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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “110” has been used to designate both “shaft” and “bite splint” in [00071] and [00071] of the specification.
reference characters "120" and "110" have both been used to designate “bite splint”.
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. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
There are references listed at [0005] – [0009] of the specification. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892 or have been otherwise submitted in a proper information disclosure statement, they have not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 2 – 4, 7, and 14 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 2 (lines 3 – 4) recites the term “information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and/or information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw”. It is unclear if the “at least a portion of a dental arch” is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited dental arch. For the purposes of examination, the term “information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and/or information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw” is deemed to claim “an upper jaw dental arch portion information and/or a lower jaw dental arch information.”
Claim 3 (lines 3 – 5) recites the term “information about at least a portion of a dental arch averaged from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw.” is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited dental arch. For the purposes of examination, the term “information about at least a portion of a dental arch averaged from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw” is deemed to claim “an average dental arch information averaged from an upper jaw dental arch portion information and a lower jaw dental arch information.”
Claim 4 (lines 2 - 4) recites the term “determine arch information about a width and/or a position of a jaw including the upper jaw and the lower jaw”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited arch information. It is also unclear if the arch information is supposed to be about either the width (and/) or the jaw position, or if it is the jaw width information and/or position of a jaw (without arch information). For the purposes of examination, the term “determine arch information about a width and/or a position of a jaw including the upper jaw and the lower jaw” is deemed to claim “determine a jaw width arch information and/or a jaw position information including the upper jaw and the lower jaw.”
Claim 7 (lines 1 - 4) recites the term “wherein the at least one pressure sensor includes a sensor array with individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors or is configured as a sensor array which includes individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors”. It is unclear if the sensors are intended to be an array of arrays, if the sensors are merely one or more sensors, and what the particular difference is intended to be between the “includes a sensor array…foil sensors” and “configured as a sensor array which includes…foil sensors” clauses. They appear to recite the same elements. For the purposes of examination, the term “wherein the at least one pressure sensor includes a sensor array with individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors or is configured as a sensor array which includes individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors” is deemed to claim “wherein the at least one pressure sensor includes a sensor array with individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors.”
Claim 14 (line 4) recites the term “receiving the bite assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same or different than the previously-recited bite block assembly. For the purposes of examination, the term “receiving the bite assembly” is deemed to claim “receiving the bite block assembly.”
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.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recite an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of Claims 1 – 15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 15 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 14 recite (underlined are observations, judgements, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim
A device for determining information about at least a portion of a dental arch, comprising:
a bite block assembly with at least one pressure sensor, wherein the bite block assembly is configured to be received between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw, and wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured to sense pressure information about pressure exerted by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the lower jaw on the at least one pressure sensor; and
an evaluation unit which is configured to determine arch information about at least a portion of a dental arch based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
Claim 14
A method for determining information about at least a portion of a dental arch, comprising:
providing a bite block assembly with at least one pressure sensor;
receiving the bite assembly between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and/or at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw;
sensing pressure information about pressure exerted by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the lower jaw on the at least one pressure sensor of the bite block assembly; and
determining, by an evaluation unit, arch information about at least a portion of a dental arch, based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1 and 14, these limitations include:
Observation and judgment of arch information about at least a portion of a dental arch based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
Certain methods of directing human activity
receiving the bite assembly between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and/or at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw;
Similarly, the Dependent Claims include the following abstract limitations, in addition to the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
determine, as the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch, information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and/or information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw.
Observation and judgment of, as the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch, information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and/or information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw.
determine, as the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch, information about at least a portion of a dental arch averaged from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw.
Observation and judgment of, as the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch, information about at least a portion of a dental arch averaged from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw.
determine arch information about a width and/or a position of a jaw including the upper jaw and the lower jaw, based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
Observation and judgment of, arch information about a width and/or a position of a jaw including the upper jaw and the lower jaw, based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
determine apparatus information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch.
Observation and judgment of apparatus information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch.
determine information about a sagittal plane, based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
Observation and judgment of information about a sagittal plane, based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor.
adapt information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the information determined about the sagittal plane.
Observation and judgment to adapt information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the information determined about the sagittal plane.
determine information about an inclination of an occlusal plane, based on information sensed by the at least one measuring system.
Observation and judgment of information about an inclination of an occlusal plane, based on information sensed by the at least one measuring system.
adapt information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the information determined about the inclination of the occlusal plane.
Observation and judgment to adapt information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the information determined about the inclination of the occlusal plane.
all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical algorithms under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified in Claims 1 - 15), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“evaluation unit”
“bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”
“at least one pressure sensor”
“sensor array with individual sensors”
“thin-film sensors”
“foil sensors”
“medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”
“at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”
“shaft of the bite block assembly”
Additional elements recited include “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly” in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective Dependent Claims). These components are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as an evaluation unit processor performing a generic function of processing data (the determining). These generic hardware component limitations for “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1 and 14 and their dependent claims includes pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
a bite block assembly with at least one pressure sensor, wherein the bite block assembly is configured to be received between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw, and wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured to sense pressure information about pressure exerted by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the lower jaw on the at least one pressure sensor;
wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured and arranged to sense, as the pressure information, information about one or more bite points in the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or in the row of teeth of the lower jaw.
wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured and arranged to sense, as the pressure information, information about buccal and/or palatal positions of one or more tooth cusps and/or of one or more cutting surfaces of teeth of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or of teeth of the row of teeth of the lower jaw.
wherein the at least one pressure sensor includes a sensor array with individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors or is configured as a sensor array which includes individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors.
wherein the bite block assembly further comprises at least one measuring system or at least one strain gauge on an upper side of a shaft of the bite block assembly and/or at least one strain gauge on an underside of the shaft of the bite block assembly.
providing a bite block assembly with at least one pressure sensor;
sensing pressure information about pressure exerted by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the lower jaw on the at least one pressure sensor of the bite block assembly; and
wherein the medical imaging apparatus is a medical X-ray apparatus.
The “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 15 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims).
The additional elements of the “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly” in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “evaluation unit” is described generically at [00035] with “ processor (for example a microprocessor, microcontroller or digital signal processor (DSP))…to carry out one or more steps or all steps of the method steps previously described with respect to the evaluation unit.” The “evaluation unit” is shown as generic box element “Evaluation Unit 200” in Figure 8.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly” is described generically in [00012] with “The bite block assembly includes at least one pressure sensor. The bite block assembly is designed to be received between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw.” The “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly” is shown as “bite block assembly 100” in Figure 2. Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, and “foil sensors” are described generically in [00027] with “at least one pressure sensor can include a sensor array or sensor field, in particular a sensor array or sensor field with individual sensors and/or thin film sensors and/or foil sensors. “ The “at least one pressure sensor” is shown as “pressure sensor 140” in Fig. 2. These structures of a pressure sensor (of claim 1) configured to sense (claim 6 points) using (thin film of claim 7) are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as demonstrated by Hannsen et. al., (US 2020/0237289 A1), [0006] “The practice of clamping a sensor film between the teeth of the maxilla and mandible is also known, the sensor foil allowing direct measurements of the contact points and the forces occurring upon biting.“
Per Applicant’s specification, the “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus” is described generically at [00028] with “a medical imaging apparatus, in particular an extraoral X-ray apparatus,…a panoramic X-ray apparatus.” The “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus” does not appear to be shown in a figure.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge” is described at [00032] with “The measuring system can include at least one strain gauge on an upper side of a shaft of the bite block assembly and/or at least one strain gauge on an underside of the shaft of the bite block assembly.’ The “at least one measuring system” and “at least one strain gauge” are shown in Fig. 8 as “strain gauges (SGs) 180, 182 are arranged on shaft 110 of bite block assembly 100.” Per Applicant’s specification, the “shaft of the bite block assembly” is described as [00017] “the bite block assembly may include an occlusal splint and a shaft connected directly or indirectly to the occlusal splint.” The shaft of the bite block assembly is shown as “shaft 110 of bite block assembly 100” in Fig. 8. These structures of a broad “measuring system” sensor on an upper side of the shaft of a bite assembly are well-understood, routine, and conventional based on the disclosure by Arai in JP 2006187663A wherein [0104] “In such a partial CTX imaging apparatus, instead of the chin rest 12 as the positioning means, known ones such as an occlusal sensor, a bite block, an ear rod, a front head pressing member, etc. are used alone or in combination”, wherein the occlusal sensor is broadly a “measuring system” that can be mounted as the position means on the cantilevered shaft in Fig. 1 in combination with a bite block, as a measurement system on the upper side of the positioning means.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “evaluation unit”, “bite block assembly”/”bite assembly”, “at least one pressure sensor”, “sensor array with individual sensors”, “thin-film sensors”, “foil sensors”, “medical imaging apparatus”/”medical X-ray apparatus”, “at least one measuring system” or “at least one strain gauge”, and “shaft of the bite block assembly.” This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus and method of Claims 1 – 15 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 – 15 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in Independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 15 apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 11, and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thoms (US 2008/0299511 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Thoms discloses
For Claim 1: A device for determining information about at least a portion of a dental arch ([Abstract]), comprising:
a bite block assembly (Fig. 1; Fig. 5, vertical shaft “support rod” 56 with “bite-on holder 54” thereon, which includes the “bite-on sensor 58”; [0051]) with at least one pressure sensor ([0063] “bite-on sensor 58 comprises pressure transducers…”; Fig. 5 with “bite-on sensor 58” in “bite-on holder 54”),
wherein the bite block assembly is configured to be received between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw ([0053] “ allow the patient to bite the bite-on holder 54, while his chin rests on the chin rest 52…”; Fig. 1, Fig. 5), and wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured
For Claim 14: A method for determining information about at least a portion of a dental arch ([Abstract]), comprising:
providing a bite block assembly (Fig. 1; Fig. 5, vertical shaft “support rod” 56 with “bite-on holder 54” thereon, which includes the “bite-on sensor 58”; [0051]) with at least one pressure sensor ([0063] “bite-on sensor 58 comprises pressure transducers…”; Fig. 5 with “bite-on sensor 58” in “bite-on holder 54”; [0053] “…allow the patient to bite the bite-on holder 54…”),
receiving the bite assembly between at least a portion of a row of teeth of an upper jaw and at least a portion of a row of teeth of a lower jaw ([0053] “ allow the patient to bite the bite-on holder 54, while his chin rests on the chin rest 52…”; Fig. 6)
For both Claim 1 and 14, Thom discloses
sense pressure information about pressure exerted by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or by at least the portion of the row of teeth of the lower jaw on the at least one pressure sensor of the bite block assembly ([0063] “([0063] “bite-on sensor 58 comprises pressure transducers…”, “When a patient bites onto the bite-on holder 54 and therefore onto the bite-on sensor 58 arranged thereon, a large number of pressure transducers 90…depressed in accordance with the patient's dental arch...”; [0065] “..each depressed pressure transducer 90 generates a signal…”; [0066] – [0067]; Fig. 1, Fig. 5); and
an evaluation unit which is configured to determine arch information about at least a portion of a dental arch based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor ([0067] “…jaw form signal which corresponds to the patient's dental arch, based on the upper and the lower jaw 24 and 26 respectively…calculation by the computing unit 32…geometry of the patient’s dental arch.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 2, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit ([0067] “computing unit 32”) is configured to determine, as the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch ([0067]), information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and/or information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw ([0067] “…jaw form signal which corresponds to the patient's dental arch, based on the upper and the lower jaw 24 and 26 respectively…calculation by the computing unit 32…geometry of the patient’s dental arch.”; Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 4, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 4, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit ([0067] “computing unit 32”) is configured to determine arch information about a width and/or a position of a jaw ([0063]; Fig. 1) including the upper jaw and the lower jaw, based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor ([0063] “…a large number of pressure transducers are depressed in accordance with the patient’s dental arch…”; “…which pressure transducers 90 would be approximately depressed..”; Fig. 5; Fig. 1)(Examiner notes that the pressure transducers that are depressed correspond with transducers that have been pushed at positions of the upper jaw and/or the lower jaw)
Regarding Claim 5, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 5, Thoms discloses wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured and arranged to sense, as the pressure information, information about one or more bite points in the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or in the row of teeth of the lower jaw ([0063] “…a large number of pressure transducers are depressed in accordance with the patient’s dental arch…”; “…which pressure transducers 90 would be approximately depressed..”; Fig. 5)(Examiner notes that the pressure transducers that are depressed correspond with transducers that have been pushed by bite points from the upper jaw and/or the lower jaw rows of teeth.).
Regarding Claim 6, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 6, Thoms discloses wherein the at least one pressure sensor is configured and arranged to sense, as the pressure information, information about buccal and/or palatal positions of one or more tooth cusps and/or of one or more cutting surfaces of teeth of the row of teeth of the upper jaw and/or of teeth of the row of teeth of the lower jaw ([0063] “…a large number of pressure transducers are depressed in accordance with the patient’s dental arch…”; “…which pressure transducers 90 would be approximately depressed..”; Fig. 5)(Examiner notes that the pressure transducers that are depressed correspond with transducers that have been pushed by one or more cutting surface from the upper jaw and/or the lower jaw rows of teeth).
Regarding Claim 7, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 7, Thoms discloses wherein the at least one pressure sensor includes a sensor array with individual sensors ([0063] “…bite-on sensor 58 comprises pressure transducers which are arranged on its surface…”; Fig. 5)(Examiner notes the 112 interpretation above) and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors or is configured as a sensor array which includes individual sensors and/or thin-film sensors and/or foil sensors
Regarding Claim 8, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 8, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine apparatus information ([0068] “…bring both shapes in line with each other…”; [0069] “..., the patient's dental arch 70 is moved…until the calculated set horizontal coordinates are reached and the largest possible area of the patient's dental arch 70 overlaps…”; Fig. 3A and 3B) about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch ([0068] “computing unit 32…compare the projection arch surface defined by the path 84 of the axis of rotation A of the panorama X-ray apparatus 10…with the shape of the patient's dental arch...”; [0069] – [0072]).
Regarding Claim 9, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 9, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine information about a sagittal plane ([0063]; Fig. 5, dotted line near the 60 callout, marking a sagittal plane of the mouth), based on the pressure information sensed by the at least one pressure sensor ([0063] “…a large number of pressure transducers are depressed in accordance with the patient’s dental arch…”,“…which pressure transducers 90 would be approximately depressed..”; Fig. 5)(Examiner notes that some of the pressure transducers that can be (or are) depressed by the patient’s bite are along the marked sagittal plane in Figure 5, thereby broadly obtaining information about a sagittal plane.)
Regarding Claim 10, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 9. For the remainder of Claim 10, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to adapt information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus ([0069] “…computing unit 32 proposes set position coordinates for the patient's jaw 24, 26, in particular set horizontal coordinates of the chin rest 52. …the patient's dental arch 70 is moved, as illustrated in FIG. 3A…largest possible area of the patient’s dental arch 70 overlaps with the projection arch surface 88 a”; Fig. 3A and 3B) based on the information determined about the sagittal plane ([0067] “…depressed pressure transducers 90…patient’s dental arch…”; [0068] – [0069] ‘…compare the projection arch surface…with the shape of the patient’s dental arch…”; [0063] “…a large number of pressure transducers are depressed in accordance with the patient’s dental arch…”; “…which pressure transducers 90 would be approximately depressed..”; Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 11, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 11, Thoms discloses wherein the bite block assembly further comprises at least one measuring system or at least one strain gauge on an upper side of a shaft of the bite block assembly (Fig 1, vertical shaft “support rod” 56 with “bite-on holder 54” thereon, which includes the “bite-on sensor 58”; Fig. 5; [0051] – [0052])(Examiner notes that the “bite-on holder 54” with the “bite-on sensor 58” measuring system is on the upper side of the vertical shaft, serving broadly as a measuring system.) and/or at least one strain gauge on an underside of the shaft of the bite block assembly.
Regarding Claim 15, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 8. For the remainder of Claim 15, Thoms discloses wherein the medical imaging apparatus is a medical X-ray apparatus ([0068] “…panorama X-ray apparatus 10”)
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoms (US 2008/0299511 A1) in view of Komatsu et. al., (US 5458487 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 3, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine ([0067] “computing unit 32”), as the arch information about at least the portion of the dental arch ([0067]), information about at least a portion of a dental arch from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw ([0067] “…jaw form signal which corresponds to the patient's dental arch, based on the upper and the lower jaw 24 and 26 respectively…calculation by the computing unit 32…geometry of the patient’s dental arch.”)
Thoms does not specifically disclose that the data is averaged in information about at least a portion of a dental arch averaged from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw.
Komatsu teaches a system for analyzing the occlusion condition using a diagnosing sheet with pressure-sensitive composite on which a patient bites, then the average value of the pressure loading to calculated by diving the sum of occlusion pressures applied on bite points on the device ([Abstract]; [Col 12, Lines 7 – 21]; Fig. 17) Specifically for Claim 3, Komatsu teaches the evaluation unit is configured to determine information about at least a portion of a dental arch averaged ([Col 12, Lines 7 – 21] “processor 68 for calculating the mean or average value of the occlusion pressure loading…”) from information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the upper jaw and information about at least a portion of a dental arch of the lower jaw ([Col 12, Lines 7 – 21] “processor 68 for calculating the mean or average value of the occlusion pressure loading…”, “…an average pressure or loading is calculated by dividing the sum of occlusion pressures applied on the points…”; [Col 5, Lines 58 – 63] “the occlusion pressures between the upper and lower occluding teeth are applied on the pressure-sensitive composite recording sheet structure 15 so that the portions on which the pressures are applied are colored…”)
Thoms and Komatsu both disclose pressure sensing mechanisms that measure pressures at bite points of the upper and lower jaws, Thoms with the electronic “large number of pressure transducers” array in the bite-on sensor and Komatsu with the more analog color-based pressure-sensitive recording sheet structure that measures pressures at bite points of the upper and lower jaws with differences in color. Komatsu provides a motivation to combine at [Coll 13, Lines 39 – 43] including “the distribution of occlusion pressures and the occluding conditions at respective points can be precisely detected to enable precise diagnosis on the occluding condition thereby to obtain effectual data for the determination of subsequent treating course. “ and [Col 13, Lines 11 – 21] with “…occlusion pressure balance calculating mode…calculating the occlusion pressure distribution…calculating the average value of occlusion pressure loadings…”. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that calculating average pressure information for bite data would be useful for determining specific information about any asymmetric or particular distribution of bite pressure to be used as diagnostic data to inform treatment courses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Thoms’ disclosed single bite-on assembly with an array of pressure sensing elements from which bite pressure data is obtained with the Komatsu’s taught averaging of pressure data at bite points shown by the pressure sensing elements for a patient, creating a single bite-on assembly with an array of pressure sensing elements from which data can be averaged to obtain diagnostic information on the occlusion condition to aid potential further treatments.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoms (US 2008/0299511 A1) in view Stoeckl (US 2009/0154656 A1)
Regarding Claim 12, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 11. For the remainder of Claim 12, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to determine information, based on information sensed by the at least one measuring system ([0067] “…jaw form signal which corresponds to the patient's dental arch, based on the upper and the lower jaw 24 and 26 respectively…calculation by the computing unit 32…geometry of the patient’s dental arch.”; Fig. 1; Fig. 5)
Thoms does not specifically disclose information about an inclination of an occlusal plane. Thoms does broadly disclose information that the inclination of the occlusal plane can be expressed relative to the mounting angle of the support rod 56 in Fig 1.
Stoeckl teaches a bite device for the correct positioning of a patient when a panoramic x-ray is taken, with a pivoting plate, which can measure and adjust the angle of the inclination of the occlusal plane of a patient during the panoramic x-ray. Specifically for Claim 12, Stoeckl teaches determine information about an inclination of an occlusal plane, based on information sensed by the at least one measuring system ([0013] “measuring the position of the occlusal plane of the patient relative to the device by determining the position of a plate disposed in the occlusal plane…the angle is measured between the plate and a holding member, which can be positioned relative to the X-ray device in fixed alignment. From this angle a signal can be derived which indicates the degree of inclination of the occlusal plane.”; Fig. 3 - 4).
Stoeckl provides a motivation to combine at [0010] with “…object of the invention…to provide a system for correct positioning of a patient for image recording using a medical panoramic X-ray device…allows for simple and stable measurement and/or adjustment of the inclination of the occlusal plane of a patient.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that being able to measure the inclination of the occlusal plane of the patient during a panoramic x-ray would be helpful for obtaining a stable and reliable measurement of panoramic x-ray parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bite-on holder 54 with pressure transducers on the “support rod 56” shaft (as shown in Fig. 1) for panoramic x-ray measurements disclosed in Thoms with the Stoeckl’s taught positionable occlusal plane plate on a shaft on which the patient bites during a panoramic x-ray measurement, creating a single bite-on assembly for use with a panoramic x-ray in order for the inclination of the patient’s occlusal plane to be known during the measurement.
Regarding Claim 13, Thoms discloses as described above The device according to claim 12. For the remainder of Claim 13, Thoms discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to adapt information about a trajectory of a medical imaging apparatus based on the information determined about the inclination of the occlusal plane.
Thoms does not specifically disclose information determined about the inclination of the occlusal plane. Thoms does broadly disclose information that the inclination of the occlusal plane can be expressed relative to the mounting angle of the support rod 56 in Fig 1.
Stoeckl teaches information determined about the inclination of the occlusal plane ([0013] “measuring the position of the occlusal plane of the patient relative to the device by determining the position of a plate…indicates the degree of inclination of the occlusal plane.”).
Stoeckl provides a motivation to combine at [0010] with “…object of the invention…to provide a system for correct positioning of a patient for image recording using a medical panoramic X-ray device…allows for simple and stable measurement and/or adjustment of the inclination of the occlusal plane of a patient.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that including measurement of the inclination of the occlusal plane would be useful for determining the positioning of the patient during image recording for a panoramic X-ray device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device with bite-on pressure transducers to measure a patient’s dental arch and adapt positioning disclosed by Thoms with the inclination of occlusal plane information for a bite-on device taught by Stoeckl, creating a single bite-on assembly and calculation device that can be used to adjust the positioning of the patient’s dental arch based on inclination of the occlusal plane for better positioning with a panoramic x-ray device’s scan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights