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 .
Applicant’s Response
Applicant’s response, filed 06/04/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims Status
Claims 2-3, 5, and 12 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 13-15 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, and 13-15 are examined.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objections to the Drawings is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The objection to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment submitted.
The objection to claims 4 and 13 is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
The rejection of claims 1, 6-11, 14, and 15 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Nikzad et al. is withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted.
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, 4, 6-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more. Any newly recited portion is necessitated by claim amendments.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims are directed to a method and an apparatus.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims are directed to abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mental processes recited in claims 1 and 11:
an operation of, during the implant placement simulation, setting a maxillary sinus simulation area based on the implant placed in the dental image, the maxillary sinus simulation area being set in a semispherical shape having, as a radius, a length from a reference point of the implant as a start point to a point at a predetermined distance from an upper end of the implant
an operation of setting an implant involved area based on a density value within the set maxillary sinus simulation area
setting an area having a density value less than a predetermined density value in the maxillary sinus simulation area as the implant involvement area
an operation of, during the implant placement simulation, determining whether maxillary sinus lifting is necessary based on whether the implant involvement area overlaps with the implant
Mathematical concepts recited in claims 1 and 11:
an operation of performing implant placement simulation in a dental image of a patient
calculating a density value of the set maxillary sinus simulation area
an operation of automatically performing maxillary sinus lifting simulation only in a case in which the maxillary sinus lifting is determined to be necessary
an operation of, in response to a change in an implant placement situation, changing the maxillary sinus lifting simulation information according to the changed implant placement situation
Dependent claims 4, 6-8, 10, 13, and 14 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1 and 11, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas. The relevant recitations are:
Claim 4: “in the operation of the setting of the maxillary sinus simulation area, in a case in which two implants are consecutively placed, in response to two maxillary sinus simulation areas at least partially overlapping with each other, end points of the two maxillary sinus simulation areas are connected to each other to set a single maxillary sinus simulation area”, “in the setting of the implant involvement area, a single implant involvement area that the two implants involve is set within the set single maxillary sinus simulation area”
Claim 6: “an operation of calculating […] a volume of the implant involvement”
Claim 7: “in response to a change in implant information, the information on the implant involvement area and the information on the amount of bone graft are changed to correspond to the changed implant information”
Claim 8: “in response to movement of the implant, the maxillary sinus simulation are is moved together with the implant, in response to a change in a length of the implant, the radius of the maxillary sinus simulation area is changed, and then the information on the implant involvement area and the information on the amount of bone graft are changed to correspond to the movement of the maxillary sinus simulation area or the change in the radius”
Claim 10: “not displaying the implant involvement area and the information on the predicted amount of bone graft in the dental image”
Claim 13: “in a case in which two implants are consecutively placed, in response to two maxillary sinus simulation areas at least partially overlapping with each other, the controller connects end points of the two maxillary sinus simulation areas to each other to set a single maxillary sinus simulation are and set a single implant involvement area that the two implants involve within the set single maxillary sinus simulation area”
Claim 14: “in response to a change in implant information, changes the implant involvement area and the volume thereof to correspond to the changed implant information”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than performing mathematical calculations to simulate a surgery and implant placement in order to determine the graft volume for a maxillary sinus lift.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
acquire a dental image of a patient
wherein the density value refers to a Hounsfield unit value
automatically displaying maxillary sinus lifting simulation information, which includes information on the implant involvement area and information on an amount of bone graft corresponding to the implant involvement area, in the dental image
automatically displaying the changed maxillary sinus lifting simulation information in the dental image
a data acquisition device
a controller
an output device
The element of the density value referring to a Hounsfield unit value limits the data gathered and is thus directed to a data gathering element. The step of acquiring a dental image generates the data on which judicial exceptions are performed and is thus directed to a data gathering step. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The steps of displaying are extra-solution activity that are ancillary to the judicial exceptions and thus do not integrate them into a practical application. The elements of a data acquisition device, controller, and output device are interpreted as elements of a generic computer due to the broad recitation of these elements. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, applying the judicial exceptions to a generic computer is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Dependent claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 recite further steps of displaying and are thus ancillary to the judicial exception. Dependent claim 10 also recites a step of data gathering by receiving user signals.
None of these dependent claims recite additional elements, alone or in combination, which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).I, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to claims 1 and 11: The additional elements of automatically displaying information, a data acquisition device, a controller, an output device, acquiring a dental image of a patient, and the density value referring to a Hounsfield Unit value do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). With respect to the density value referring to a Hounsfield Unit value, the prior art Whyte et al. (“The maxillary sinus: physiology, development and imaging anatomy, Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, published 2019) teaches that the unit measurement of calculating bone density is the Hounsfield unit which is standard on all CT systems (page 10, column 1, paragraph 3).With respect to acquiring a dental image, the prior art to Buyukkurt et al. (“Simulation of sinus floor augmentation with symphysis bone graft using three-dimensional computerized topography”, 2010, cited in prior Office Action) discloses that for a precise estimation of volume change, three-dimensional CT has recently become a highly used technique (page 789, column 1, paragraph 2). Furthermore, in view of Whyte et al., the density measurements would be measured in Hounsfield units as this is the standard. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 6: The additional element of an operation of displaying does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 7: The additional element of automatically displaying does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 8: The additional element of automatically displaying does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claims 9 and 15: The additional element of a setting screen for setting interfaces does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 10: The additional elements of receiving a manipulation signal and displaying do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 14: The additional element of displaying does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that “As amended, independent claims 1 and 11 are not directed merely to determining whether maxillary sinus lifting is necessary, calculating graft information, or displaying a result. Rather, amended claim 1 recites a specific computer-implemented dental image processing procedure. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites setting, in a dental image, a maxillary sinus simulation area based on an implant placed in the dental image. The maxillary sinus simulation area is not an arbitrary or mental concept; rather, it is specifically defined as a semispherical area having, as a radius, a length from a reference point of the implant as a start point to a point at a predetermined distance from an upper end of the implant. Amended claim 1 further recites calculating a density value of the set maxillary sinus simulation area, wherein the density value refers to a Hounsfield Unit value, and setting an area having a density value less than a predetermined density value as an implant involvement area. The claim then determines whether maxillary sinus lifting is necessary based on whether the implant involvement area overlaps with the implant. Thus, the amended claims are directed to a specific practical application in the field of computer-assisted dental image processing and implant planning. The claims define how a maxillary sinus simulation area is generated in a dental image, how an implant involvement area is derived using HU-based density information within that specific simulation area, and how the derived implant involvement area is used to determine whether maxillary sinus lifting is necessary. The claim invention therefore does not merely automate a mental process or perform generic mathematical calculation. Instead, it applies specific image processing operations to a dental image to generate and use a defined simulation area and a density-based implant involvement area for maxillary sinus lifting simulation. The claimed features are integrated into a practical application involving a dental image, implant placement simulation, HU-based density processing, determination of implant involvement, and automatic display or updating of simulation information.”
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. The maxillary sinus simulation area being not arbitrary and being specifically defined, does not negate that setting the simulation area is a mental process of selecting that area in the dental image. The further steps comprise more mental processes of setting the implant involvement area, determining whether maxillary sinus lifting is necessary, and performing calculations, etc. It is the additional elements of the claims that are analyzed to determine whether the claims are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)), thus the elements that applicant argues are improvements, cannot provide the improvements as they are part of the judicial exceptions. The improvement must be implemented or reflected by the additional elements of the claims. Although steps of displaying demonstrate the results of the judicial exceptions, they are merely ancillary and do not transform the judicial exceptions in a manner than integrate them into a practical application. The steps of displaying merely apply the judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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, 6-11, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikzad et al. (“Modified Flapless Dental Implant Surgery for Planning Treatment in a Maxilla Including Sinus Lift Augmentation Through Use of Virtual Surgical Planning and a 3-Dimensional Model”, 2010, cited in prior Office Action) in view of Kirmeier (“Reproducibility of volumetric measurements on maxillary sinuses”, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., published 2011). This is a new ground of rejection as necessitated by claim amendments.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Nikzad et al. teaches a maxillary sinus lifting simulation method comprising:
performing an implant placement simulation in an acquired dental image of a patient (Abstract, Materials and Methods; page 2292, column 1, paragraph 4);
setting a maxillary sinus simulation area based on an implant placed in the dental image (Figure 4), the maxillary sinus simulation area being set in a semispherical shape having, as a radius, a length from a reference point of the implant as a start point to a point at a predetermined distance from an upper end of the implant (Figure 4, reference character 2);
setting an implant involvement area (Figure 4);
during the implant placement simulation, determining whether maxillary sinus lifting is necessary due to maxillary sinus involvement by an implant (page 2292, column 1, paragraph 3; page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”; page 2293, column 2);
automatically performing maxillary sinus lifting simulation only in a case in which the maxillary sinus lifting is necessary and automatically displaying maxillary sinus lifting simulation information, which includes information on an area where maxillary sinus involvement occurs based on the implant and information on an amount of bone graft, in the dental image (page 2293, column 2); and
in response to a change in an implant placement situation, changing the maxillary sinus lifting simulation information according to the changed implant placement situation and automatically displaying the changed maxillary sinus lifting simulation information in the dental image: Nikzad et al. teaches a 3D CAD model that can be manipulated in a way that each part of the proposed anatomy is able to be cut and separated into multiple section in a way that separate parts can be moved, mirrored, or even merged together so that the entire anatomy can be analyzed separately or in any desired position/combination (page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”).
Furthermore, Nikzad et al. teaches computer-implemented implant simulation (as evidenced by the 3D CAD models recited on page 2292, column 2 and Figures 3 and 4), and thus inherently teaches a generic computer comprising a data acquisition device, controller, and output device.
Nikzad et al. does not teach the claim elements of calculating a density value of the set maxillary sinus simulation area; calculating a density value of the set maxillary sinus simulation area, wherein the density value refers to a Hounsfield Unit value, and setting an area having a density value less than a predetermined density value in the maxillary sinus simulation area as the implant involvement area, .
However, Kirmeier et al. teaches a measurement procedure using CT scans that can be strongly recommended to determine the volume of human maxillary sinuses, reliably (Abstract). Kirmeier et al. teaches volume determinations of human maxillary sinuses using semi-automated computer calculations by using a draw function to define a 3D region of interest of each sample, to trace the radiopaque liquid or the bony boundary of the maxillary sinuses on each consecutive axial CT slice displayed on the computer monitor (page 196, column 3). Kirmeier et al. teaches appropriate density threshold coefficients, expressed in Hounsfield units, to exclude impression material or bony structures as well as dental roots so that only radiopaque liquid or soft tissue (mucous membranes) were extracted by the automatic volume rendering function (page 196, column 3). Thus, an area having a density value less than a predetermined density value threshold for bony structures is selected.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the density measurements of Kirmeier et al. to the method of Nikzad et al. because Nikzad et al. is directed to a computer-assisted 3D simulations of flapless implant surgery including a simulation of a simultaneous sinus-lifting procedure (Abstract) and Kirmeier et al. is directed to semi-automatic virtual volumetric analysis techniques on CT scans. Kirmeier et al. teaches that the potential applications of the CT-based volume determination include monitoring volume change after intentional manipulation in the maxillary sinus, such as internal sinus augmentation (page 196, column 1, paragraph 1), and teaches a reliable method of virtual determining volume (Abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of determining the volume of the sinuses in a maxillary sinus augmentation simulation using the information of Kirmeier et al. and would be motivated to do so in order to reliably estimate the volume.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is directed to an operation of displaying the implant involvement area in the dental image; and an operation of calculating and displaying a volume of the implant involvement area. Nikzad et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches displaying the involvement area of the implant in the dental image and teaches a function to calculate and displaying the volume of the implant area (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is directed to in the operation of the changing of the maxillary sinus lifting simulation information and the automatically displaying of the changed maxillary sinus lifting simulation information in the dental image, in response to a change in implant information, the information on the area where the maxillary sinus involvement occurs based on the implant and the information on the amount of bone graft are changed to correspond to the changed implant information and are automatically displayed in the dental image. Nikzad et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches the method providing life-size model bone manipulation (Abstract) and a 3D CAD model that can be manipulated in a way that each part of the proposed anatomy is able to be cut and separated into multiple section in a way that separate parts can be moved, mirrored, or even merged together so that the entire anatomy can be analyzed separately or in any desired position/combination (page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”), and teaches calculation and displaying of the sinus graft volume, where the graft can be defined to place over the proposed implant (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to in response to movement of the implant, the maxillary sinus simulation are being moved together, in response to a change in a length of the implant, the radius of the maxillary sinus simulation area being changed, and then the information on the area where the maxillary sinus involvement occurs based on the implant and the information on the amount of bone graft are changed to correspond to the movement of the maxillary sinus simulation or the change in the radius and are automatically displayed in the dental image. Nikzad et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches the method providing life-size model bone manipulation (Abstract) and a 3D CAD model that can be manipulated in a way that each part of the proposed anatomy is able to be cut and separated into multiple section in a way that separate parts can be moved, mirrored, or even merged together so that the entire anatomy can be analyzed separately or in any desired position/combination (page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”), and teaches calculation and displaying of the sinus graft volume, where the graft can be defined to place over the proposed implant (Figure 4).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the claims are directed to an operation of providing a maxillary sinus lifting simulation setting screen for setting at least one of an interface for setting whether to use maxillary sinus lifting simulation, an interface for setting a display color of an implant involvement area, an interface for setting opacity of the implant involvement area, and an interface for setting a reference point of the implant. Nikzad et al. teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 11 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches a setting screen that provides an interface to simulate the maxillary sinus simulation, an interface to setting a color of the implant involvement area, an interface to set opacity, and an interface for the reference points of the implants (Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to an operation of receiving a manipulation signal for user setting relating to area showing and area hiding; and an operation of, in a case in which an area showing setting is selected according to the user setting, displaying the implant involvement area and information on a predicated amount of bone graft in the dental image and, in a case in which an area hiding setting is selected, not displaying the implant involvement area and the information on the predicated amount of bone graft in the dental image. Nikzad et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches the option for a user to select hiding undesired masks, such as the tooth to be extracted in the implant involvement area and thus not displaying this tooth (page 2293, column 1).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to the output device displaying the implant involvement area and a volume thereof in the dental image and, in response to a change in implant information, changing the implant involvement area and the volume thereof to correspond to the changed implant information and displaying the changed implant involvement area and volume thereof in the dental image. Nikzad et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 11 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches the method providing life-size model bone manipulation (Abstract) and a 3D CAD model that can be manipulated in a way that each part of the proposed anatomy is able to be cut and separated into multiple section in a way that separate parts can be moved, mirrored, or even merged together so that the entire anatomy can be analyzed separately or in any desired position/combination (page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”) and teaches calculation and displaying of the sinus graft volume, where the graft can be defined to place over the proposed implant (Figure 4).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikzad et al. in view of Kirmeier et al., as applied to claims 1, 6-11, 14, 15 in the rejection above, in view of Ghosn et al. (“Computer-assisted analysis of bone volume for sinus augmentation procedure”, IDS reference). This is a new ground of rejection as necessitated by claim amendment.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to in the operation of the setting of the maxillary sinus simulation area, in a case in which two implants are consecutively placed, in response to two maxillary sinus simulation areas at least partially overlapping with each other, end points of the two maxillary sinus simulation areas are connected to each other to set a single maxillary sinus simulation area; and in the setting of the implant involvement area a single implant involvement area that the two implant involve is set within the set single maxillary sinus simulation area. Nikzad et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches two implants consecutively placed (Figure 4, reference characters 2 and 4) and merging separated parts of a 3D CAD model together to analyze or move the entire anatomy in the desired position/combination (page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”)
Neither Nikzad et al. nor Kirmeier et al. teach the claim elements of setting a single maxillary sinus simulation area.
However, Ghosn et al. teaches a computer-assisted analysis of bone volume for sinus augmentation procedures (Abstract). Ghosn et al. teaches simulating a dental implant surgery, and in the situation of two adjacent implants, the level of the most apical implant level being chosen (page 98, column 2).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed to the controller setting the maxillary sinus simulation area in a semispherical shape having, as a radius, a length from a reference point of the implant as a start point to a point at a predetermined distance from an upper end of the implant, and in a case in which two implants are consecutively placed, in response to two maxillary sinus simulation area at least partially overlapping with each other, the controller connecting end points of the two maxillary sinus simulation areas to each other to set a single maxillary sinus simulation area and setting a single implant involvement area that the two implants involve within the set single maxillary sinus simulation area. Nikzad et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 11 in view of Kirmeier et al. Nikzad et al. also teaches setting the maxillary sinus simulation area in a semispherical shape having as a radius the length from the top point of the implant to a predetermined distance from that end of the implant (Figure 4, reference character 2). Nikzad et al. also teaches two implants consecutively placed (Figure 4, reference characters 2 and 4) and merging separated parts of a 3D CAD model together to analyze or move the entire anatomy in the desired position/combination (page 2292, column 2, Section “Step-by-Step Procedure”).
Neither Nikzad et al. nor Kirmeier et al. teach the claim elements of setting a single maxillary sinus simulation area.
However, Ghosn et al. teaches simulating a dental implant surgery, and in the situation of two adjacent implants, the level of the most apical implant level being chosen (page 98, column 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the density calculation and merging of the maxillary sinus simulation area of two adjacent implants of Ghosn et al. to the method of Nikzad et al. in view of Kirmeier et al. because Nikzad et al. is directed to a 3-dimensional model for planning treatment in of a dental implant surgery with a sinus lift augmentation in a maxilla (Abstract), including calculating volume of the necessary bone graft (page 2293, column 2) and Ghosn et al. is directed to a computer-assisted analysis of bone volume calculation for sinus augmentation procedures in order to effectively calculate the graft volume for the surgery (Abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of accurately simulating multiple dental implant surgery with a maxillary sinus augmentation and would find it obvious to do so by calculating the bone density by combining the teachings of the prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are considered, however, a new ground of rejection has been set forth to account for the amended limitation of Hounsfield units. Thus, arguments pertaining to Ghosn et al. and the rejection of the independent claims are moot. Furthermore, regarding arguments pertaining to Nikzad et al., Nikzad et al. does teach the setting of the maxillary sinus simulation area (Figure 4). It is acknowledged that Nikzad et al. does not teach limitations pertaining to calculations of density, as stated in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn and a new ground of rejection is set forth.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights