DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 09/14/2023.
The instant claims 12 – 20 are interpreted as not invoking 112(f) since there is recited a “controller configured to”, whereby persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function (see MPEP 2181(I)(A)).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed towards a specific type of data processing (see the instant application Paragraph 1 “more particularly, a data processing method of editing scan data to generate a simulation model”).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. A review of the foreign priority documents show that the claimed subject matter appears to be disclosed. Examiner notes that the foreign priority documents are in a foreign language, and no translation has been provided. Therefore, the priority date is 03/16/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “gene rated based on”, and “has been d etermined”, and “based on th e edited”, all of which appear to have an extra space as a typographical error as shown in bold. This is the interpretation for examination purposes. Examiner encourages Applicant to make similar corrections in other claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 – 8, 10 – 11, 17 and 19 – 20 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.
With regard to claim 6 (and similarly claim 17), it recites the limitation “wherein the editing at least a portion of the scan data comprises displaying a type of the scan data for which the generation of the simulation model has failed”. Examiner notes that the parent claim merely recited “when it has been determined that the simulation model is not generated” which is different from “fail” since the model was determined to be not generated, as contrasted with attempting to generate the model and failing. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as referring back to the parent claim “is not generated”.
With regard to claim 10 (and similarly claim 19), it recites “when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, the area to be deleted is not removed from the scan data” which is unclear because the intended use of the “area to be deleted” is not ultimately realized. Therefore qualifying the area as “to be deleted” is unclear as to how it further limits the “area” as compared with other areas of the scan data. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes are one or more areas of the scan data.
With regard to claim 11 (and similarly claim 20), it recites “when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, areas except for the tooth area of the area to be deleted and a tooth adjacent area formed within a predetermined distance from the tooth area are removed from the scan data” which is unclear because the intended use of the “area to be deleted” is not ultimately realized. Therefore qualifying the area as “to be deleted” is unclear as to how it further limits the “area” as compared with other areas of the scan data. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes are one or more areas of the scan data.
With regard to claims 7 – 8, they are rejected by virtue of depending from a rejected parent claim, and without reciting additional limitations to overcome the unclarity.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) data processing method, comprising: determining whether a simulation model is to be generated based on scan data of an object obtained by scanning the object and at least one simulation condition configured for the scan data. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” requires no more than judgements and evaluations based on observing scan data previously obtained. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: when it has been determined that the simulation model is not generated, editing at least a portion of the scan data; and generating the simulation model based on the edited scan data and the at least one simulation condition previously applied in the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated. The “editing amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the scan data is modified which is later used in the “generating” (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “generating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome and merely based on the editing. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “editing” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The ”generating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity to effectuate the step. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since data gathering necessarily comes prior to another step which relies on the data gathered. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2, 6 – 8 and 10 -11 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 wherein the object comprises an interoral cavity having a plurality of teeth and at least one gingiva, the scan data comprises a tooth area representing a plurality of teeth and a gingiva area representing the at least one gingiva, and the gingiva area comprises noise data. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “object comprises” further limits the parent claim “determining … based on scan data of an object” and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 6 wherein the editing at least a portion of the scan data comprises displaying a type of the scan data for which the generation of the simulation model has failed; and Claim 7 wherein the type of the scan data displayed as a failure in the generation of the simulation model comprises upper jaw data and lower jaw data; and Claim 8 wherein the type of the scan data displayed as a failure in the generation of the simulation model comprises the noise data, and the noise data is expressed as at least one of a predetermined color, a predetermined pattern, and a predetermined mark; and Claim 10 wherein, when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, the area to be deleted is not removed from the scan data; and Claim 11 wherein, when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, areas except for the tooth area of the area to be deleted and a tooth adjacent area formed within a predetermined distance from the tooth area are removed from the scan data. For example, the “displaying” and “type of the scan data displayed” amount to insignificant data outputting since they explicitly recite displaying and/or limit the data displayed without reciting additional details regarding how the data is displayed (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “is not removed” and “are removed” further limits the parent claim “removing the area” to be conditionally performed, and therefore amounts to reciting the words “apply it" for the same reasons. Although there are recited specific conditions on the removing, the act of the removing itself is recited at a high-level of generality. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, “displaying” and “type of the scan data displayed” amount(s) to insignificant data outputting. The “is not removed” and “are removed” amounts to reciting the words “apply it" at least since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity to effectuate the step(s). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the they require no more than generic computer functions to effectuate the “displaying” and “type of the scan data displayed” and “is not removed” and “are removed”. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 – 5 and 9 recite(s)at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 3 wherein the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated comprises determining whether the generation of the simulation model fails based on the noise data of the gingiva area; Claim 4 generating segmentation information by segmenting the tooth area of the scan data into a plurality of pieces of individual tooth data before the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated, wherein the at least one simulation condition comprises the segmentation information; Claim 5 configuring orthodontic plan information using the segmented scan data after the generating the segmentation information, wherein the at least one simulation condition further comprises the orthodontic plan information; Claim 9 wherein the editing at least a portion of the scan data comprises: designating an area to be deleted that is at least a portion of the scan data so that at least a portion of the noise data is included. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “designating an area” requires no more than judgements and evaluations based on observation of the scan data. The “generating segmentation information” and “configuring orthodontic plan information” requires no more than judgements and evaluations since it produces “information” based on observations of scan data. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 9 wherein the editing at least a portion of the scan data comprises: removing the area to be deleted from the scan data. The “removing the area” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome based on the “designating”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claims do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since. The recited “removing the area” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its normal capacity to effectuate the removing. For at least these reasons, the claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) apparatus comprising a controller configured to: determine whether a simulation model is to be generated based on scan data of an object obtained by scanning the object and at least one simulation condition configured for the scan data. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determine” requires no more than judgements and evaluations based on observing scan data previously obtained. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a controller; when it has been determined that the simulation model is not generated, edit at least a portion of the scan data; and generate the simulation model based on the edited scan data and the at least one simulation condition previously applied in the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated. The “controller” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “edit” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality how the scan data is modified which is later used in the “generating” (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “generate” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome and merely based on the editing. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “controller” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “edit” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The ”generate” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity to effectuate the step. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since data gathering necessarily comes prior to another step which relies on the data gathered. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 – 16 and 18 - 20 may be compared to claims 2 – 5 and 9 – 11, respectively; and Claim 17 may be compared to claims 6 – 8, which recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea based on the same reasons as previously remarked.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application based on the same reasons as previously remarked. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For at least these reasons as previously remarked, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar, Y. “Automated Virtual Treatment Planning in Orthodontics: Modeling and Algorithms” (henceforth “Kumar (Thesis)”).
With regard to claim 1, Kumar (Thesis) teaches a data processing method comprising:
determining whether a simulation model is to be generated based on scan data of an object obtained by scanning the object and at least one simulation condition for the scan data; when it has been determined that the simulation model is not generated, editing at least a portion of the scan data; and generating the simulation model based on the edited scan data and the at least one simulation condition previously applied in the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated (Kumar (Thesis) Page 10 “Such a model is often extracted by laser scanning a solid plaster model built from the patient’s dental impressions”, and Figure 2.13 a modeled set of teeth surrounded by gums (at least one simulation condition) are initially modeled with a misclassification region (determining whether), and later modified to fix the misclassification (editing at least a portion) and produce a corrected model (generating the simulation model)
PNG
media_image1.png
363
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 12, it recites the same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Kumar (Thesis). Claim 12 further recites: an apparatus comprising a controller configured to perform the steps of claim 1.
However, Kumar (Thesis) teaches:
an apparatus comprising a controller configured to perform the steps of claim 1 (Kumar (Thesis) Abstract the steps of claim 1 show visualizations which are realized on a computer in combination with software (a controller) “Computer-based virtual treatment planning and simulation has become increasingly important in orthodontics due to its potential to lower costs and provide better treatment outcomes … associated software to automate key components of the treatment process,”)
With regard to claim 2 and 13, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 12, and further teaches:
wherein the object comprises an interoral cavity having a plurality of teeth and at least one gingiva, the scan data comprises a tooth area representing a plurality of teeth and a gingiva area representing the at least one gingiva, and the gingiva area comprises noise data. (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 2.12 high-curvature areas are associated with noise, and Page 32 and Figure 2.13 gums can have misclassification based on high-curvature area (comprises noise data) “Our goal is to repair such an initial curve to obtain the curve shown in Figure 2.13 (b) which is a much better approximation to the true gumline of the mode”)
With regard to claim 3 and 14, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2 and 13, and further teaches wherein the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated comprises:
determining whether the generation of the simulation model fails based on the noise data of the gingiva area. (Kumar (Thesis) Page 32 and Figure 2.13 repair is specific to errors in the gingiva classification)
With regard to claim 4 and 15, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2 and 13, and further teaches:
generating segmentation information by segmenting the tooth area of the scan data into a plurality of pieces of individual tooth data before the determining whether the simulation model is to be generated, (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 2.7
PNG
media_image2.png
223
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the at least one simulation condition comprises the segmentation information (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 2.8 initial segmentations are further processed
PNG
media_image3.png
223
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 5 and 16, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 4 and 15, and further teaches:
configuring orthodontic plan information using the segmented scan data after the generating the segmentation information, (Kumar (Thesis) Page 53 modeled teeth are used for treatment planning “We now turn to the identification of relevant features on the surface of these tooth objects. The identification of such a feature set is crucial for orthodontic treatment planning”)
wherein the at least one simulation condition further comprises the orthodontic plan information. (Kumar (Thesis) Page 10 the resulting model is used for treatment planning “After segmentation, the orthodontist can determine the new placement of teeth using various rules and esthetic guidelines”)
With regard to claim 6, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2, and further teaches:
wherein the editing at least a portion of the scan data comprises displaying a type of the scan data for which the generation of the simulation model has failed (Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 1.4 noise clusters are superimposed as a different color
PNG
media_image4.png
303
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 7, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 6, and further teaches:
wherein the type of the scan data displayed as a failure in the generation of the simulation model in the simulation determination step comprises upper jaw data and lower jaw data. (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 2.12 the upper jaw can comprises noisy patches, where the same can exist for the lower jaw with wholly predictable results
PNG
media_image5.png
367
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 8, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 6, and further teaches:
wherein the type of the scan data displayed as a failure in the generation of the simulation model comprises the noise data, and the noise data is expressed as at least one of a predetermined color, a predetermined pattern, and a predetermined mark. (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 1.4 noise clusters are superimposed as a different color (predetermined color)
PNG
media_image4.png
303
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 9 and 18, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 2 and 13, and further teaches: wherein the editing at least a portion of the scan data comprises:
designating an area to be deleted that is at least a portion of the scan data so that at least a portion of the noise data is included; and removing the area to be deleted from the scan data. (Kumar (Thesis) Page 69 noise clusters are deleted “Our goal behind clustering is to aggregate the vertices in S into connected components of high-curvature vertices that correspond to features of interest. The extracted clusters reveal these features and also cause noise regions to be grouped into small isolated components. The latter can be identified and deleted easily using a threshold, Tnoise, on the number of noise vertices … Starting with this, we repeatedly merge a pair of components if the closest distance between them is less than a specified threshold, Tcc”)
With regard to claim 10 and 19, Kumar (Thesis)_ teaches all the elements of the parent claim 9 and 18, and further teaches:
wherein, when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, the area to be deleted is not removed from the scan data. (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Kumar (Thesis) Page 69 only noise clusters are deleted (area comprises at least a portion of the tooth area) “Our goal behind clustering is to aggregate the vertices in S into connected components of high-curvature vertices that correspond to features of interest. The extracted clusters reveal these features and also cause noise regions to be grouped into small isolated components. The latter can be identified and deleted easily using a threshold, Tnoise, on the number of noise vertices … Starting with this, we repeatedly merge a pair of components if the closest distance between them is less than a specified threshold, Tcc”)
With regard to claim 17, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 13, and further teaches:
display a type of the scan data for which the generation of the simulation model has failed (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 1.4 noise clusters are superimposed as a different color
PNG
media_image4.png
303
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
wherein the type of the scan data displayed as a failure in the generation of the simulation model in the simulation determination step comprises upper jaw data and lower jaw data. (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 2.12 the upper jaw can comprises noisy patches, where the same can exist for the lower jaw with wholly predictable results
PNG
media_image5.png
367
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
and the noise data, and the noise data is expressed as at least one of a predetermined color, a predetermined pattern, and a predetermined mark. (Kumar (Thesis) Figure 1.4 noise clusters are superimposed as a different color (predetermined color)
PNG
media_image4.png
303
646
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (Thesis) in view of Kumar et al. “Improved Segmentation of Teeth in Dental Models” (henceforth “Kumar”). Kumar (Thesis) and Kumar are analogous art because they solve the same problem of teeth and gingiva, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of dental modeling.
With regard to claim 11 and 20, Kumar (Thesis) teaches all the elements of the parent claim 9 and 18, and does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein, when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, areas except for the tooth area of the area to be deleted and a tooth adjacent area formed within a predetermined distance from the tooth area are removed from the scan data.
However, Kumar teaches:
wherein, when the area to be deleted comprises at least a portion of the tooth area, areas except for the tooth area of the area to be deleted and a tooth adjacent area formed within a predetermined distance from the tooth area are removed from the scan data. (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (Kumar Figure 1 a segmentation is performed manually which is slightly larger than the tooth, where the extra space is included by a person (predetermined distance)
PNG
media_image6.png
212
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the of dental modeling disclosed by Kumar (Thesis) with segmentation method disclosed by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform treatment simulation (see Kuman Page 212, Top “Treatment simulation is also possible using software provided by vendors supplying digital tooth models and software for orthodontics, such as Fig 1(left)shows the use of emodel®8.0 to segment an upper incisor by manually defining a region of the L digital model and Fig1(right)shows The manual alignment of the four upper incisors after segmentation.”)
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shi et al (US 2019/0357997) teaches noise reduction algorithm to refine detected edge in dental model.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights