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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 15, 16, 19 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12127814. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because through while the language differs the scope of the current claim is fully encompassed or rendered obvious though the scope of the previously patented claim limitations.
Claim 2 is encompassed and rendered obvious by claims 1 and 14 of the ‘814 patent. Regarding claim 2 in view of claims 1 and 14 (and 12 through dependency) of the ‘814 patent; the noted numerated differences [see the table below] in the claim language are either encompassed in scope or rendered obvious through the scope of the patented claims.
Numerations [1], [2], [5] and [6] denote instances wherein the current claims broader limitation is encompassed by the disclosure of the ‘814 patent. Numeration [4] is encompassed in the full disclosure of [8] in the ‘814 patent. Further, numeration [8] has differences in wording but the GUI and selection-based limitations of the current application are encompassed in scope through the GUI and selection disclosures of the previously patented limitations. Numeration [7] however is disclosed in part by claim 14 of the ‘814 patent, however claim 14 does not specifically state a mobile device but rather a user device, however the disclosure encompassing the scope of a ‘mobile device’ would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the based on the rationale of the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as mobile devices such as data pads, smart phones and laptop computers are commonplace devices with understood functionality that allow for an improved or expected user experience by improving the mobility of the observer/medical professional and improving the capacity to operate the function at the patients side or a desired area rather than tied to a specific location of a computational device when operating the design in the field, and further the consideration of the user device functioning specifically as a mobile device is recited at least in the disclosure of Fig 1D and the associated written description of the ‘814 patent disclosure, rendering the consideration of the specific ‘mobility’ as obvious and encompassed in view of the previously patented claims.
Claim 3 is encompassed by claims 1/14 of the ‘814 patent
Claim 11 is encompassed by claims 1/12/14 of the ‘814 patent
Claim 15 rendered obvious in view of claims 1/14 of the ‘814 patent based on the same rationale as applied to claim 2 above. Additionally, claim 15 is the ‘system’ embodiment to the CRM embodiment of claim 2. As such claims 1/14 of the ‘814 patent is drawn to CRM while current claim 15 is a system claim, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the disclosure of ‘814 to incorporate the consideration of applying the CRM embodiment to additional embodiments based on the rationale of the simple substitution of one known element for another, as the statutory considerations within the scope of the field of endeavor would render obvious to one of skill in the art a method, system and computer based CRM embodiment with the embodiment being interchangeable to meet the needs of a user to improve the adaptability and implementation of the design in environments traditional to the field of endeavor, thereby improving the usability and benefits for patients and doctors alike.
Claim 16 is encompassed by claims 1/14 of the ‘814 patent (see additionally rationale for claim 15)
Claim 19 is encompassed by claims 1/12/14 of the ‘814 patent (see additionally rationale for claim 15)
Claim 21 rendered obvious in view of claims 1/14 of the ‘814 patent based on the same rationale as applied to claim 2 above. Additionally, claim 21 is the ‘method’ embodiment to the CRM embodiment of claim 2. As such claims 1/14 of the ‘814 patent is drawn to CRM while current claim 21 is a method claim, however it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the disclosure of ‘814 to incorporate the consideration of applying the CRM embodiment to additional embodiments based on the rationale of the simple substitution of one known element for another, as the statutory considerations within the scope of the field of endeavor would render obvious to one of skill in the art a method, system and computer based CRM embodiment with the embodiment being interchangeable to meet the needs of a user to improve the adaptability and implementation of the design in environments traditional to the field of endeavor, thereby improving the usability and benefits for patients and doctors alike.
Application 18928587
US Patent 12127814
Claim 2. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving intraoral scan data of an oral cavity of a patient;
performing a plurality of analyses [1] of the intraoral scan data to determine, for each dental condition of a plurality of dental conditions, whether the dental condition is detected for the patient and information about the dental condition [2],
the information comprising locations of one or more areas of interest on a dental arch of the patient at which the dental condition was detected [4];
generating a dental diagnostics summary based on results of the plurality of analyses [5], the dental diagnostics summary comprising indications of the plurality of dental conditions, wherein the indications show, for each dental condition of the plurality of dental conditions, whether the dental condition was detected for the patient and the information about the dental condition [6]; and
sending the dental diagnostics summary to a mobile device of the patient [7],
[8] wherein the dental diagnostics summary, when presented in a graphical user interface (GUI) on the mobile device of the patient, provides interactive elements that can be selected, and wherein selection of a dental condition of the plurality of dental conditions via selection of an interactive element of the dental diagnostics summary associated with the dental condition causes at least some of the information about the selected dental condition and a three-dimensional (3D) model of the dental arch to be displayed in the GUI, wherein the one or more areas of interest are shown on the 3D model of the dental arch at the determined locations of the one or more areas of interest.
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving intraoral scan data of an oral cavity of a patient;
performing a plurality of automated analyses [1] of the intraoral scan data to determine, for each dental condition of a plurality of dental conditions, whether the dental condition is detected for the patient and a severity level of the dental condition [2];
generating a dental diagnostics summary based on results of the plurality of automated analyses [5], the dental diagnostics summary comprising indications of the plurality of dental conditions, wherein the indications show, for each dental condition of the plurality of dental conditions, whether the dental condition was detected for the patient and the severity level of the dental condition [6];
[8] presenting the dental diagnostics summary in a graphical user interface (GUI); receiving a selection of a dental condition that was detected for the patient from the plurality of dental conditions in the dental diagnostics summary; launching a tool associated with the selected dental condition; and providing more detailed information about the selected dental condition, wherein providing the more detailed information comprises: determining locations of one or more areas of interest on a dental arch of the patient at which the selected dental condition was detected; and displaying a three-dimensional (3D) model of the dental arch in the GUI, wherein the one or more areas of interest are shown on the 3D model of the dental arch at the determined locations of the one or more areas of interest.
Claim 14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12, the operations further comprising: sending the presentation to a user device of the patient [7].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Claims 4-10, 12-14, 17-18 and 20 represent claims that are not directly under rejection by the non-statutory double patenting consideration.
Re Claims 2, 15 and 21, once the NSDP rejection is resolved, the prior art fails to explicitly disclose the specific summary determination and contents and the presentation and functionality of the GUI for patient interaction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art is relevant to the scope of the claims but fails to anticipate or render obvious the scope of the claimed invention.
Tuzoff (US Pub 20200146646) – discloses aspects of dental scanning and patient review but fails to explicitly disclose the details of the specifically claimed summary composition for the current application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights