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 .
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 9, 11, 13-20, and 28-37 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 9 recites an arrangement of a plurality of features comprising a protrusion, depression or through hole, but then adds a limitation after that which further specifies that at least one feature comprises a through-hole with a width less than .5mm. This is vague/ indefinite because a through-hole was already listed as one possible feature, and therefore it is unclear why/ how there is a new limitation specifying a new through-hole. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret that such a clause is merely further limiting the type of through-hole already recited, by proving a width value. Claims 31 and 35 are rejected for similar reasons, and the dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Additionally, re the independent claims, it is unclear how the MLL is trained to receive images and identify the features. For example, there is already a algorithm (which is not detailed in the claim) for decoding features of the appliance so it is unclear how the machine learning system is trained to identify features if the algorithm is already decoding features and able to recognize features, what/ how is the MLL doing. The Examiner also suggests clarifying how the MLL is trained and what specific algorithm is being referred to.
The dependent claims are rejected at least based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
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(s) 9, 13-16, and 18-20, 28-29, 31-32, and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raslambekov et al. (US 11389273) in view of Yang et al. (US 20220309264).
Re claim 1, Raslambekov et al. teaches a dental appliance for a corresponding patient
(FIG.2A+) comprising:
A body (10) comprising a first surface (14) and a second surface (12) opposite to the first surface, the second surface defining a channel for receiving a plurality of teeth of the corresponding patient (FIG. 2B+); and
an arrangement of a plurality of features (36) disposed on the first surface (14) of the body (col 9, lines 26-30 “In yet other embodiments (not shown), the object 36 is a three-dimensional protrusion extending from one or both of the inner surface 12 or the outer surface 14 of the aligner 10”), each of the plurality of features comprising (“the object 36 may include both embossed and protruded portions”):
a protrusion extending from the first surface opposite to the second surface;
a depression extending partially from the first surface towards the second surface; or
a through-hole extending from the first surface to the second surface;
wherein the arrangement of the plurality of features encodes a feature data representative of a dental appliance information of the at least one dental appliance or a patient information of the corresponding patient (col 8, lines 57-64 “the object 36 is a marking for depicting various information such as one or more of: the treatment stage for which the aligner 10 is intended, an identity of the patient for whom the aligned 10 is intended, an identity of the clinician or his/ her clinic, a date, etc. The object 36 may comprise a number, letter, an alphanumeric string, one or more symbols, a pattern, a machine-readable code, and the like”). The Examiner notes that the placement or orientation/ direction of the marking is a matter of system constraints/ design variation based on the size/ shape/ intended visibility, etc.
Re the limitations of:
an imaging device; and
a processor communicably coupled to the imaging device;
a memory communicably coupled to the processor, the memory storing an algorithm for decoding the arrangement of the plurality of features of the at least one dental appliance, wherein the processor is configured to:
control the imaging device to capture one or more images of the at least one dental appliance;
receive the one or more images of the at least one dental appliance from the imaging device;
decode the identified arrangement of the plurality of features using the decoding data to determine the feature data encoded by the arrangement of the plurality of features (as discussed above, given the use of machine readable codes, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the recited imaging, identifying, and decoding the features are well known and conventional steps in order to read the encoded data, using known means (imagine device/ processor/ memory/ software or algorithm) to produce expected results of encoded data reading, motivated by achieving the benefits of optical data storage and retrieval).
Raslambekov et al. is silent to wherein the processor is also configured to execute a machine learning model that is trained to receive the one or more images of the at least one dental appliance from the imaging device and identify the arrangement of the plurality of features of the at least one dental appliance based on the one or more images.
Yang et al. teaches such limitations (paragraph [0026]+ and [0036]+ wherein images of barcodes have a barcode classifier module applied thereto as a machine learning module to generate binary sequence representations that are subsequently decoded by the decoder.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for the benefits of machine learning for identifying attributes/ features (machine readable elements) to be subsequently be able to be successfully decoded from images.
Re the newly added limitation that the through-hole has a width less than .5mm, the Examiner has interpreted that this limitation on the through hole diameter is optional since the arrangement previously only requires a protrusion, depression, or through-hole. The Examiner relied on the prior art teachings for one of the protrusions or depression, and therefore through-hole limitations are optional.
Re claim 13, the Examiner has interpreted the machine learning model is decoding using decoding data, interpreted as an algorithm/ software (or any data related to decoding) to determine feature data, as is consistent with machine learning, as discussed above. .
Re claims 14-16, FIG. 3A+ and 5+ teaches various surface features, and limitations of a specific type of feature/ shape would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date, to one of ordinary skill int eh art, to convey the desired information.
Re claims 18-20, the limitations are taught in FIG. 3A+ and col 8, lines 54-62.
Re claim 28, the through-holes have been discussed above re claim 9.
Re claim 29, the limitations of the hole have been addressed above.
Re claim 31, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 9.
Re claim 32, Yang et al. teaches a neural network, and a CNN is an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the art for a well-known efficient type of neural network.
Re claim 34, though silent to clear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to have clear aligners for aesthetics, as is known in the art of plastic/ polymer dentil aligners.
Re claim 35, the limitations have been discussed above re claim 1.
Re claim 36, the limtaitons have been discussed above re claim 9, wherein the hole is optional not required.
Re claim 37, the prior art (FIG. 3A) of Raslambekov et al. shoes teeth regions (2 teeth). The size and orientation of where to place on teeth/ surfaces is an obvious expedient based on looks, aesthetics, readability, etc., and thus is a design variation for expected results.
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raslambekov et al./ Yang et al., as discussed above, in view of Kuo (US 2005/0003319).
Re claim 11, the teachings of Raslambekov et al./ Yang et al. have been discussed above but are silent to grouping according to feature data.
Kuo teaches a reader 102 to read element 100 on the appliance 10. Further, Kuo teaches (FIG. 11) grouping appliances in a packaging using the information.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings.
One would have been motivated to do this in order to assist in organizing data efficiently using encoded codes.
Re claim 17, Raslambekov et al./ Yang et al. has been discussed above but is silent to one or more images in a single projection plane.
Kuo teaches such limitations (FIG. 9).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for imaging preferences for identification purposes.
Claim(s) 30 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raslambekov et al./ Yang et al., as discussed above, in view of Salah et al. (US 20220222910).
The teachings of Raslambekov et al./ Yang et al. are taught above but are silent to the counter determining and comparing to determine information as recited.
In analogous art, Salah et teaches machine learning and also teaches determining contours of aligners (paragraph [0030]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to compare images for contour determination for compliance/ acceptance. Though silent to explicitly reciting determining identification information based on the comparison, the Examiner notes that the result of the comparison can be interpreted as identification information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are not persuasive due to the new art above. The Examiner also notes that claims drawn to image analysis could be subject to a 101 rejection and suggests any potential amendments take that into consideration.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights