DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 12/01/2025 has been entered.
3. Currently claims 1, 9, 16 and 18 have been amended; claims. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 9, 16 and 18 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
[associate an object with a picture], i.e., associate a physical model of a dental arch with an accurate three-dimensional (3D) representation;
[present] the accurate 3D representation;
[present] one or more graphical indicators indicating a scan segment of an acceptable or optimal trajectory of a wand, wherein the acceptable or optimal trajectory is calculated before scanning based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand (and the intended purpose is, “to acquire a sufficient number of images at different perspectives of the physical model to construct a 3D digital model of the physical model”);
receive images [representing] a training scan of physical model;
(per each of claims 1, 9 and 16: determine trajectory of the wand based on the training scan, wherein the trajectory is calculated based on the spatial position, the velocity and the sampling frequency of the wand;)
(per claim 18: [present] one or more graphical indicators indicating at least a portion of the trajectory;)
[present] one or more graphical indicators indicating the spatial position and orientation the orientation of the wand; and
(per each of claims 1, 9 and 16: [present] information regarding an accuracy and an efficiency of the training scan based on a departure of the trajectory of the training scan from the acceptable or optimal trajectory).
(per claim 9: determining the trajectory includes determining a position and orientation of the wand by calculating translations and rotations of the images that place the images in positions corresponding to matching plane projections of the accurate 3D representation of the physical model).
(per claim 18: compare [the] 3D model from the training scan to the accurate 3D representation; and [present] information regarding an accuracy of the training scan based on the comparison).
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, such as teaching. In particular, a user is presented with training regarding how to properly scan a physical model of a dental arch; wherein the user is presented with an accurate three-dimensional image of the above model, including one or more graphics on the image that indicate a scan segment of an acceptable trajectory of a wand; and wherein, as the user is scanning the model, graphical indicator(s) that indicate the portion being scanned is displayed to the user, including information regarding the accuracy and efficiency of the user’s scan (e.g., based on comparing the user’s scan with an acceptable scan), etc.
It is worth to note that the specification also substantiates the finding above (see [0005], emphasis added),
“The current document is directed to methods and systems that provide semiautomated and automated training to technicians who use oral-cavity-imaging-and-modeling systems to efficiently and accurately generate three-dimensional models of patients' teeth and underlying tissues”
In addition, given the limitations that recite the process of an evaluation, an observation, and/or judgment—such as: the acceptable/optimal trajectory being calculated based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand; determining the trajectory of the wand based on the training scan, the trajectory is calculated based on the spatial position, the orientation, the velocity and the sampling frequency of the wand; information regarding an accuracy and an efficiency of the training scan based on a departure of a scan the real-time trajectory of the training scan from the acceptable or optimal trajectory, etc., the current claims also correspond to the group mental processes.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claim(s) recite additional element(s), wherein a computer (e.g., a computer comprising a processor, a display, etc.), an input device in the form of a wand with a camera, and a physical model of a dental arch, etc., are utilized to facilitate the recited functions or steps regarding: associating the physical model with a 3D digital representation (“associating a physical model of a dental arch to be scanned by a trainee with an accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model”); displaying one or more images via a user interface (“displaying a training user interface including the accurate 3D digital representation of the physical model of the dental arch; displaying, in the training user interface, one or more graphical indicators indicating a scan segment of an acceptable or optimal trajectory of a wand . . . the acceptable or optimal trajectory is calculated before scanning based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand in order to acquire a sufficient number of images at deferent perspectives of the physical model to construct a 3D digital model of the physical model”); receiving input from a user via an input device (“receiving images from the wand that is illuminating one or more surfaces of the physical model wherein the wand receives reflected light as the wand is moved over the physical model to take a training scan of the physical model”); analyzing the received input using one or more algorithms (“determining a real-time trajectory of the wand based on the training scan of the physical model, wherein the real-time trajectory is calculated based on the spatial position, the orientation, the velocity and the sampling frequency of the wand as the wand is moved over the physical model while sequentially collecting the images over a period of time ”; claim 9 further includes, “determining the real-time trajectory includes determining a position a position and orientation of the wand during the training scan by calculating translations and rotations of the images that place the images in position corresponding to matching plane projections of the accurate 3D digital representation of the physical model”); generating one or more results based on the analysis (“displaying, in the training user interface during the training scan, one or more graphical indicators indicating the spatial position and orientation of the wand in real time as the wand is moved over the physical model”, per claims 1, 9 and 16; “displaying, in the training user interface during the training scan, one or more graphical indicators indicating at least a portion of the real-time trajectory in real time as the wand is moved over the physical model”, per claim 18; and “displaying, within the training user interface, information regarding an accuracy and an efficiency of the training scan based on a departure of the real-time trajectory of the training scan from the acceptable or optimal trajectory”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
In addition, the utilization of the conventional computer technology to facilitate the presentation of pertinent information to a user, such as evaluating the correctness of a task(s)—e.g., scanning a physical model—that the user is performing using one or more input devices (e.g. a scanner or a wand, etc.), including presenting the user with one or more audio and/or visual information (e.g., information relating to the accuracy of the task, etc.) based on the analysis of the inputs received from the user, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (e.g. see US 2006/0115793; US 2002/0015934, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth to note that the analysis above already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-8,10-15, 17, 19 and 20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea. Accordingly, none of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (i.e., the arguments filed on 12/01/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while referring to part of the Office’s previous analysis, Applicant asserts that “the methods and apparatuses described in the instant application are directed to improved, automated and semi-automated training methods. These methods and systems improve upon the current, trial-and-error (and predominantly manual) methods for training users on the use of an intraoral scanner. Existing methods and apparatuses, such as those described . . . US 2006/0115793, describe providing feedback to the user during scanning, but not pre-calculate an acceptable or optimal trajectory or present this trajectory, and in particular do not calculate this optimal trajectory before scanning based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand that the inventors have determined are important to provide a sufficient number of images at different perspectives for constructing of an accurate 3D model . . . [the] claims solve the technical problem of providing accurate and timely feedback to a user who is training to use a dental scanner while the user is scanning a physical model . . . the methods and apparatuses first estimate and display a pre-calculated acceptable or optimal trajectory of the intraoral scanner wand, based on specifically recited features (e.g., the combination of the spatial position, orientation, velocity and sampling frequency) which can
be used to estimate, in real-time that the trajectory will provide sufficient images to accurately represent the 3D surface. Further, the methods and apparatuses estimate and display the real-time trajectory of the wand and indicate (also in real time) information about the accuracy and efficiency of the training scan” (emphasize added).
However, Applicant appears to confuse the novelty (and/or the non-obviousness) analysis with the eligibility analysis. In particular, while relying on the abstract idea (e.g., the alleged calculation assumed to be performed before the scanning, including the variables or parameters used for the calculation, etc.), Applicant is attempting to support the alleged technological improvement that the current claimed system/method is supposedly providing. However, unlike Applicant’s assertion, the claimed abstract idea does not necessarily demonstrate a technological improvement, regardless of whether it distinguishes the claims from the prior art. This is because the claimed system/method is still utilizing the existing computer technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate a new abstract idea. Also see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a §101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.") (emphasis added).
In addition, Applicant also appears to fail to notice the fundamental fact regarding the so-called “acceptable or optimal trajectory”. In particular, the claimed/disclosed acceptable/optimal trajectory itself is generated based on a scanning operation, wherein one or more acceptable/optimal trajectories are calculated based on collecting various parameters regarding the wand that is used during the scanning process, “[i]n general, multiple scans may be needed to generate an accurate three-dimensional model, each scan having a distinct trajectory”, see [0029] of the specification, emphasis added). Thus, the limitation, which Applicant is currently emphasizing, “the acceptable or optimal trajectory is calculated before scanning based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand in order to acquire a sufficient number of images at different perspectives of the physical model to construct a 3D digital model of the physical model” (emphasis added), is merely describing an initial scanning operation (e.g. an initial scanning operation by an expert user), which is performed before the trainee starts his/her scanning procedure. Accordingly, the various parameters of the wand (i.e., the spatial position, the orientation, the velocity, and the sampling frequency), which are collected during the above initial scanning operation, are utilized to construct the accurate 3D digital representation of the physical model. Accordingly, the so-called “acceptable or optimal trajectory” is essentially a prestored data that the computer uses to display the graphical indicators, which indicate to the trainee the correct path that the trainee is required to follow during the scanning procedure.
Accordingly, except for the new abstract idea (see prong-one of Step 2A), the claimed system/method is still utilizing the existing technology. Although no reference is required—per prong-two of Step 2A—to demonstrate the existing technology, one or more of the references, which are cited as part of the analysis under Step 2B, already supports the above fact. For instance, as already discussed in the last office-action, Kopelman (US 2006/0115793) stores accurate 3D representations of various dental features ([0100]; [0102]). This indicates that Kopelman already stores precalculated scanner/wand parameters (e.g., spatial position, angular position, etc.) that represent an accurate/acceptable scanning operation. Accordingly, as the user is performing a given scanning operation—such as, scanning a target zone T in the oral cavity, Kopelman’s system determines—based on analyzing the user’s scanned data—whether the user is missing one or more parts of the target zone (see [0165]). Of course, once the system has determined one or more discrepancies regarding the user’s scanning process, the system provides the user with relevant feedback in real-time (e.g., see [00168], emphasis added),
“. . . feedback data is generated to alert the user as to how to correct for the insufficiency of definition. For example, in the case where some surface areas of the entity are missing, the processor 52 first identifies the missing areas for the user, and then may compute the best angle and position for the scanner 31 to scan the intraoral cavity such as to provide the missing surface data. This information may be provided by display 54, for example by providing a graphical image of the entity, with the deficient areas marked hereon, and then arrows or markers with respect thereto showing the desired position of the scanner 31. Of course, it may be that more than one scan is required to make up for the missing data, and the processor provides the required feedback data to deal with each scan”
The fact above demonstrates that the existing system not only stores an accurate model representing a dental feature(s), which is determined by (i) acquiring sufficient number of images of the physical feature at different perspectives and (ii) analyzing various parameters of the scanner/wand during the scanning operation (e.g., spatial position, angle, speed/velocity, etc.), but also utilizes the stored accurate model above to provide one or more helpful visual guidance to the user in real-time based on monitoring the user’s current scanning operation, etc.
Accordingly, Applicant’s attempt to substantiate the alleged technological improvement, while relying on the new abstract idea, is once again not persuasive. So far, except for describing the various steps, which the claimed system/method is performing in order to facilitate the training it provides to the user, Applicant fails to identify an element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that provides a technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant is also attempting to show the alleged eligibility of the current claims while referring to the lack of art rejection. Applicant asserts, “the combination of ‘existing’ functions is novel and nonobvious, as evidenced by the lack of any such objection in the final Office Action itself. The arrangement of features and steps recited in the claims, as well as a system specifically configured to perform them, is both novel and nonobvious and represents a technical solution not previously suggested. As in DDR (and the similar McRO . . . the claims in this case are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather, a technological improvement that solves a specific technological problem” (emphasis added).
However, once again similar to the fundamental point made in the previous office-action, the lack of prior art per section §102 and/or section §103 does not dictate the eligibility of the claims per section §101. This is because the alleged novelty, and/or the alleged non-obviousness, of the current claims is due to the new abstract idea that the claims are reciting. In contrast, the eligibility of the claims—per section §101—is determined based on the technology—but not the abstract idea—that the claims are implementing, regardless of whether the abstract idea being claimed is a new one or an old one. In particular, while considering the claim as a whole, one determines whether the claim (i) recites additional elements that integrate the new abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application (per prong-two of Step 2A), or (ii) is directed to the non-generic and non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements (Step 2B). Note also that both of the above inquires evaluate a technological improvement (if any) that the claimed system/method is providing in order to determine whether claim is eligible per section §101 (see MPEP 2106.05(a), emphasis added),
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis.
So far, except for alleging a technological improvement, Applicant still fails to point out an element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that supposedly provides the alleged technological improvement. Of course, Applicant also fails to substantiate what is being implied regarding the novel and nonobvious “existing” functions. It is unclear whether Applicant is asserting that the exiting functions (e.g., the process of: storing and/or retrieving data from a memory; collecting parameters related to an input device during use; analyzing/comparing the collected parameters to stored data; generating pertinent results/information based on the analysis, etc.) are considered to be novel and nonobvious.
Nevertheless, as already indicated above, the alleged novelty of the current claims (and/or the alleged non-obviousness of the claims) is merely due to the new abstract idea that the claims are reciting. In particular, while relying merely on the existing computer technology, the claimed system/method is facilitating the new abstract idea. The above confirms that Applicant’s claimed system/method, unlike the case of DDR and McRO, does not provide any technological improvement, much less one that solves a specific technological problem.
In addition, while relying on the claimed computer elements, Applicant is attempting to challenge the Office’s findings presented under prong-one of Step 2A. Applicant asserts, “. . . (Step 2A, Prong One) . . . [t]he Examiner's characterization oversimplifies the technical nature of the invention. The claims recite specific computer-implemented steps that cannot be performed mentally, including: calculating an acceptable or optimal trajectory based on spatial position, orientation, velocity, and sampling frequency, and displaying this acceptable or optimal trajectory; determining real time trajectory using spatial position, orientation, velocity, and sampling frequency (and in some cases by calculating translations and rotations of images to match plane projections of an accurate 3D representation, e.g., claim 9), and displaying, in real-time, both the spatial position and orientation of the wand, as well as information about the accuracy and an efficiency of the training scan based on a departure of the real-time trajectory of the training scan from the acceptable or optimal trajectory” (emphasis added).
However, similar to the point made in the previous office-action, prong-one of Step 2A does not consider any of the claimed computer elements that the claims are reciting; rather, while excluding the computer elements, prong-one of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim is reciting any judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea).
In contrast, if one considers Applicant’s theory, such as emphasizing the computer elements in order to negate the finding regarding a mental process, one may incorrectly conclude that any claim that utilizes a computer device to facilitate an abstract idea is patent-eligible. For instance, the claim that the court has considered regarding Electric Power Group recites, at least in part, the following limitations (emphasis added),
12. A method of detecting events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid . . . receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements . . . detecting and analyzing events in real-time from
the plurality of data streams . . . measurements from the data streams including at least one of frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes . . .
Accordingly, if one applies Applicant’s theory to claim 12 above, one may be tempted to conclude that the claim above is not a mental process. In particular, one may be tempted to argue that that the claimed process of detecting and automatically analyzing events on an electric power grid in real-time, including: (a) receiving multiple data streams that include synchronized phasor measurements that are collected in real-time; (b) detecting and analyzing limits, sensitiveness or rate of changes of at least one of frequency instability, voltages, phase angles, etc., are computer implemented functions/steps that cannot be performed in the human mind (and/or using a pen and paper).
In contrast, despite the limitations above, the court has concluded that the claim is reciting an abstract idea; namely, a mental process. This is because the claim is using the existing technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, collecting information, analyzing the information, and displaying certain results. Similarly, Applicant’s current claims (e.g., see current claim 1) are also using the existing computer technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate an abstract idea; such as, providing training content (textual and/or pictorial data) to the user, based on the analysis of parameters collected regarding the user’s activity (i.e., movement parameters collected regarding a wand that the user is manipulating, etc.), including generating one or more performance results (e.g. results regarding the accuracy and/or efficiency of the user’s performance), etc.
Accordingly, Applicant’s attempt to challenge the Office’s findings regarding the abstract idea, while emphasizing one or more computer elements—such as, the alleged “specialized algorithms” for spatial computation and image processes, etc., is once again not persuasive. Note also that none of the current claims is analogous to McRO. In particular, unlike the current claims, McRO implements specific rules that provide computer-related technological improvement; also see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea). In contrast, the current claims are merely utilizing the existing computer technology to train the user about a task; namely, a scanning procedure. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are once again not persuasive.
Thirdly, while referring to prong-two of Step 2A and Step 2B, Applicant is asserting that “[c]laims integrate an abstract idea into a practical application . . . Solve a technical problem of ensuring accurate and efficient scanning of complex dental geometries by inexperienced users in real time, and provide real-time trajectory visualization and quantitative feedback based on spatial computations both before and during scanning in a new and very useful manner. The invention addresses a problem rooted in dental imaging technology, not a generic business or training concept . . . The inventive concept here lies in: associating a physical model with an accurate 3D representation; pre-computing acceptable or optimal trajectories using specific dynamic parameters; real-time determination of actual wand trajectory; and displaying real-time indicators and quantitative metrics of accuracy and efficiency” (emphasis added).
However, providing the user with real-time trajectory visualization and quantitative feedback, based on spatial computations both before and during scanning, has absolutely nothing to do with providing a technological improvement. The above may be useful to improve the skill level of the user; however, improving the skill level of the user does not constitute a computer-related technological improvement. Applicant appears to confuse the skill improvement, which the user arguably achieves as the result of the training, for a computer-related technological improvement. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Moreover, the use of a scanner to scan a physical object, including generating a 3D digital representation of the physical object based on the analysis of movement parameters collected regarding the scanner, is already part of the existing computer technology (e.g., see US 2006/0115793; also see US 2002/0015934, etc.). Thus, Applicant’s claimed (and disclosed) system/method certainly does not address any technological problem rooted in dental imaging technology. Instead, it only attempts to address a skill problem/deficiency that a user may have regarding a scanning procedure. Accordingly, the system may be beneficial to the user if the user lacks the skills needed to properly perform a scanning procedure. Of course, if the user is an expert user who is well familiar with the proper scanning techniques, then one may even question the benefit that the system provides to the user, let alone the technological improvement that Applicant is alleging.
The observations above once again confirm the lack of technological improvement regarding the current claims.
In addition, Applicant also appears to be mistaking the mathematical calculations, which the system is performing during the presentation and the conclusion of the training materials, as an incentive concept. In contrast, an inventive concept (if any) is demonstrated if the claim—when considered as a whole—is directed to a non-generic and non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements. In the instant case, neither the claimed system/method nor the disclosed system/method is directed to a non-generic and non-conventional arrangement of the additional elements. Instead, the claimed and the disclosed implementation is directed to a generic and conventional arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the system utilizes a sensor in the form of a wand/scanner, which communicates with a base computer; and accordingly, while presenting the user with a training material in the form of one or more images, the system evaluates the user’s performance based on collected parameters regarding the wand that the user is manipulating (e.g., comparing the user’s scanning trajectory to an optimal trajectory, wherein the optimal trajectory, besides being associated with an accurate 3D digital representation, it also signifies specific movement parameters related to the wand, etc.); and furthermore, based on the evaluation above, the system presents the user with one or more results (e.g., one or more results indicating the accuracy, and/or the efficiency of the user’s performance).
Thus, once again, such utilization of the existing/conventional computer technology, merely as a tool, to facilitate an abstract idea does not constitute an inventive concept. Note also that the lack of technological improvement (i.e., the finding per prong-two of Step 2A) also confirms the lack of technological improvement (e.g., see see MPEP 2106.05(a), cited above).
Thus, it is immaterial whether Applicant assumes that “Prior art systems . . . do not pre-compute and display acceptable or optimal trajectories, and then compare these acceptable or optimal trajectories to actual trajectories”, since the above is neither a technological improvement nor an inventive concept. In particular, Applicant appears to be once again confusing the novelty and/or obviousness analysis with the eligibility analysis.
The discussions presented above demonstrate that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implements an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Claim 1 recites “associating a physical model of a dental arch to be scanned by a trainee with an accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model . . . wherein the acceptable or optimal trajectory is calculated . . . based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand in order to acquire a sufficient number of images at different perspectives of the physical model to construct a 3D digital model of the physical model” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the “3D digital model of the physical model”, which is assumed to be constructed, per lines 11 and 12 of claim 1, is referring to the “accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model” (i.e., lines 3 to 4 of claim 1). Consequently, claims 1-8, 17 and 19 are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
(b) Each of claims 9 and 16 currently recites, “associating a physical model of a dental arch to be scanned by a trainee with an accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model . . . wherein the acceptable or optimal trajectory is calculated . . . based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand to acquire a sufficient number of images at different perspectives of the physical model for constructing an accurate 3D digital model of the physical model” (emphasis added).
Here also, it is unclear whether the “accurate 3D digital model of the physical model”, which is assumed to be constructed, per line 11 of each of claims 9 and 16, is referring to the “accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model” (i.e., lines 2 and 3 per each of claims 9 and 16). Consequently, claims 9-16 and 20 are ambiguous at least for the reason above.
(c) Claim 18 recites “associate a physical model of at least a portion of a dental arch to be scanned by a trainee with an accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model . . . wherein the acceptable or optimal trajectory is calculated . . . based on a combination of a spatial position, an orientation, a velocity and a sampling frequency of the wand in order to acquire a sufficient number of images at different perspectives of the physical model for constructing an accurate 3D digital model of the physical model” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear whether the “accurate 3D digital model of the physical model”, which is assumed to be constructed, per lines 19 and 20 of claim 18, is referring to the “accurate three-dimensional (3D) digital representation of the physical model” (i.e., lines 9 to 10 of claim 18). Consequently, claim 18 is ambiguous at least for the reason above.
Prior Art.
6. Considering each of claims 1, 9, 16 and 18 as a whole (including the respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action dated 07/18/2024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715