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 § 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
In regards to claims 1-11, the claims directed towards “A dental implantation assessment method for implant dentistry” that claims that recites “a model creation step,” “a position selection step,” “a table creation step,” “a frame forming step,” “a table-frame combination step,” “an implantation simulation step,” and “a result generation step.” The claims “method” is within the 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory category of a process (MPEP 2106.0.3).
Step 2:
In regards to claims 1-11, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “a model creation step,” “a position selection step,” “a table creation step,” “a frame forming step,” “a table-frame combination step,” “an implantation simulation step,” and “a result generation step.”
The claims recite abstract ideas that include data manipulation to determine the ideal implant for the selected implantation site. The abstract ideas are as such drawn to a mental process.
The following limitations in claim 1 are found to be abstract ideas:
a model creation step, in which a computed tomography (CT) device is used to scan a patient's oral areas for getting a plurality of images, and a teeth model having a three-dimensional (3D) appearance is created on an electronic device based on the images;
a position selection step, in which an implant placement position is determined on the teeth model by the electronic device and a reference line passing a center of dental occlusion is set up at the implant placement position; a table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line is determined on the electronic device and a health status table is generated by electronic device based on the alveolar bone area; and the health status table having a plurality of hardness data and a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area;
a frame forming step, in which a frame model is formed on the electronic device at the implant placement position around the reference line, such that the alveolar bone area is encircled by the frame model; and the frame model internally defining a plurality of levels, each of the levels including an implant module in the center and a plurality of test modules located immediately around the implant module;
a table-frame combination step, in which every test module is divided into a plurality of assessment zones on the electronic device, and the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of the health status table; an assessment value of the assessment zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table; and each of the assessment values in the corresponding assessment zone being decided to one of a valid value representing a healthy state and an invalid value representing an unhealthy state;
an implantation simulation step, in which a dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model, such that the implant module of the levels overlap the dental implant model, and one of the assessment zones of every test module adjacent to an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model is defined as a selected zone; and
a result generation step, in which the electronic device makes a computation on assessment every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model; the dental implant model being determined as a suitable object allowed for use in immediate implant placement when the sum value is larger than a specified proportion of a total number of the assessment zones; and the dental implant model being determined as an unsuitable object failing to provide stable and firm fixing ability when the sum value is smaller than the specified proportion of the total number of the assessment zones.
Claims 2-10 also present claim limitations that presents abstract ideas drawn to a mental process.
The following limitations in claim 11 are found to be abstract ideas:
a model creation step, in which a computed tomography (CT) device is used to scan a patient's oral areas for getting a plurality of images and a teeth model having a three-dimensional (3D) appearance is created on an electronic device based on the images;
a position selection step, in which an implant placement position on the teeth model is determined on the electronic device and a reference line passing a center of dental occlusion is set up at the implant placement position;
a table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line is determined on the electronic device and a health status table is generated by electronic device based on the alveolar bone area; and the health status table having a plurality of hardness data and a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area;
a frame forming step, in which a frame model is formed on the electronic device at the implant placement position around the reference line, such that the alveolar bone area is encircled by the frame model; and the frame model internally defining a plurality of levels, each of the levels including an implant module in the center and a plurality of test modules located immediately around the implant module;
a table-frame combination step, in which every test module is divided into a plurality of assessment zones on the electronic device; and the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of health status table; an assessment value of the assessment zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table; and each of the assessment values being a fixing force acting between a dental implant model and the alveolar bone area;
an implantation simulation step, in which the dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model, such that the implant module of the levels overlap the dental implant model and one of the assessment zones of every test module adjacent to an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model is defined as a selected zone; and
a result generation step, in which the electronic device makes a computation on the every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model; the dental implant model being determined as a suitable object allowed for use in immediate implant placement when the sum value is larger than a specified force; and the dental implant model being determined as an unsuitable object failing to provide stable and firm fixing ability when the sum value is smaller than the specified force.
In practice, an orthodontist can look at scans produced by a CT scan to mentally develop a model of the patient’s oral area. Further, the orthodontist can determine the best implant placement position for the patient’s oral area. An orthodontist would also know the varying hardness and density of area of patient’s alveolar bone area of interest and use the data to determine an idea as to what implant would be best suited for area in the implant placement position. Thus, the orthodontist can quantitatively determine whether the implant is valid for the particular implant placement position based on the density and hardness of the patient’s alveolar bone area the implant is intended to be placed into. An orthodontist can also mentally overlap the implant with the mental model of the dental implant model and further determine quantitatively whether the implant is appropriate.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is found the method implements computer elements wherein the recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea as it would simply be implementing such abstract idea on a computer.
The particular steps that include implementing such abstract ideas on a computer in claim 1 includes:
a teeth model having a three-dimensional (3D) appearance is created on an electronic device based on the images;
an implant placement position is determined on the teeth model by the electronic device
a table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line is determined on the electronic device and a health status table is generated by electronic device based on the alveolar bone area;
a frame forming step, in which a frame model is formed on the electronic device at the implant placement position around the reference line, such that the alveolar bone area is encircled by the frame model;
a table-frame combination step, in which every test module is divided into a plurality of assessment zones on the electronic device;
an assessment value of the assessment zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table;
an implantation simulation step, in which a dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model;
the electronic device makes a computation on assessment every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model.
The particular steps that include implementing such abstract ideas on a computer in claim 11 includes:
a teeth model having a three-dimensional (3D) appearance is created on an electronic device based on the images;
a position selection step, in which an implant placement position on the teeth model is determined on the electronic device and a reference line passing a center of dental occlusion is set up at the implant placement position;
a table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line is determined on the electronic device and
a health status table is generated by electronic device based on the alveolar bone area;
a frame forming step, in which a frame model is formed on the electronic device at the implant placement position around the reference line, such that the alveolar bone area is encircled by the frame model;
a table-frame combination step, in which every test module is divided into a plurality of assessment zones on the electronic device;
an assessment value of the assessment zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table;
an implantation simulation step, in which the dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model;
a result generation step, in which the electronic device makes a computation on the every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model.
Step 2B:
In regards to claims 1-11, the computing device is the additional element do not contribute significantly more to the abstract idea as it is found to be used to digitally process information that an orthodontist can do mentally. However, it is not significantly more than the judicial exception as it does not provide meaningful limitation as it provides no improvement to the technology.
The claimed invention is found to disclose the intended use of a general-purpose computer or data processing device (such as evidenced in claims 1, and 11), however, there is no disclosure in the written description that the processing unit or computer is anything more than a generic component, nor is there any disclosure that the method improves in which the processing unit operates.
In reevaluating the claim at step 2B, there are no additional elements beyond the electronic device that applies the abstract idea to a general purpose computer. There being no significant additional elements, the claim limitations, when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole fail to meet the requirements of §101.
Claims 2-10 fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1 above because they merely further define the abstract idea by stipulating how the abstract process is to be carried out or what parameters are to be used in the judging process.
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 1-11 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “reference line passing a center of dental occlusion” in lines 7-8 wherein it is unclear what the “center of dental occlusion” is. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the longitudinal axis passing through the center of the tooth.
Claim 1 recites “health status table is generated by electronic device” in lines 10-11 where it is unclear how specifically the health status table is generated. It is found that the electronic device is not specified and further does not disclose if the table is made by scanning the area of interest or through a different means of retrieving the data. Further, it is unclear how the health status table specifically extrapolates the data from the electronic device. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as reviewing bone density based on quantitative data.
Claim 1 recites “a table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line is determined on the electric device and a health status table is generated by electronic device based on the alveolar bone area; and the health status table having a plurality of hardness data and a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area” in lines 9-13. It is unclear what is done in the table creation step and how specifically identifying the alveolar bone area creates the table. Further, it is unclear whether the table made refers to the health status table as presented in Fig. 4 OR if it refers to a different table. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being the health status table where it organizes the alveolar bone area for each different region of the alveolar bone area to be compared between.
Claim 1 recites “the health status table having a plurality of hardness data and a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area” in lines 12-13 where it is unclear as to what the “hardness data and density data” is and how it is achieved. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as reviewing bone density based on quantitative data.
Claim 1 recites “the frame model internally defining a plurality of levels, each of the levels including an implant module in the center and a plurality of test modules located immediately around the implant module” in lines 18-21 where it is unclear what the plurality of levels are and what the test modules refer to. Further, it unclear what applicant means by levels, implant modules, and test modules are. It is unclear as to whether the implant module is a digital implant, or information in relation to an implant. Further, it is unclear as to what the test modules is and what exactly does it test. For examination purposes, applicant is referring to a digital implant that is tested by the test modules at each level-or section of the digital implant. Further, it is interpreted as the test modules testing the digital implant data would be compatible with the determined alveolar bone area data.
Claim 1 recites “the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of the health status table” in line 22-24 where it is unclear as to what applicant means by the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of the health status table. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as that each assessment zone comprises a hardness data and a density data from the health status table to be used during assessment.
Claim 1 recites “an assessment value of the assessment zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table; and each of the assessment values in the corresponding assessment zone being decided to one of a valid value representing a healthy state and an invalid value representing an unhealthy state" in lines 25-28. It is unclear how it specifically determines what is considered healthy state and invalid state based on the health status table. It’s also found unclear as to whether the health status table is made in the table creation step or if it is a different table entirely. In addition, it is unclear as to how it calculates the assessment values with the electronic device. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as comparing healthy data to that of the user’s health status table to determine whether the zones are found to be healthy and not healthy.
Claim 1 recites “an implantation simulation step in which a dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model, such that the implant module of the levels overlap the dental implant model, and one of the assessment zones of every test module adjacent to an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model is defined as a selected zone” in lines 29-33. It is unclear what a dental implant model is and how it differs from the implant module. Further, it is unclear how the implant module overlaps the dental implant models and what is an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model. It is also unclear what a selected zone is. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the dental implant model refers to the digital implant to be used on the user and the implant module is a stand in implant. They would superimpose on one another and the edges of the dental implant model would be the selected zone which would be manipulated by the user.
Claim 1 recites “a result generation step, in which the electronic device makes a computation on assessment every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model; the dental implant model being determined as a suitable object allowed for use in immediate implant placement when the sum value is larger than a specified proportion of a total number of the assessment zones; and the dental implant model being determined as an unsuitable object failing to provide stable and firm fixing ability when the sum value is smaller than the specified portion of the total number of assessment zones. It is unclear how the electric device computes and derives a sum value of the assessment values and what an object type of the dental implant is” in lines 34-42. It is unclear how it calculates the values and unclear what the specified proportion of a total number of assessment zones are. It is stated earlier that there is a plurality of assessment zones but does not clarify what would be the specified proportion would be. In addition, it is unclear of what stable and firm fixing ability is. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted the electronic device using an equation to determine based on the assessment values and the number of assessment zones chosen by the user, whether the implant is a good fit for the user.
Claims 2-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a further simulation and assessment step, in which a replacement dental implant model is used on the electronic device in place of the dental implant model; the replacement dental implant model being different from the dental implant model in size and having a replacement outer peripheral surface; the assessment zones on every test module adjacent to the replacement outer peripheral surface being defined as replacement selected zones, according to which an object type of the replacement dental implant model is determined” in lines 2-8. It is unclear as to how the replacement dental implant model is used in place of the dental implant model. It is unclear how the replacement dental implant model interacts with the assessment zones on every test module and whether the assessment zones are the same assessment zones claimed in claim 1. Further, it is unclear what an object type refers to. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the same frame is used on the replacement dental implant model that was used with the dental implant model resulting in the assessment zones to be the same.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “an option suggesting step, in which the electronic device makes a comparison between the object type of the dental implant model and the replacement dental implant model to generate a suggested option” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what is being suggested and whether this particular step is required or optional. It is also still unclear how the electronic device is comparing the object type of the dental implant model and the replacement dental implant model. It is unclear whether it is comparing data from the assessment zones when determining whether it is in a healthy state, the result generation step, visually comparing the two or using other quantitative data. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as comparing whether it is at a healthy state during the result generation step and determining which provides a suitable implant/object for the user. This particular comparison is an option provided to the user to choose whether to use the replacement dental implant model or not based on which provides a more suitable object.
Claim 4 recites “the dental implant model and the replacement dental implant model all are determined as suitable objects, one of the suitable objects having a higher sum value of the assessment values is selected as the suggested option for use in the dental implant surgery; and in the case one of the dental implant model and the replacement dental implant model is determined as a suitable object while the other one is an unsuitable object, the one being the suitable object is selected as the suggested option for use in the dental implant surgery” in lines 2-9. It is unclear whether assessment values are calculated in the same manner and it is not clear as to what the suitable objects are. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the assessment values being calculated in the same manner and the suitable objects refer to them being suitable implants for the user.
Claim 4-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “in the case both of the dental implant model and the replacement dental implant model are determined as unsuitable objects, the suggested option includes an assessment result that no dental implant surgery can be performed and re-simulation option that a re-simulation and assessment step is to be performed” in lines 2-6. It is unclear whether assessment values are calculated in the same manner and it is not clear as to what the unsuitable objects are. Further, it is unclear as to what is being inputted to the re-simulation and assessment step. It is unclear if the dental implant model and the replacement dental implant model are being reused in these steps OR a new replacement dental implant model is used. It is also unclear if these particular steps use the same parameters (I.e. levels, assessment zones, test modules) as the previous models. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the assessment values being calculated in the same manner and the suitable objects refer to them being unsuitable implants for the user. Further, the re-simulation and assessment step refers to using a new dental implant model with the same parameters and steps done as the dental implant model and replacement dental implant model.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “in the re-simulation and assessment step, a further replacement dental implant model is used on the electronic device in place of the replacement dental implant model; the further replacement dental implant model being different from the replacement dental implant model in size and having a further replacement outer peripheral surface; the assessment zones on every test module adjacent to the further replacement outer peripheral surface being defined as further replacement selected zones, so that an object type of the further replacement dental implant model is determined based on the further replacement selected zones” in lines 2-10. It is unclear what applicant means by the further replacement dental implant model and if it differs from both the dental implant model and replacement dental implant model. Further, t is unclear as to how the further replacement dental implant model is used in place of the replacement dental implant model. It is unclear how the further replacement dental implant model interacts with the assessment zones on every test module and whether the assessment zones are the same assessment zones claimed in claim 1. Further, it is unclear what an object type refers to. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the same frame is used on the further replacement dental implant model that was used with the replacement dental implant model resulting in the assessment zones to be the same.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the frame model has a cross-sectional diameter that is limited by one of the following two measures: a distance between two teeth located immediately at two lateral sides of the implant placement position; and a width of gum of the teeth model” in lines 2-5. It is unclear as to whether the width of the gum is the entirety of the teeth model or solely the part that comprises the implant placement position. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the gum part that comprises the implant placement position.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 7.
Claim 8 recites “the dental implant model has an implant diameter and an implant length; the implant diameter is limited by an area size of the frame model and the implant length is limited by the number of levels of the frame model” in lines 2-4. It is unclear how the number of levels of the frame model is determined. Further, it is unclear what is considered the implant length. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the implant length refers to the measurement along the longitudinal axis of the implant. Further, it will be interpreted that the number of levels is determined by the type of implant being applied.
Claim 9 recites “a top 3D configuration of the alveolar bone area” in line 3 wherein it is unclear as to how the 3D configuration is acquired. It is unclear if it is acquired through scans of the patient or through a generic alveolar bone area. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as it being acquired through scans of the patient.
Claim 9 recites “wherein, in the frame forming step, a height location of the frame model is determined according to a top 3D configuration of the alveolar bone area; and the top 3D configuration defines a slanted reference surface, the slanted reference surface angular interests the reference line and the frame model has a top surface that passes an intersection of the slanted reference in line and the reference line” in lines 2-7. It is unclear as to what the “slanted reference surface” and how the frame model makes a top surface. It is unclear if the top surface is the top surface of one of the levels or if it separate from the levels. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the surface of the alveolar bone having an uneven surface at the top surface and the one of the levels makes the top surface of the frame model.
Claim 10 recites “a tilting direction of the frame model is determined according to the health status of the alveolar bone area” in lines 1-3 wherein it is unclear how the tilting direction is specifically determined by the health status of the bone area.
Claim 10 recites “in the frame forming step, a tilting direction of the frame model is determined according to the health status of the alveolar bone area; and the frame model having a centerline that is inclined relative to the reference line, such that a plurality of contact volumes of the frame model with the alveolar bone area are changed to different positions” in lines 2-6. It is unclear what contact volumes of the frame model are and how they are calculated. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being calculated by the dimensions of the levels.
Claim 11 recites “reference line passing a center of dental occlusion” in lines 7-8 wherein it is unclear what the “center of dental occlusion” is. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the longitudinal axis passing through the center of the tooth.
Claim 11 recites “health status table is generated by electronic device” in lines 10-11 where it is unclear how specifically the health status table is generated. It is found that the electronic device is not specified and further does not disclose if the table is made by scanning the area of interest or through a different means of retrieving the data. Further, it is unclear how the health status table specifically extrapolates the data from the electronic device. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as reviewing bone density based on color regions to obtain such data based on quantitative data.
Claim 1 recites “a table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line is determined on the electric device and a health status table is generated by electronic device based on the alveolar bone area; and the health status table having a plurality of hardness data and a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area” in lines 9-13. It is unclear what is done in the table creation step and how specifically identifying the alveolar bone area creates the table. Further, it is unclear whether the table made refers to the health status table as presented in Fig. 4 OR if it refers to a different table. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as being the health status table where it organizes the alveolar bone area for each different region of the alveolar bone area to be compared between.
Claim 11 recites “the health status table having a plurality of hardness data and a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area” in lines 12-13 where it is unclear as to what the “hardness data and density data” is and how it is achieved. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as reviewing bone density based on quantitative data.
Claim 11 recites “the frame model internally defining a plurality of levels, each of the levels including an implant module in the center and a plurality of test modules located immediately around the implant module” in lines 18-21 where it is unclear what the plurality of levels are and what the test modules refer to. Further, it unclear what applicant means by levels, implant modules, and test modules are. It is unclear as to whether the implant module is a digital implant, or information in relation to an implant. Further, it is unclear as to what the test modules is and what exactly does it test. For examination purposes, applicant is referring to a digital implant that is tested by the test modules at each level-or section of the digital implant. Further, it is interpreted as the test modules testing the digital implant data would be compatible with the determined alveolar bone area data.
Claim 11 recites “the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of health status table” in line 21-22 where it is unclear as to what applicant means by the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of the health status table. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as that each assessment zone comprises a hardness data and a density data from the health status table to be used during assessment.
Claim 11 recites “each of the assessment values being a fixing force acting between a dental implant model and the alveolar bone area” in lines 29-30 wherein it is unclear how the fixing force is being computed. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as using the hardness values and density values to determine the estimated force applied by the implant model to the bone.
Claim 11 recites “an implantation simulation step in which a dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model, such that the implant module of the levels overlap the dental implant model, and one of the assessment zones of every test module adjacent to an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model is defined as a selected zone” in lines 31-35. It is unclear what a dental implant model is and how it differs from the implant module. Further, it is unclear how the implant module overlaps the dental implant models and what is an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model. It is also unclear what a selected zone is. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as the dental implant model refers to the digital implant to be used on the user and the implant module is a stand in implant. They would superimpose on one another and the edges of the dental implant model would be the selected zone which would be manipulated by the user.
Claim 11 recites “a result generation step, in which the electronic device makes a computation on assessment every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model; the dental implant model being determined as a suitable object allowed for use in immediate implant placement when the sum value is larger than a specified proportion of a total number of the assessment zones; and the dental implant model being determined as an unsuitable object failing to provide stable and firm fixing ability when the sum value is smaller than the specified portion of the total number of assessment zones” in lines 36-42. It is unclear how the electric device computes and derives a sum value of the assessment values and what an object type of the dental implant is. It is unclear how it calculates the values and unclear what the specified proportion of a total number of assessment zones are. It is stated earlier that there is a plurality of assessment zones but does not clarify what would be the specified proportion would be. In addition, it is unclear of what stable and firm fixing ability is. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted the electronic device using an equation to determine based on the assessment values and the number of assessment zones chosen by the user, whether the implant is a good fit for the user.
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
The closest prior art was found to be Wang (CN 113855291 B) which discloses a dental implantation assessment method for implant dentistry comprising:
A model creation step, in which a computed tomography (CT) device is used to scan a patient’s oral areas for getting a plurality of images and a teeth model having a three-dimensional (3D) appearance is created on an electronic device based on the images;
A position selection, in which an implant placement position is determined and a reference line is set up at the implant placement position;
A table creation step, in which an alveolar bone area on the teeth model located around the reference line determined on the electronic device and a health status table is generated by the electronic device based on the alveolar bone area; and the health status table having a plurality of density data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area;
A frame forming step, in which a frame model is formed on the electronic device at the implant placement position around the reference line, such that the alveolar bone area is encircled by the frame model; and the frame model is internally defining a plurality of levels; and
A table-frame combination step, in which an assessment value of the zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table.
However, they are silent to:
a position selection step, in which an implant placement position is determined on the teeth model by the electronic device and a reference line passing a center of dental occlusion is set up at the implant placement position;
the health status table having a plurality of hardness data for listing in different regions of the alveolar bone area;
each of the levels including an implant module in the center and a plurality of test modules located immediately around the implant module;
a table-frame combination step, in which every test module is divided into a plurality of assessment zones on the electronic device, and the assessment zones being combined with the hardness data and the density data of the health status table; an assessment value of the assessment zones are calculated by the electronic device according to the health status table; and each of the assessment values in the corresponding assessment zone being decided to one of a valid value representing a healthy state and an invalid value representing an unhealthy state;
an implantation simulation step, in which a dental implant model is selected by the electronic device for placement into the frame model, such that the implant module of the levels overlap the dental implant model, and one of the assessment zones of every test module adjacent to an outer peripheral surface of the dental implant model is defined as a selected zone; and
a result generation step, in which the electronic device makes a computation on assessment every selected zone to derive a sum value of the assessment values for determining an object type of the dental implant model; the dental implant model being determined as a suitable object allowed for use in immediate implant placement when the sum value is larger than a specified proportion of a total number of the assessment zones; and the dental implant model being determined as an unsuitable object failing to provide stable and firm fixing ability when the sum value is smaller than the specified proportion of the total number of the assessment zones.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571)-270-7855. 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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
12/10/2025