one programmed signal (paragraph 0122 states, “A method of magnetic position detection by use of a magnetic field generated from a crossed coil pair (driven to produce a rotating field similar in effect to a rotating permanent magnet) is described …”)
receive, from the plurality of magnetometers, a set of magnetic field measurements associated with an electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets that is being driven with a programmed frequency (paragraph 0091 states, “Optionally, the magnetic sensor is affixed intraorally on both jaws (e.g., one sensor affixed with both jaws held fixed relative to one another, or a plurality of sensors, with at least one sensor affixed to each jaw).”; paragraphs 0099-0100 states, “one or more auxiliary tracking sensors are used to track the movement of a tooth-contacting portion of the dental tool … one or more such sensors are implemented …”; paragraph 0120 states, “tracking is performed by an electromagnetic field sensor 150, formed in any suitable manner.”; paragraph 0122 states, “Optionally, modulation of the magnetic field is used to produce a frequency which can be distinguished form potential sources of electromagnetic interference at other frequencies … A method of magnetic position detection …”)
filter the set of magnetic field measurements (paragraph 0186 states, “Position encoding is extract, for example, based on pre-calibrated matched filtering …”)
determine, based on the set of magnetic field measurements, the position and the orientation of the dental tool relative to the object (paragraphs 0120-0122; This limitation describes how the interplay between magnetic and sensor elements work. Please also note that Pesach incorporates by reference a publication by Paperno et al that is titled, “A New Method for Magnetic Position and Orientation Tracking.”)
With respect to claim 1, Pesach et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
using a first bandpass filter
wherein a center frequency of the first bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the first bandpass filter is based on at least one of (a) an instantaneous distance between the dental tool and the object, (b) a target distance between the dental tool and the object, or (c) a velocity of the dental tool
With respect to claim 1, CN Pat ‘920 discloses:
using a first bandpass filter (page 6, second-to-last paragraph states, “the first signal processing element 1220 uses a band-pass filter to filter the carrier frequency f and the high-frequency noise in the magnetic field signal, only leaving space state information, such as position information, angle information, corner information, mobile information, moving speed information, and so on, the technical personnel in the field can reserve the needed information according to the requirement, not to limit.”)
wherein a center frequency of the first bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the first bandpass filter is based on at least one of (a) an instantaneous distance between the dental tool and the object, (b) a target distance between the dental tool and the object, or (c) a velocity of the dental tool (obvious in view of combination; As shown in the preceding limitation, CN Pat ‘920 discloses magnetic field signal processing using a band-pass filter, where the filtered data requirements can involve a number of parameters, including moving speed information (which suggests velocity) and position information + angle information (which suggests distance). CN Pat ‘920 is directed to a surgical instrument and not specifically a dental tool. However, the same principles of using a bandpass filter for a magnetic field signal, where there is movement between a surgical/dental tool and what the tool is operating on, apply to both. Primary reference Pesach et al also specifies the dental tool.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of CN Pat ‘920 into the invention of Pesach et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of removing unwanted noise and data from the signal.
With respect to claim 3, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein determining the position results in an ambiguity comprising at least two candidate positions for the position of the dental tool, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: resolve the ambiguity by selecting one of the at least two candidate positions (suggested by Pesach paragraph 0120, which states, “Combined with readings from a second, substantially orthogonal electromagnetic sensor, position ambiguity within a plane may be resolved …”; paragraph 0146 states, “In some embodiments, there is potential ambiguity in the magnetic sensing data between two different relative translational positions of magnet 144 and sensor 154 … an orientation sensor 231 is built into drill handpiece 124 to allow resolving this potential ambiguity.”)
With respect to claim 4, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the ambiguity is resolved based on a user input, an accelerometer in the dental tool, an imaging system, each of the plurality of electromagnets being driven with a different programmed signal, or the plurality of electromagnets being removably affixed to the object in an asymmetric arrangement (Pesach paragraph 0146 discloses resolving potential ambiguity using calibration. Pesach paragraph 0169 further details what calibration entails, by stating, “Optionally, ambient magnetic field calibration is performed, for example, by occasionally and/or periodically … removing and/or turning off a generated tracking magnetic field and evaluating the ambient magnetic field which remains. Optionally, an additional electromagnetic excitation and/or pattern evaluation is used for characterization of external interference.”)
With respect to claim 5, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform a calibration process to determine (a) a position of each of the plurality of electromagnets and (b) a magnetic field strength around each of the plurality of magnetometers, wherein the position is determined within a tolerance (suggested by Pesach paragraph 0109, which states, “calibration comprises matching of a sensed contact position (for example, a position sensed by magnetic field-based detection of a magnetic marker) to an oral geometry model, based on an optical scan of a portion of a dental drill in situ against a background comprising a region modeled by the oral geometry model.” Pesach et al further discloses calibration throughout its disclosure. Pesach also discloses the concept of tolerances in paragraphs 0096-0097 and 200).)
With respect to claim 6, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform, in conjunction with a registration object, a registration process that (a) determines the position for each of the plurality of electromagnets relative to the object, and (b) compensates for placement and mounting errors associated with the plurality of electromagnets or the plurality of magnetometers (Pesach paragraph 0043 states, “There is provided, in accordance with some exemplary embodiments, a method of calibrating a position-tracking system probe position within a mouth … and registering the separately obtained position tracking data to a 3-D model of the oral surface, based on registration of the optically sensed data to the 3-D model of the oral surface.”; see also paragraphs 0137, 0139, 0142, 0171, and 0029-0230 for further registration teachings)
wherein the registration object comprises the dental tool or a 3D touch probe (figures 1A-B; Pesach paragraph 0043)
With respect to claim 7, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
generate a 3D model of the object comprising a plurality of vertices and a plurality of faces, wherein each of the plurality of faces includes at least three vertices, a central point, and a normal vector that is perpendicular to a plane formed by the at least three vertices (Pesach paragraph 0005 states, “the fully exposed tooth crown is measured … to construct a three dimensional (3-D) model of the tooth, teeth or oral arch.” The claimed vertices, faces, central point, normal vector, etc … are inherent to a 3D model of teeth. The object of the model (i.e. teeth) in Pesach et al is the same object disclosed in the applicant’s invention, as both belong to the dental field of endeavor.)
generate, based on samples collected from the registration object, a point cloud that is representative of a volume occupied by the object (Pesach figure 10B; paragraph 0154 states, “all positions of the drill are recorded as part of a ‘point cloud’ or ‘bur volume cloud’. The point cloud is optionally analyzed for tooth contours …” Point cloud is further discussed in paragraph 0220.)
determine a first plurality of scores, wherein each score is representative of a proximity of a corresponding point of the point cloud to the 3D model and is determined based on a line (a) parallel to the normal vector of a particular face, (b) passing through the corresponding point, and (c) intersecting the plane formed by the at least three vertices of the particular face (Although Pesach et al does not explicitly mention the word “score,” it discloses a number of concepts that relate to the purpose of scoring, such as fit (paragraph 0084), adjustment for deviation (paragraphs 0096-0097), and registration (paragraph 0043). Because Pesach et al teaches a similar solution using similar techniques (generating a 3D point cloud model), the claimed limitation would be an obvious mathematical application of the broad teachings of Pesach et al, as a whole.)
determine, based on the first plurality of scores, at least a translation or a rotation of the 3D model of the object (obvious in view of total teachings of Pesach et al. Paragraph 0144 states, “Knowing the surface geometry of bur tip 154 allows specification of the positions of a surface of bur tip 154 relative to the oral geometry when associated with translational coordinates … and/or angular rotation coordinates …”)
With respect to claim 8, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the plurality of magnetometers are communicatively connected to a flexible printed circuit board that is designed to fit in a handpiece of the dental tool (Pesach paragraph 0059 states, “hardware for performing selected tasks according to some embodiments of the invention could be implemented as a chip or circuit.” Pesach et al clearly teaches a dental tool (abstract; figures 1A-B), as well as using magnetometers with the dental tool (see discussion in claim 1 above). Given that Pesach et al also teaches implementing hardware in the form of a chip or circuit, the claimed limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Flexible printed circuit boards are common interfaces for circuits.)
With respect to claim 9, Pesach et al discloses:
wherein at least one electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets comprises a tightly-wound wire (paragraph 0119 states, “In some embodiments, magnet 144 is an electromagnet in which current is excited by wires communicating …” “Tightly wound” is not defined, but is suggested by the disclosure of an electromagnet, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands that simple electromagnets are formed by a coil of wire wrapped around a core.)
With respect to claim 10, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the tightly-wound wire is wound around a high-permeability core material (As discussed above, Pesach teaches using an electromagnet. It is well-known and well-understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that electromagnets often employ high-permeability core material. The limitation is obvious.)
With respect to claim 11, Pesach et al discloses:
wherein the object comprises one or more teeth, a denture, a three-dimensional printed set of plastic teeth, or a crown (Pesach figures 1A-B; 2-7, 9-10, and 12 all show teeth)
With respect to claim 12, Pesach et al discloses:
wherein the dental tool is being used as part of a dental procedure (Pesach abstract; figures 1A-B)
and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: compare the position or the orientation of the dental tool to a desired position and a desired orientation, respectively, of the dental tool in a predetermined plan for the dental procedure (Pesach paragraph 0095 states, “a current status of preparation is displayed, optionally along with indications of the preparation plan itself to allow comparison between current and planned preparation results. Optionally, preparation status is updated in real time based on tracked movements.”)
provide, based on comparing the position or the orientation and a subsequent step in the predetermined plan for the dental procedure, a feedback to a user of the dental tool that comprises an adjustment to the position or the orientation (Pesach paragraph 0149 states, “it is a potential advantage to update 3-D geometry as the drill moves, for example, to allow providing feedback (e.g., by showing the updated model) according to the progress of tooth preparation with respect to a tooth preparation plan.”)
wherein the feedback comprises visual or haptic feedback (Pesach paragraphs 0196-0197 state, “the user is provided with a visual, audio and/or vibration indication …The visual indication can be, for instance, a red indicator on the drill handpiece 124. Additionally or alternatively, a visual indication is shown on a display …”)
With respect to claim 14, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
filter, using a second bandpass filter, the set of magnetic field measurements (obvious in view of combination, Pesach teaches using a plurality of sensors (paragraph 0091), which suggests a plurality of signals to process. As discussed above, CN Pat ‘920 discloses using bandpass filters to process a wide variety of types of information, as needed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Processing multiple signals, for multiple purposes, using multiple bandpass filters, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
reconfigure the bandwidth of the first bandpass filter based on comparing an output of the first bandpass filter and an output of the second bandpass filter (obvious in view of combination; As stated in the second to last paragraph of CN Pat ‘920 page 6, “the technical personnel in the field can reserve the needed information according to the requirement, not to limit.” It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure the bandwidth of filters for a wide variety of reasons and applications, including as a result of comparing results from multiple filters.)
wherein a center frequency of the second bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the second bandpass filter is greater than the bandwidth of the first bandpass filter (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, CN Pat ‘920 page 6 accounts for various types of information being processed and reserved, depending on the needs of a technical personnel in the field. Also, as discussed, Pesach discloses multiple sensors, which suggests multiple signals, and it would be obvious for some signals to be modulated at a different frequency than other signals.)
With respect to claim 15, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the position or the orientation is based on one or more parameters, wherein a parameter of the one or more parameters is associated with a numerical range (Pesach et al discloses various numerical ranges, throughout its disclosure, such as in paragraphs 0006, 0025, 0096-0097, 0114, 0200, 0212, 0217, and 0240.)
wherein the at least one processor is configured, as part of determining the position and the orientation, to: determine, based on a value of a spacing parameter, a set of initial values that are uniformly spaced within the numerical range for the parameter (Pesach paragraph 0096 discloses “initial orientation relative to the dental tool head and/or handle; paragraph 0223 discloses “an initial approximation of a flat tooth surface.”)
determine, for each of the set of initial values, candidate values for the position and the orientation, thereby determining a plurality of candidate values (Pesach et al does not explicitly use the phrase, “candidate values.” However, paragraph 00205-00208 of the applicant’s original specification appears to define candidate values in the context of resolving ambiguity. As discussed above, Pesach does disclose resolving ambiguity, such as in paragraphs 0120 and 0146. The examiner construes that Pesach et al is disclosing a similar solution to a similar problem as the applicant but merely using different language. Therefore, the examiner construes the solution proposed by Pesach to be an obvious variant of the applicant’s solution. One of the KSR rationales for obviousness is “Design Incentives or Market Forces Prompting Variations.” Here, the prior art teaches a base device (or method, product) that is similar or analogous to the claims, in that they both pertain to using a system of magnets and magnetometers in a dental context. Design incentives or market forces would have prompted change to the base device. Known variations or principles would meet the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, and the implementation would have been predictable.)
select, from the plurality of candidate values, the candidate values for the position and orientation corresponding to a minimum error metric (obvious for reasons discussed above; Please also note that paragraph 0222 of Pesach discloses “below a certain threshold.” Also, paragraph 0097 of Pesach discloses “reduces tolerance errors …”)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to reduce a complexity of determining the position and the orientation by:
decreasing the value of the spacing parameter; increasing a minimum value of the numerical range; or decreasing a maximum value of the numerical range (obvious for reasons discussed above; resolving ambiguities is construed to reduce a complexity of determining the position and orientation)
With respect to claim 16, Pesach et al discloses:
A method for estimating a position or an orientation of a dental tool (figures 1A-B; abstract; paragraph 0039)
determining a position of each of a plurality of electromagnets removably affixed to an object in a patient’s mouth, wherein the object is movable at least based on movements of the patient’s mouth, and wherein the position is determined within a tolerance (paragraphs 0090 and 0118-0122)
driving the plurality of electromagnets with at least one programmed signal (suggested by teachings in paragraph 0122)
receiving, from a plurality of magnetometers removably affixed to the dental tool that is non-stationary, one or more magnetic field measurements when the dental tool is adjacent to the object (paragraphs 0118-0122)
wherein the one or more magnetic field measurements are associated with an electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets that is being driven with a programmed frequency (paragraphs 0091, 0099-0100, 0120-0122)
filtering the one or more magnetic field measurements (paragraph 0186 states, “Position encoding is extract, for example, based on pre-calibrated matched filtering …”)
determining, based on the one or more magnetic field measurements, the position and the orientation of the dental tool relative to the object (paragraphs 0118-0122; see additional discussion in claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 16, Pesach et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
using a first bandpass filter
wherein a center frequency of the first bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the first bandpass filter is based on at least one of (a) an instantaneous distance between the dental tool and the object, (b) a target distance between the dental tool and the object, or (c) a velocity of the dental tool
With respect to claim 16, CN Pat ‘920 discloses:
using a first bandpass filter (page 6, second-to-last paragraph states, “the first signal processing element 1220 uses a band-pass filter to filter the carrier frequency f and the high-frequency noise in the magnetic field signal, only leaving space state information, such as position information, angle information, corner information, mobile information, moving speed information, and so on, the technical personnel in the field can reserve the needed information according to the requirement, not to limit.”)
wherein a center frequency of the first bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the first bandpass filter is based on at least one of (a) an instantaneous distance between the dental tool and the object, (b) a target distance between the dental tool and the object, or (c) a velocity of the dental tool (obvious in view of combination; As shown in the preceding limitation, CN Pat ‘920 discloses magnetic field signal processing using a band-pass filter, where the filtered data requirements can involve a number of parameters, including moving speed information (which suggests velocity) and position information + angle information (which suggests distance). CN Pat ‘920 is directed to a surgical instrument and not specifically a dental tool. However, the same principles of using a bandpass filter for a magnetic field signal, where there is movement between a surgical/dental tool and what the tool is operating on, apply to both. Primary reference Pesach et al also specifies the dental tool.)
With respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of CN Pat ‘920 into the invention of Pesach et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of removing unwanted noise and data from the signal.
With respect to claim 17, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein determining the position and the orientation results in a first ambiguity comprising at least two candidate positions for the position of the dental tool and a second ambiguity comprising at least two candidate orientations for the orientation of the dental tool, and wherein the method comprises: (As discussed above, Pesach does not use the phrase “candidate positions.” However, since the applicant’s specification appears to define these terms, in the context of resolving ambiguities, and since Pesach teaches resolving ambiguities, the claimed limitation is considered obvious.)
resolving the first ambiguity by selecting one of the at least two candidate positions and the second ambiguity by selecting one of the at least two candidate orientations based on a user input, an accelerometer in the dental tool, an imaging system, each of the plurality of electromagnets being driven with a different programmed signal, or the plurality of electromagnets being removably affixed to the object in an asymmetric arrangement (obvious for the reasons discussed above)
With respect to claim 18, Pesach et al discloses:
receiving, from a digital scanning device, a three-dimensional model of the object, wherein determining the position of each of the plurality of electromagnets is based on the three-dimensional model (Pesach figure 1C, reference 908; paragraphs 0005, 0041-0043, 0139, and 0149 discuss 3-D model)
With respect to claim 20, Pesach et al discloses:
A dental system (figures 1A-B; please see rejection of claim 1 above)
a hand-held dental tool configured to accommodate either, but not both, of (a) a plurality of magnetometers or (b) a plurality of electromagnets (please see rejection of claim 1 above)
wherein an other of the plurality of magnetometers or the plurality of electromagnets not accommodated by the hand-held dental tool are configured to be affixed to an object within a patient’s mouth (please see rejection of claim 1 above)
one or more processors configured to:
drive the plurality of electromagnets with at least one programmed signal (please see rejection of claim 1 above)
receive, from the plurality of magnetometers, a set of magnetic field measurements associated with an electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets that is being driven with a programmed frequency (please see rejection of claim 1 above)
filter the set of magnetic field measurements (please see rejection of claim 1 above)
determine, based on the magnetic field measurements, a position and an orientation of the hand-held dental tool relative to the object, wherein both the plurality of electromagnets and the plurality of magnetometers are moveable at least due to movements of the hand-held dental tool and movements of the patient’s mouth, respectively (please see rejection of claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 20, Pesach et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
using a first bandpass filter
wherein a center frequency of the first bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the first bandpass filter is based on at least one of (a) an instantaneous distance between the dental tool and the object, (b) a target distance between the dental tool and the object, or (c) a velocity of the dental tool
With respect to claim 20, CN Pat ‘920 discloses:
using a first bandpass filter (page 6, second-to-last paragraph states, “the first signal processing element 1220 uses a band-pass filter to filter the carrier frequency f and the high-frequency noise in the magnetic field signal, only leaving space state information, such as position information, angle information, corner information, mobile information, moving speed information, and so on, the technical personnel in the field can reserve the needed information according to the requirement, not to limit.”)
wherein a center frequency of the first bandpass filter is the programmed frequency, and wherein a bandwidth of the first bandpass filter is based on at least one of (a) an instantaneous distance between the dental tool and the object, (b) a target distance between the dental tool and the object, or (c) a velocity of the dental tool (obvious in view of combination; As shown in the preceding limitation, CN Pat ‘920 discloses magnetic field signal processing using a band-pass filter, where the filtered data requirements can involve a number of parameters, including moving speed information (which suggests velocity) and position information + angle information (which suggests distance). CN Pat ‘920 is directed to a surgical instrument and not specifically a dental tool. However, the same principles of using a bandpass filter for a magnetic field signal, where there is movement between a surgical/dental tool and what the tool is operating on, apply to both. Primary reference Pesach et al also specifies the dental tool.)
With respect to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of CN Pat ‘920 into the invention of Pesach et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of removing unwanted noise and data from the signal.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al (US PgPub 20180263725) in view of CN Pat ‘920 (CN115553920A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang (US PgPub 20200138518).
With respect to claim 2, Pesach et al, as modified, discloses:
The system of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 2, Pesach et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the dental tool is a component in a robotic-assisted dental procedure system, and wherein the position and the orientation is determined to within a predetermined tolerance
With respect to claim 2, Lang discloses:
wherein the dental tool is a component in a robotic-assisted dental procedure system, and wherein the position and the orientation is determined to within a predetermined tolerance (Pesach et al discloses Burr 134 as part of the dental tool. However, Pesach et al does not mention robots. Lang discloses burring with a robot (figure 35B, references 556 and 568; paragraphs 1016 and 1049)
With respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lang into the invention of modified Pesach et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of automating complex dental procedures to reduce human error.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al (US PgPub 20180263725) in view of CN Pat ‘920 (CN115553920A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Casalegno et al (US Pat 6784820).
With respect to claim 19, Pesach et al, as modified discloses:
The method of claim 16 (as applied to claim 16 above)
With respect to claim 19, Pesach et al differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of magnetometers is configured to operate within a dynamic range from 0.1nT to 1mT and with a noise floor within a range from 0.3nT/Hz to 30nT/Hz
With respect to claim 19, Caslegno et al discloses:
wherein each of the plurality of magnetometers is configured to operate within a dynamic range from 0.1nT to 1mT and with a noise floor within a range from 0.3nT/Hz to 30nT/Hz (column 2, lines 7-14 state, “The performance of a conventional magnetic sensor is limited by available analog to digital converters. The earth’s magnetic field varies depending on where the sensor is located, but is typically in the range of +-45,000 nano Teslas (nT) ...” The applicant’s disclosure does not appear to have established any criticality for the claimed values. Given Caslegno’s teachings that sensor location can skew values, and given that the claimed values appear similar to what is considered “typical” values, the examiner construes that the claimed limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, unless the applicant can establish criticality for the claimed values, to demonstrate that the claimed values are not merely just indicative of a conventional or typical magnetometer.)
With respect to claim 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Casalegno et al into the invention of modified Pesach et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of optimizing the performance of the magnetic sensing capabilities of the magnetometer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Serval et al (US PgPub 20200229585) discloses oral hygiene systems and methods.
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 08/17/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights