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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (method claims) in the reply filed on March 30, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a search burden to search both groups. This is not found persuasive because as noted in the requirement for restriction the two groups would require a different field of search. Method claims typically require searching more NPL documents to clearly teach specific steps and the search will require specific text searches to find the specific steps. Apparatus claims involve more looking at figures to see if certain structure meet the claimed limitations. There will be non-overlapping portions between the two searches which creates a burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dubois et al. (US 2016/0220288; “Dubois”).
Claim 1, Dubois discloses a customized mandibular plate model building method (abstract; paragraph [0084]), performed by a processing device (paragraph [0027]), comprising: obtaining a mandibular tomography image (paragraph [0027]); identifying at least one defect area in the mandibular tomography image (Figs. 26-31; paragraphs [0096]-[0105]; importing a preliminary design image corresponding to the at least one defect area and the mandibular tomography image into a three-dimensional modeling software to adjust the preliminary design image into an adjusted design image that matches the at least one defect area (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]); receiving a user command indicating a plurality of designated screw holes (paragraphs [0049]-[0056]); combining the plurality of designated screw holes, the adjusted design image and the mandibular tomography image into a to-be-optimized design image (paragraph [0067]); performing a finite element simulation on a plurality of geometric parameters of the to-be-optimized design image to generate an optimized design image (paragraph [0067]); and outputting a customized design image according to a mandibular plate model in the optimized design image (paragraphs [0036]-[0067]).
Claim 2, Dubois discloses the customized mandibular plate model building method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of geometric parameters comprise at least one of: a shape corresponding to the to-be-optimized design image, a thickness corresponding to the to-be-optimized design image, locations of the plurality of designated screw holes and a bone density corresponding to the mandibular tomography image (paragraphs [0049] and [0052]).
Claim 3, Dubois discloses the customized mandibular plate model building method according to claim 1, wherein outputting the customized design image according to the mandibular plate model in the optimized design image comprises: determining whether a value of a target parameter corresponding to the mandibular plate model in the optimized design image equal to or greater than a default value; and using the mandibular plate model as the customized design image when the value of the target parameter corresponding to the mandibular plate model in the optimized design image equal to or greater than the default value (paragraphs [0048] and [0110]).
Claim 4, Dubois discloses the customized mandibular plate model building method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the mandibular tomography image comprises: obtaining a head tomography image; and removing a plurality of non-mandibular blocks from the head tomography image to generate the mandibular tomography image (paragraphs [0037]-[0045]).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois et al. (US 2016/0220288; “Dubois”), in view of Zagade et al. (US 2018/0276889; “Zagade”).
Claim 7, Dubois discloses the customized mandibular plate model building method according to claim 1. However, Dubois does not disclose using a bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization algorithm.
Zagade teaches using a bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization algorithm (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the BESO algorithm, as taught by Zagade, in the method of Dubois, since this is a well-known image optimization method (paragraph [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Claim 5 requires a specific method to optimize the design image. Dubois does not teach this type of method to optimize their image. Even if the method of optimizing is known within imagery optimization art, to include it with making a customized mandibular plate is not obvious and requires inventive steps. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and is allowable at least for that reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zade Coley whose telephone number is (571)270-1931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5) PT.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. 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.
/Zade Coley/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights