DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 10/09/2023 concerning application no. 18/286,189 filed on 10/09/2023.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings (Figs. 2-3, 7, and 12) are objected to because, according to MPEP 608.02 and 67 CFR 1.84, "India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings". Drawings should be presented as India ink drawings unless the illustration is not capable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings.
Fig. 7: The color coding of the normal and soft bone is difficult to distinguish. Additionally, the two normal bone indications on the bar graph are unclear. It is unclear if one of them is supposed to indicate soft bone similar to the graph in the bottom of the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the implant body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is establishing that the second color is replacing the first color. It is further unclear what the relationship of the two colors is as the claim has established that the bone density display area is in a first color and is according to the bone density.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “a first hard bone to a third hard bone”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is establishing a first and third hard bone alone or is establishing a first, second, and third hard bone.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “third hard bone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to establish a second hard bone.
Recites “a first normal bone to a third normal bone”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is establishing a first and third normal bone alone or is establishing a first, second, and third normal bone.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “third normal bone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to establish a second normal bone.
Recites “a first soft bone to a third soft bone”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is establishing a first and third soft bone alone or is establishing a first, second, and third soft bone.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “third soft bone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim fails to establish a second soft bone.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the implant body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “determine whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is establishing that the second color is replacing the first color. It is further unclear what the relationship of the two colors is as the claim has established that the bone density display area is in a first color and is according to the bone density.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the implant body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear if the claim is establishing that the second color is replacing the first color. It is further unclear what the relationship of the two colors is as the claim has established that the bone density display area is in a first color and is according to the bone density.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites the limitation “A computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions”. This limitation as drafted, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a transitory form of signal transmission. MPEP 2106.03 recites “When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.”
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method of displaying multiple bone density performed in a multiple bone density display device when planning an implant procedure and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “overlaying a bone density display area comprising an implant body placement area with a tooth area; and
determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the overlaying of density display with the implant body placement of a tooth area and the assessment of the color of the bone or implant according to bone tensity difference values. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “displaying a bone density value corresponding to the bone density display area in a first color”. Display of the bone density value is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “dividing the bone density display area into a plurality of areas in a longitudinal direction of the implant body; calculating the bone density difference value between the area having the greatest bone density value and the area having the smallest bone dens ity value among the plurality of areas” and “…when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the division of the bone density area in the longitudinal direction and the calculation of the bone density difference between two areas and the thresholding of the difference. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “displaying the second color on the edge of the bone density display area”. Display of the color on the edge of the bone density display area is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein, in the determining of whether to display the second color, the area having the greatest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a maxillary sinus or a mandibular sinus, and the area having the smallest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a tooth”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determination of whether to display the second color according to the areas having a bone density value in an area adjacent to specific anatomy. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the thresholding of the bone density difference value. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “displaying the second color on the edge of the implant body”. Display of the color is a display step merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “determining a bone density grade based on a bone density value of each pixel comprised in the implant body placement area; and determining the first color according to the bone density grade, wherein the bone density grade comprises a first hard bone to a third hard bone, a first normal bone to a third normal bone, and a first soft bone to a third soft bone”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to determination of bone density grade according to bone density value and the determination of the color associated to the grade. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the implant body placement area is automatically set based on implant body information comprising a length and diameter of the implant body”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to setting implant placement according to the length and diameter of the implant body. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a multiple bone density display device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “overlay a bone density display area comprising an implant body placement area with a tooth area, determine whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the overlaying of density display with the implant body placement of a tooth area and the assessment of the color of the bone or implant according to bone tensity difference values. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a memory configured to store a control program for displaying multiple bone density; and a processor configured to execute the control program stored in the memory, wherein the processor is further configured to; display a bone density value corresponding to the bone density display area in a first color”. Display of the bone density value is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a memory and processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a multiple bone density display device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “divide the bone density display area into a plurality of areas in a longitudinal direction of the implant body, calculate the bone density difference value between the area having the greatest bone density value and the area having the smallest bone density value among the plurality of areas” and “…when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the division of the bone density area in the longitudinal direction and the calculation of the bone density difference between two areas and the thresholding of the difference. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “display the second color on the edge of the bone density display area”. Display of the color on the edge of the bone density display area is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a multiple bone density display device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the area having the greatest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a maxillary sinus or a mandibular sinus, and the area having the smallest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a tooth”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determination of whether to display the second color according to the areas having a bone density value in an area adjacent to specific anatomy. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a multiple bone density display device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the thresholding of the bone density difference value. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is further configured to control to display the second color on the edge of the implant body”. Display of the color is a display step merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a multiple bone density display device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “control the implant body placement area to be automatically set based on implant body information comprising a length and diameter of the implant body”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to setting implant placement according to the length and diameter of the implant body. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is further configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions that and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “overlaying a bone density display area comprising an implant body placement area with a tooth area; and determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the overlaying of density display with the implant body placement of a tooth area and the assessment of the color of the bone or implant according to bone tensity difference values. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: displaying a bone density value corresponding to the bone density display area in a first color”. Display of the bone density value is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 12 is ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent No. 6,224,373) in view of Vandeweghe et al. (“Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: A comparison with histomorphometry”, 2013).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method of displaying multiple bone density performed in a multiple bone density display device when planning an implant procedure (Title teaches a simulation method for visualizing density of jawbone for dental implantation), the method comprising:
overlaying a bone density display area comprising an implant body placement area with a tooth area (Col. 3, lines 60-67, teaches the main idea for such visualization is in positioning the virtual implant screw into an image obtained from CT slices, and coloring the surface of the screw according to density values. Col. 2, lines 32-47 teaches there is provided a simulation method for visualizing the density of a jawbone at an implant area into which an implant screw for supporting an artificial tooth is inserted);
displaying a bone density value corresponding to the bone density display area in a first color (Col. 7, lines 13-27 teaches the display of the implant screw with the color coding. The bar shows the color of the implant and the bone according to the density. See Fig. 8).
However, Vandeweghe is silent regarding a method, determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a method, determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of assessing the color and the edge of the dental and the implant body according to density. This modified method would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Lee is silent regarding a method, wherein the displaying the second color comprises: displaying the second color on the edge of the implant body when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a method, wherein the displaying the second color comprises: displaying the second color on the edge of the implant body when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of thresholding. This modified method would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches a multiple bone density display device comprising:
a memory configured to store a control program for displaying multiple bone density (Col. 2, lines 47-56 establish computer readable code on a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium is any data storage device that can store data which can be thereafter be read by a computer system. Examples of the computer readable medium include read-only memory, random-access memory, CD-ROMs, magnetic tape, floppy disks, optical data storage devices); and
a processor configured to execute the control program stored in the memory (Col. 2, lines 47-56 establish computer readable code on a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium is any data storage device that can store data which can be thereafter be read by a computer system. Examples of the computer readable medium include read-only memory, random-access memory, CD-ROMs, magnetic tape, floppy disks, optical data storage devices), wherein the processor is further configured to
overlay a bone density display area comprising an implant body placement area with a tooth area (Col. 3, lines 60-67, teaches the main idea for such visualization is in positioning the virtual implant screw into an image obtained from CT slices, and coloring the surface of the screw according to density values. Col. 2, lines 32-47 teaches there is provided a simulation method for visualizing the density of a jawbone at an implant area into which an implant screw for supporting an artificial tooth is inserted),
display a bone density value corresponding to the bone density display area in a first color (Col. 7, lines 13-27 teaches the display of the implant screw with the color coding. The bar shows the color of the implant and the bone according to the density. See Fig. 8).
However, Lee is silent regarding a multiple bone density display device, determine whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a multiple bone density display device, determine whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of assessing the color and the edge of the dental and the implant body according to density. This modified apparatus would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches the multiple bone density display device in claim 7, as discussed above.
However, Lee is silent regarding a multiple bone density display device, wherein the processor is further configured to control to display the second color on the edge of the implant body when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a multiple bone density display device, wherein the processor is further configured to control to display the second color on the edge of the implant body when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of thresholding. This modified apparatus would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor (Col. 2, lines 47-56 establish computer readable code on a computer readable medium. The computer readable medium is any data storage device that can store data which can be thereafter be read by a computer system. Examples of the computer readable medium include read-only memory, random-access memory, CD-ROMs, magnetic tape, floppy disks, optical data storage devices), cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
overlaying a bone density display area comprising an implant body placement area with a tooth area (Col. 3, lines 60-67, teaches the main idea for such visualization is in positioning the virtual implant screw into an image obtained from CT slices, and coloring the surface of the screw according to density values. Col. 2, lines 32-47 teaches there is provided a simulation method for visualizing the density of a jawbone at an implant area into which an implant screw for supporting an artificial tooth is inserted);
displaying a bone density value corresponding to the bone density display area in a first color (Col. 7, lines 13-27 teaches the display of the implant screw with the color coding. The bar shows the color of the implant and the bone according to the density. See Fig. 8).
However, Lee is silent regarding a computer-readable storage medium, determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a computer-readable storage medium, determining whether to display a second color on an edge of the implant body or an edge of the bone density display area displayed in the first color, based on a bone density difference value between an area having a greatest bone density value and an area having a smallest bone density value in the bone density display area (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of assessing the color and the edge of the dental and the implant body according to density. This modified apparatus would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent No. 6,224,373) in view of Vandeweghe et al. (“Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: A comparison with histomorphometry”, 2013) further in view of Hoffman et al. (US Patent No. 8, 644,568).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a method, wherein the determining whether to display the second color comprises;
calculating the bone density difference value between the area having the greatest bone density value and the area having the smallest bone density value among the plurality of areas; and displaying the second color on the edge of the bone density display area when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of assessing the color and the edge of the dental and the implant body according to density. This modified apparatus would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a method, dividing the bone density display area into a plurality of areas in a longitudinal direction of the implant body.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding implant analysis, Hoffman teaches a method, dividing the bone density display area into a plurality of areas in a longitudinal direction of the implant body (Col. 23, lines 6-25, teaches that the bone is segmented into two segments by a cutting plane. Fig. 5 shows that the segmentation is according to the implant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Hoffman’s teaching of segmentation of the data. This modified method would allow the user to improve surgical planning (Col. 1, lines 24-46 of Hoffman). Furthermore, the modification will allow the use in surgical planning both pre-operatively and intra-operatively and for use in research and development studies (Abstract of Hoffman).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the multiple bone density display device in claim 7, as discussed above.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Vandeweghe teaches a multiple bone density display device, wherein the processor is further configured to, after displaying the bone density value in the first color,
divide the bone density display area into a plurality of areas in a longitudinal direction of the implant body, calculate the bone density difference value between the area having the greatest bone density value and the area having the smallest bone density value among the plurality of areas (Page 1261 establishes a upper and lower threshold for the for the bone and the implant. Fig. 1 shows that the bone and implant are regions of interest based on their threshold value and they are marked with boundary. Page 1265 teaches that the color version is according to the attenuation value).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lee with Vandeweghe’s teaching of assessing the color and the edge of the dental and the implant body according to density. This modified apparatus would allow the user to evaluate bone structure around the implants (Abstract of Vandeweghe). Furthermore, the modification allows for the assessment of the implant material and geometry for bone analysis (Conclusion of Vandeweghe).
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a multiple bone density display device, display the second color on the edge of the bone density display area when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding implant analysis, Hoffman teaches a multiple bone density display device, display the second color on the edge of the bone density display area when the bone density difference value is greater than or equal to a preset threshold value (Col. 23, lines 6-25, teaches that the bone is segmented into two segments by a cutting plane. Fig. 5 shows that the segmentation is according to the implant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Hoffman’s teaching of segmentation of the data. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve surgical planning (Col. 1, lines 24-46 of Hoffman). Furthermore, the modification will allow the use in surgical planning both pre-operatively and intra-operatively and for use in research and development studies (Abstract of Hoffman).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent No. 6,224,373) in view of Vandeweghe et al. (“Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: A comparison with histomorphometry”, 2013) further in view of Berckmans, III et al. (PGPUB No. US 2009/0263764).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a method, wherein, in the determining of whether to display the second color, the area having the greatest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a maxillary sinus or a mandibular sinus, and the area having the smallest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a tooth.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental analysis, Berckmans III teaches a method, wherein, in the determining of whether to display the second color, the area having the greatest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a maxillary sinus or a mandibular sinus, and the area having the smallest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a tooth (Paragraph 0028 teaches that the implant assessment is based on the bone density of the sinus cavity and the mandibular canal provided by the scans and with the display of the implants. Paragraph 0029 teaches because the implants may not be installed in a parallel fashion due to constraints such as adjacent teeth or inadequate bone densities in certain regions of the patient's mouth, the direction of measurement of the height dimensions may not be parallel either).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Berckmans III’s teaching of assessment of the bone density with respect to the sinus cavity and the dental region. This modified method would allow the user to ensure they will fit instruments within the mouth by use of the opposing-condition scan data (Abstract of Berckmans III). Furthermore, the modification ensures accurate dental reconstruction (Paragraph 0005 of Berckmans III).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the multiple bone density display device in claim 7, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a multiple bone density display device, wherein the area having the greatest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a maxillary sinus or a mandibular sinus, and the area having the smallest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a tooth.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental analysis, Berckmans III teaches a multiple bone density display device, wherein the area having the greatest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a maxillary sinus or a mandibular sinus, and the area having the smallest bone density value comprises an area adjacent to a tooth (Paragraph 0028 teaches that the implant assessment is based on the bone density of the sinus cavity and the mandibular canal provided by the scans and with the display of the implants. Paragraph 0029 teaches because the implants may not be installed in a parallel fashion due to constraints such as adjacent teeth or inadequate bone densities in certain regions of the patient's mouth, the direction of measurement of the height dimensions may not be parallel either).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Berckmans III’s teaching of assessment of the bone density with respect to the sinus cavity and the dental region. This modified apparatus would allow the user to ensure they will fit instruments within the mouth by use of the opposing-condition scan data (Abstract of Berckmans III). Furthermore, the modification ensures accurate dental reconstruction (Paragraph 0005 of Berckmans III).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent No. 6,224,373) in view of Vandeweghe et al. (“Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: A comparison with histomorphometry”, 2013) further in view of Garner et al. (PGPUB No. US 2014/0133726).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a method, wherein the displaying the second color comprises:
determining a bone density grade based on a bone density value of each pixel comprised in the implant body placement area; and determining the first color according to the bone density grade, wherein the bone density grade comprises a first hard bone to a third hard bone, a first normal bone to a third normal bone, and a first soft bone to a third soft bone.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding bone analysis, Garner teaches a method, wherein the displaying the second color comprises:
determining a bone density grade based on a bone density value of each pixel comprised in the implant body placement area; and determining the first color according to the bone density grade, wherein the bone density grade comprises a first hard bone to a third hard bone, a first normal bone to a third normal bone, and a first soft bone to a third soft bone (Paragraph 0223 teaches that the image can be according to bone density where the they can be designated dark, white, and grey according to the density level. Each color is according to a given pixel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Garner’s teaching of color coding according to the bone density. This modified method would allow the user to illustrate anatomical structures (Paragraph 0223 of Garner). Furthermore, the modification may provide room for improvement to more uniformly delineate bone and non-bone (Paragraph 0198 of JGarner).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Patent No. 6,224,373) in view of Vandeweghe et al. (“Utilizing micro-computed tomography to evaluate bone structure surrounding dental implants: A comparison with histomorphometry”, 2013) further in view of Choi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0246269).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a method, wherein the implant body placement area is automatically set based on implant body information comprising a length and diameter of the implant body.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Choi teaches a method, wherein the implant body placement area is automatically set based on implant body information comprising a length and diameter of the implant body (Paragraph 0051 teaches the automated setting of the placement according to the position, length, and diameter of the implant structure).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Choi’s teaching of the automated setting of the implant placement area according to implant length and diameter. This modified method would allow the user to improve placement accuracy (Paragraph 0021 of Choi). Furthermore, the modification will increase the user convenience (Paragraph 0020 of Choi).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the multiple bone density display device in claim 7, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe is silent regarding a multiple bone density display device, wherein the processor is further configured to control the implant body placement area to be automatically set based on implant body information comprising a length and diameter of the implant body.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dental implantation, Choi teaches a multiple bone density display device, wherein the processor is further configured to control the implant body placement area to be automatically set based on implant body information comprising a length and diameter of the implant body (Paragraph 0051 teaches the automated setting of the placement according to the position, length, and diameter of the implant structure).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lee and Vandeweghe with Choi’s teaching of the automated setting of the implant placement area according to implant length and diameter. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve placement accuracy (Paragraph 0021 of Choi). Furthermore, the modification will increase the user convenience (Paragraph 0020 of Choi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cho et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0101089): Teaches color coding according to the bone density.
Takahashi (PGPUB No. US 2023/0093849): Teaches color coding according to the bone density.
Kim et al. (PGPUB No. US 2016/0058528): Teaches color coding according to the bone density.
Chaoui et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0039868): Teaches color coding according to the bone density.
Lu et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0310650): Teaches color coding according to the bone density.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798