DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-32 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4, 10, 13-21, 25, 27-28, and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1-12 and 22-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0092] recites “The upper prong 100”. It should recite “The upper prong 110”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15-20, and 28 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the characteristics of movements and positioning” in lines 3-4. It should recite “the characteristics of the movements and the positioning”.
Claim 4 recites “the design of dental prosthetics” in lines 2-3. It should recite “design of dental prosthetics”.
Claim 9 recites “and positioning” in lines 2-3. It should recite “the positioning”.
Claim 12 recites “and positioning” in line 2. It should recite “the positioning”.
Claim 12 recites “TMJ joints” in line 6. It should recite “Temporomandibular Joints (TMJs)”.
Claim 14 recites “the characteristics of movements and positioning” in lines 3-4. It should recite “the characteristics of the movements and the positioning”.
Claim 15 recites “one or more of the steps of” in line 1. It should recite “one or more steps of”.
Claim 15 recites “the design of dental prosthetics” in lines 2-3. It should recite “design of dental prosthetics”.
Claim 16 recites “the step of” in line 1. It should recite “a step of”.
Claim 17 recites “the step of” in line 1. It should recite “a step of”.
Claim 17 recites “positioning” in line 2. It should recite “the positioning”.
Claim 18 recites “the step of” in line 1. It should recite “a step of”.
Claim 19 recites “the step of” in line 1. It should recite “a step of”.
Claim 20 recites “the step of” in line 1. It should recite “a step of”.
Claim 20 recites “positioning” in line 2. It should recite “the positioning”.
Claim 28 recites “the movements and positioning” in lines 1-2. It should recite “movements and positioning”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10, 13-21, 25, 27-28, and 31 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 recites “the characters of movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone and one or more TMJ discs is a Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship”. It is not clear if the monitored characteristics represent the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship (and first bone with respect to TMJ discs is monitored in addition to the relationship between the first and second bone), or this is just stating if those characteristic were monitored along with TMJ discs, that would represent the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 4 recites “the processing device is further configured to use the characteristics of the Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship”. This is considered a “use claim” because its attempting to claim a process (i.e. designing prosthetics/diagnosis and treatment of TMD) without setting forth any steps involved in the process (See MPEP 2173.05(q)). For the purposes of examination, any use of the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship to design dental prosthetics of diagnose/treat TMD will be considered to read on the claim.
Claim 4 recites “characteristics of the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the characteristics of movements and positioning previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new characteristics. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 10 recites “one or more of a vibration sensor and an audible capture device” in lines 1-2. It is not clear if this means “[one or more of a vibration sensor] and [an audible capture device]” or if this means “one or more of [a vibration sensor and an audible capture device]”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the patient’s TMJ joints" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this is referring to “a patent’s joint” as previously set forth, or if this is referring to different joints. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second bone" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a second bone”.
Claim 15 recites “one or more of the steps of:” in line 1. It is not clear if the steps are considered “creating” and “using”, or if the steps area “creating”, “using for dental prosthetic”, “using for diagnosis”, and “using for treatment”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 15 recites “using the characteristics of the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship”. This is considered a “use claim” because its attempting to claim a process (i.e. designing prosthetics/diagnosis and treatment of TMD) without setting forth any steps involved in the process (See MPEP 2173.05(q)). For the purposes of examination, any use of the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship to design dental prosthetics of diagnose/treat TMD will be considered to read on the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second bone" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating “a second bone”.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the patient’s positioning degrees" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating “a patient’s positioning degrees”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the movements and positioning of the patient" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if this is referring to the movements and positioning of the patient’s head, or more generally referring to the patient (which includes the movement of the patient’s head). Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
The term “high energy” in claim 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high energy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is considered a “high” vs “low” energy device. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, a device that emits ionizing radiation (e.g. X-ray) will be considered a high energy device.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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 1-12 and 22-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-12 and 22-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “a clamp arranged in a fixed position with respect to a first bone of a patient’s joint”. The configuration of the apparatus is necessarily defined by the presence of a first bone (i.e. a human). Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, the bone can be considered a part of the apparatus, and the apparatus would encompass the human body. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to state “a clamp configured to be arranged in a fixed position” to make it clear the bone is not a part of the apparatus.
Claim 22 recites “a first camera arranged toward a front of the head of the patient and a second camera… toward a side of the head of the patient”. The configuration of the apparatus is necessarily defined by the presence of the head (i.e. a human). Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, the head can be considered a part of the apparatus, and the apparatus would encompass the human body. The Examiner recommends amending the claims to “configured to” to make it clear the head is not a part of the apparatus.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 101 are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0383752 A1) in view of Davydov et al. (U.S Patent 10,307,233 B1) and Pinheiro et al. (Pinheiro, A. P., et al. "Measurement of jaw motion: the proposal of a simple and accurate method." Journal of medical engineering & technology 35.3-4 (2011): 125-133.).
Regarding Claim 1, Willers teaches an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
one or more cameras (Fig. 9, 22) arranged to capture images [0047] of facial landmark points and the reference object [0041]+[0048]; and
a processing device [0060] configured to receive the captured images from the one or more cameras [0047] and monitor characteristics of movements and positioning of the first bone of the patient’s joint (mandibulary arch) with respect to a second bone of the patient’s joint (maxillary arch) [0038]+[0041]+[0050]+[0052] ( Fig 10b, displacement d1 is the relative position between mandible and maxilla, which are the bones of the TMJ 13) (One of ordinary skill would further recognize that, as the maxilla is fixed relative the mandible, the Bennett angle, initial Bennett movement, and sagittal condylar path inclination also represent movement of the mandible relative to the maxilla).
Willers fails to explicitly teach a clamp arranged in a fixed position with respect to a first bone of a patient’s joint, the claim having a reference object attached thereto.
Davydow teaches a method for identifying a point of references on a jaw (Abstract). This system is a clamp (Fig. 1, 10) which is arranged in a fixed position with respect to the mandible (Col 3, lines 1-20) (Fig. 3). This system further contains a reference sensor (Fig. 3, 20) (Fig. 3, lines 29-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Willers to use the clamp, as taught by Davydow, as this proves a simple and accurate method of determining a reference point, as recognized by Davydow (Col 1, lines 51-60).
The combination is silent that the sensor of Davydow would be captured by the cameras.
Pinheiro teaches a system for quantifying the mandible (Abstract). This system attaches a reference marker (sensor) to the jaw (Pg. 126, Section 2.1) (Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to substitute the sensor of Davydow with the sensor of Pinheiro, as the substitution for one known reference sensor with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using the marker of Pinheiro to establish a references point is reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further taches wherein the patient’s joint includes one or more Temporomandibular Joints (TMJs) (Fig. 10a, 13) [0040]-[0041], the first bone of the patient’s joint is a Mandible [0038]+[0043], the second bone affecting the patient’s joint is a Maxilla [0038]+[0047], and the characteristics of movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone0038]+[0041]+[0050]+[0052].
Willers is silent regarding and one or more TMJ discs is a Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship.
Pinheiro further teaches utilizing the disc and the relative positions to graph the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship (Pg. 131, Figures 5+6) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of references to create more graphs and contours, as taught by Pinheiro, because this facilitates dentists in interpretation of movement of the mandible, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 132, Conclusion). One of ordinary skill would recognize that, as the Willers references represents the relationship between the movement of the mandible with the maxilla, the combination would represent the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches wherein the processing device is configured to create a baseline image including the facial landmark points [0048]+[0051].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the clamp includes an upper prong, a shaft, and an adjustable lower prong, and wherein the clamp is configured to compress soft tissue surrounding the first bone to hold the clamp in a fixed relationship with the first bone.
Davydow further teaches wherein the clamp includes an upper prong (Fig. 1, 12), a shaft (Fig. 1, 16), and an adjustable lower prong (Fig. 1, 14) (Col 2, lines 36-56), and wherein the clamp is configured to compress soft tissue surrounding the first bone to hold the clamp in a fixed relationship with the first bone (Fig. 2+3) (Col 3, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Willers to use the clamp, as taught by Davydow, as this proves a simple and accurate method of determining a reference point, as recognized by Davydow (Col 1, lines 51-60).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches further comprising a display device connected to the processing device (Fig. 11, 128) [0060], the display device configured to present a User Interface (UI) (Fig. 11, 126) that shows images captured by the one or more cameras [0060].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches wherein the UI is further configured to provide one or more selectable buttons allowing a user to select options for operating the apparatus [0060] (at least the keyboard is made of buttons, and the input unit is used to operate the apparatus).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches wherein the processing device is configured to utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI) to monitor the characteristics of the movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone [0052] (deep learning is an artificial intelligence).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing device is further configured to create a homography matrix based on a current image plane with respect to a reference image plane.
Pinheiro further teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to create a homography matrix (Pg. 127-128, 2.3.1 Camera calibration) based on a current image plane (xn) with respect to a reference image plane (x’n) (Pg. 127-128, 2.3.1 Camera calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to calculate a homography matrix, as taught by Pinheiro, because this allows the system to compensate image distortion and more accurately track the markers, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 129, 2.3.3 Reconstruction and filtering).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers frails to explicitly teach wherein the processing device is further configured to utilize the characteristics of the movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone to create one or more graphs and contours.
Pinheiro further teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to utilize the characteristics of the movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone to create one or more graphs and contours (Pg. 131, Figures 5+6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of references to create more graphs and contours, as taught by Pinheiro, because this facilitates dentists in interpretation of movement of the mandible, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 132, Conclusion).
Regarding Claim 13, Willers teaches a method comprising the steps of (Abstract) comprising:
capturing images [0047] of facial landmark points and the reference object [0041]+[0048]; and
receiving the captured images [0047] and monitoring characteristics of movements and positioning of the patient’s TMJ joints [0038]+[0041]+[0050]+[0052] ( Fig 10b, displacement d1 is the relative position between mandible and maxilla, which are the bones of the TMJ 13).
Willers fails to explicitly teach arranging a clamp in a fixed position with respect to a first bone of a patient’s joint, the clamp having a reference object attached thereto.
Davydow teaches a method for identifying a point of references on a jaw (Abstract). This system is a clamp (Fig. 1, 10) which is arranged in a fixed position with respect to the mandible (Col 3, lines 1-20) (Fig. 3). This system further contains a reference sensor (Fig. 3, 20) (Fig. 3, lines 29-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Willers to use the clamp, as taught by Davydow, as this proves a simple and accurate method of determining a reference point, as recognized by Davydow (Col 1, lines 51-60).
The combination is silent that the sensor of Davydow would be captured in images.
Pinheiro teaches a system for quantifying the mandible (Abstract). This system attaches a reference marker (sensor) to the jaw (Pg. 126, Section 2.1) (Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to substitute the sensor of Davydow with the sensor of Pinheiro, as the substitution for one known reference sensor with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using the marker of Pinheiro to establish a references point is reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further taches wherein the patient’s joint includes one or more Temporomandibular Joints (TMJs) (Fig. 10a, 13) [0040]-[0041], the first bone of the patient’s joint is a Mandible [0038]+[0043], the second bone affecting the patient’s joint is a Maxilla [0038]+[0047], and the characteristics of movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone [0038]+[0041]+[0050]+[0052].
Willers is silent regarding a Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship.
Pinheiro further teaches utilizing the disc and the relative positions to graph the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship (Pg. 131, Figures 5+6) (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of references to create more graphs and contours, as taught by Pinheiro, because this facilitates dentists in interpretation of movement of the mandible, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 132, Conclusion). One of ordinary skill would recognize that, as the Willers references represents the relationship between the movement of the mandible with the maxilla, the combination would represent the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches the step of presenting a User Interface (UI) (Fig. 11, 126) that shows the captured images and one or more selectable buttons [0060].
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches the step of utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) to monitor the characteristics of the movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone [0052] (deep learning is an artificial intelligence).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing device is further configured to create a homography matrix based on a current image plane with respect to a reference image plane.
Pinheiro further teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to create a homography matrix (Pg. 127-128, 2.3.1 Camera calibration) based on a current image plane (xn) with respect to a reference image plane (x’n) (Pg. 127-128, 2.3.1 Camera calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to calculate a homography matrix, as taught by Pinheiro, because this allows the system to compensate image distortion and more accurately track the markers, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 129, 2.3.3 Reconstruction and filtering).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers frails to explicitly the step of utilizing the characteristics of the movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone to create one or more graphs and contours..
Pinheiro further teaches utilizing the characteristics of the movements and positioning of the first bone with respect to the second bone to create one or more graphs and contours (Pg. 131, Figures 5+6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of references to create more graphs and contours, as taught by Pinheiro, because this facilitates dentists in interpretation of movement of the mandible, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 132, Conclusion).
Claims 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Davydov and Pinheiro as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ito (U.S PGPub 2013/0151208 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination is silent regarding wherein the processing device is further configured to use characteristics of the Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship in the design of dental prosthetics for the patient and in diagnosis and treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD).
Ito teaches a system for characterizing the mandibular/maxillary relationship (Abstract). This system use characteristics of the Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship in the design of dental prosthetics for the patient [0032] and in diagnosis and treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) [0043]+[0137].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to design prostheses and help with diagnosis and treatment, as taught by Ito, because this aids the system in planning treatment plans, thereby increasing the quality of care, as recognized by Ito [0004]+[0014].
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches creating a baseline image including the facial landmark points [0048]+[0051].
The combination is silent regarding using characteristics of the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship in the design of dental prosthetics for the patient and in diagnosis and treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD).
Ito teaches a system for characterizing the mandibular/maxillary relationship (Abstract). This system use characteristics of the Temporomandibulomaxillary relationship in the design of dental prosthetics for the patient [0032] and in diagnosis and treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders (TMD) [0043]+[0137].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to design prostheses and help with diagnosis and treatment, as taught by Ito, because this aids the system in planning treatment plans, thereby increasing the quality of care, as recognized by Ito [0004]+[0014].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Davydov and Pinheiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharer (U.S PGPub 2019/0083219 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the reference object is a color-coded spherical object.
Pinheiro further teaches the references object is a spherical object (Pg. 127, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to substitute the sensor of Davydow with the sensor of Pinheiro, as the substitution for one known reference sensor with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using the marker of Pinheiro to establish a references point is reasonably predictable.
The combination fail to explicitly teach the reference object is color coded.
Sharer teaches a method for scanning the face (Abstract). This system uses a color coded fiducial as a reference object [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system so the reference object is color coded, as taught by Sharer, because this allows the position and movement of the object to be more clearly defined in the image, even if there are minor deficiencies, as recognized by Sharer [0096].
Claims 10, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Davydov and Pinheiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shriner et al. (U.S PGPub 2024/0293075 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach one or more of a vibration sensor and an audible capture device for detecting one or more of vibration, sound, and voice at the patient’s joint related to movement of the first bone with respect to the second bone to further characterize the patient’s joint.
Shriner teaches an ear-wearable system for monitoring dental health (Abstract). This system contains one or more of a vibration sensor and an audible capture device [0073] for detecting one or more of vibration, sound, and voice at the patient’s joint [0085] (sound signals are captured by microphone) related to movement of the first bone with respect to the second bone to further characterize the patient’s joint [0092]-[0093]+[0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use a sensor for characterizing the joint, as taught by Shriner, because this allows the system to address potential issues earlier, thereby improving outcomes and reducing cost, as recognized by Shriner [0005].
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly further comprising the step of detecting audible signals at the patient’s joint related to movement of the first bone with respect to the second bone to further characterize the patient’s joint.
Shriner teaches an ear-wearable system for monitoring dental health (Abstract). This system contains one or more of a vibration sensor and an audible capture device [0073] detecting audible signals at the patient’s joint [0085] (sound signals are captured by microphone) related to movement of the first bone with respect to the second bone to further characterize the patient’s joint [0092]-[0093]+[0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use a sensor for characterizing the joint, as taught by Shriner, because this allows the system to address potential issues earlier, thereby improving outcomes and reducing cost, as recognized by Shriner [0005].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the audible capture device captures audio recordings of the patient in relation to the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship for baseline reference.
Shriner further teaches wherein the audible capture device captures audio recordings of the patient in relation to the temporomandibulomaxillary relationship for baseline reference [0074]+[0118] (the signals from before the procedures are the baseline reference recordings for the relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use a sensor for characterizing the joint, as taught by Shriner, because this allows the system to address potential issues earlier, thereby improving outcomes and reducing cost, as recognized by Shriner [0005].
Claims 22, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Karlsson (Karlsson, Stig. "Recording of mandibular movements by intraorally placed light emitting diodes." Acta odontologica scandinavica 35.1-3 (1977): 111-117.).
Regarding Claim 22, Willers teaches an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
at least two cameras arranged to capture images of a head of a patient [0059] (multiple cameras); and
a processing device [0060] configured to: receive the captured images from at least two cameras [0047], detect facial landmarks from the captured images [0051], and determine movements and positioning of at least one point of the head of the patient based on the detected facial landmarks [0038]+[0041]+[0050]+[0052].
Willers is silent regarding a first camera of the at least two cameras arranged toward a front of the head of the patient and a second camera of the at least two cameras toward a side of the head of the patient.
Karlsson teaches a method for tracking mandibular movement (Abstract). This system uses a first camera arranged toward a front of the patient’s head and a second camera arranged toward the side of the patient’s head (Pg. 112, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the camera configuration of Willers with cameras arranged to the front and side of the patient, as taught by Karlsson, as the substitution for one known camera configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of the cameras arranged to the front and side are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches wherein the movements and positioning of a first portion of the patient relative to a second portion of the patient include flexion (Fig. 9, M4) and extension (Fig. 10b, M3) [0050].
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second cameras are arranged orthogonally to each other.
Karlsson teaches a method for tracking mandibular movement (Abstract). This system uses a first camera arranged orthogonally (Pg. 112, Fig. 1) (Pg. 112, Col 2, ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the camera configuration of Willers with cameras arranged orthogonally, as taught by Karlsson, as the substitution for one known camera configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of the cameras arranged orthogonally are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers further teaches wherein the processing device determines the movements and positioning of the patient using an artificial intelligence (AI) function based on the detected landmarks [0051]-[0052].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Karlsson as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Pinheiro.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing device is further configured to create a homography matrix based on a current image plane with respect to a reference image plane.
Pinheiro further teaches wherein the processing device is further configured to create a homography matrix (Pg. 127-128, 2.3.1 Camera calibration) based on a current image plane (xn) with respect to a reference image plane (x’n) (Pg. 127-128, 2.3.1 Camera calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to calculate a homography matrix, as taught by Pinheiro, because this allows the system to compensate image distortion and more accurately track the markers, as recognized by Pinheiro (Pg. 129, 2.3.3 Reconstruction and filtering).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Karlsson as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Davydov et al (U.S PGPub 2013/0051523 A1) (Davydov’523).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach an X-ray sensor diode coupled to the processing device so that when X-ray energy is landing at the X-ray sensor diode an electrical signal is transmitted to the processing device to record the patient’s positioning degrees during X-rays taken at a particular patient’s spatial positioning in space.
Davydov’523 teaches an x-ray system (Abstract). This system has an X-ray sensor diode [0006] coupled to the processing device so that when X-ray energy is landing at the X-ray sensor diode an electrical signal is transmitted to the processing device to record the patient’s positioning degrees during X-rays taken at a particular patient’s spatial positioning in space [0022]+[0028]-[0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include an x-ray sensor diode, as taught by Davydov’523, because this reduces 3D distortions during the acquisition of X-ray images, thereby improving the quality of the image, as recognized by Davydo’523 [0020].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willer in view of Karlsson as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Prodoehl et al. (Prodoehl, Janey, et al. "Effect of starting posture on three-dimensional jaw and head movement." Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 13.1 (2022): e4.).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing device determines the movements and positioning of at least a cervicocranium and/or neck of the patient.
Prodoehl teaches determining the relationship between body position and jaw movement (Abstract). This system tracks the neck movement (representative of the head flexion/extension) (Pg. 3, Table 1) (Pg. 6, Fig. 3) (Pg. 3, Col 1, ¶2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to track the neck position/movements, as taught by Prodoehl, because this provides a more complete understanding of the jaw movement, and aids in the diagnosis of TMD, as recognized by Prodoehl (Abstract) (Pg. 8, Conclusion).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Karlsson as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Arnett et al. (U.S PGPub 2012/0010533 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the detected facial landmarks include at least a tip of the patient’s nose and the processing device generates a horizontal line to an ear of the patient, where the horizontal line is used to determine a zero pitch of the head of the patient.
Arnett teaches a method for determining head references planes (Abstract). This system recognizes that the tip of the patient’s nose is a key landmark [0049]+[0054]. This system recognizes that the transverse plane is one of the planes which define the natural head position (which indicates zero roll, pitch, yaw) [0027]+[0029]. This system will draw a horizontal line from the facial landmarks to define the transverse plane [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to drawn a horizontal line from the nasal tip, as taught by Arnett, because this allows the physician to more accurately measure the features for facial analysis, as recognized by Arnett [0002]. While Arnett is silent regarding the horizontal lines going to the ear, one of ordinary skill would recognize that, if a horizontal line is drawn from the nasal tip parallel to the ground, it would intersect with the ear (as illustrated in at least Fig. 3).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Karlsson as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sauer et al. (U.S PGPub 2005/0180544 A1).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach an energy emission device, wherein the processing device is further configured to selectively activate the energy emission device when a position of the head of the patient matches a predetermined position.
Sauer teaches a radiotherapy system (Abstract). This system had an energy emission device (Fig. 1, 105) [0031], wherein the processing device is further configured to selectively activate the energy emission device when a position of the head of the patient matches a predetermined position [0044]-[0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to gate radiation treatment, as taught by Sauer, because this reduces radiation exposure to the patient, thereby increasing the safety of the procedure, as recognized by Sauer [0014]. One of ordinary skill would recognize that, in the combination, the portion of the patient which is tracked by Sauer would be the head, as taught by Willers.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Willers fails to explicitly teach wherein the energy emission device is an ionizing high energy generating device.
Sauer further teaches wherein the energy emission device is an ionizing high energy generating device [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to gate radiation treatment, as taught by Sauer, because this reduces radiation exposure to the patient, thereby increasing the safety of the procedure, as recognized by Sauer [0014].
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willers in view of Davydov’523.
Regarding Claim 32, Willers teaches an apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
at least one camera arranged to capture images of a head of a patient [0059]; and
a processing device [0060] configured to: receive the captured images from the at least one camera [0047], detect facial landmarks from the captured images [0051], and determine movements and positioning of at least one point of the head of the patient based on the detected facial landmarks [0038]+[0041]+[0050]+[0052].
Willers is silent regarding an X-ray sensor diode coupled to the processing device so that when X-ray energy is landing at the X-ray sensor diode an electrical signal is transmitted to the processing device to record the patient’s positioning degrees during X-rays taken at a particular patient’s spatial positioning in space.
Davydov’523 teaches an x-ray system (Abstract). This system has an X-ray sensor diode [0006] coupled to the processing device so that when X-ray energy is landing at the X-ray sensor diode an electrical signal is transmitted to the processing device to record the patient’s positioning degrees during X-rays taken at a particular patient’s spatial positioning in space [0022]+[0028]-[0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include an x-ray sensor diode, as taught by Davydov’523, because this reduces 3D distortions during the acquisition of X-ray images, thereby improving the quality of the image, as recognized by Davydo’523 [0020].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daon (U.S PGPub 2015/0182296 A1), which teaches a method of tracking markers in a 3D space.
Furtado et al. (Furtado, Daniel Antônio, et al. "A specialized motion capture system for real-time analysis of mandibular movements using infrared cameras." Biomedical engineering online 12.1 (2013): 17.) which teaches a method for analyzing the TMJ.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights