DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figures 1, 2 and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 6 and 11 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 should be replaced with “mandibular canal, comprising: . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The reference to “an foramen mentale” in line 3 should be replaced with “a foramen mentale“. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referenced to establish that the subject matter is ineligible.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method, claim 13 recites a computer-readable medium and claim 14 recites a system. Claims 1-14 fall under one of the four recognized statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: However, claims 1-14 are further directed to the abstract idea of generating a panoramic view aligned with the mandibular canal. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, the claims do not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind. The limitations are mental processes that can be performed by a human using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include an X-ray device, a processor and memory as recited in claim 14. The involvement of a generic computer components does not provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations to hardware involve no more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
While the claims positively recite generating a reprojection panoramic view from a dental DVT volume of a patient, the limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. The Applicant's Background describes manually setting an orthogonal slice of a multiplanar reformation as predating the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Step 2B: The claims do not provide an inventive concept as they do not provide an improvement to any type of particular machine. Automating the manual process of setting the correct slice view of a dental DVT volume does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. The claims do not improve the computer system that is implementing the abstract idea. Merely automating or otherwise making efficient traditional methods do not constitute an inventive concept. Furthermore, “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.” Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). Therefore claims 1-14 are non-statutory.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the course" in line 2, “the mandibular canal” in lines 2-3, “the patient longitudinal axis” in lines 7-8 and “the defined projection region” in lines 13-14. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations " the following criteria" in line 4, “the resulting RPV” in line 5, “the following criteria” in line 6, “the recording-related asymmetry” in line 7 and “the number of control points” in line 10. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations " the following representations" in line 2 and “the positions” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the following" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations " the tip" in line 2, “the point” in lines 2-3 and “the criteria” in lines 3-4. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “wherein detection of this point is made either according to claim 4”. Claim 4 does not recite detection. It is therefore unclear what is meant from the statement “wherein detection of this point is made either according to claim 4”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the resulting RPV" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the following" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the created RPV" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the following" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the mandibular canal” in line 6, “the RPV” in line 7, “the patient longitudinal axis” in lines 8-9, and “the DVT volume” and “the defined projection region” in line 11. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the mandibular canal” in line 5, “the RPV” in line 6, “the patient longitudinal axis” in lines 7-8, and “the DVT volume” and “the defined projection region” in line 12. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. US Publication 2021/0104039 (hereafter “Arai”) and Chen et al. US Publication 2024/0099812 (hereafter “Chen”).
Referring to claims 1, 13 and 14, Arai discloses a method for automatically generating a reprojection panoramic view (RPV) from a dental volume of a patient, which is aligned with the course of the mandibular canal, comprising:
(S1) localizing of the mandibular canal (paragraph 58, The segmentation device 3 performs segmentation on data of a constituent maxillofacial region acquired by the imaging device 2. Segmentation includes distinguishment, identification, and the like of a biologically important region which is included in the constituent maxillofacial region. A biologically important region is a region of at least one of blood vessels, neural tubes, a mandibular canal passing through the constituent maxillofacial region, and a biological tissue passing through the mandibular canal),
(S2) automatically defining a projection region of the RPV comprising:
(S2.1) Automatically setting a guide curve in a plane perpendicular to the patient longitudinal axis using the localized mandibular canal (paragraph 107, In Step S2a2, the calculation unit 34 sets a curved line along the curve of the dental arch for the segmentation data of the tooth region acquired in Step S2a1);
(S2.2) automatically defining a variable or constant thickness profile along the guide curve (paragraph 117, As illustrated in FIG. 11B, an area which extends two-dimensionally to sufficiently include the tooth region in the upper and lower sides of the spline curve SP can be set as a panoramic sectional layer PN1);
(S2.3) extruding an area defined by the guide curve and a thickness profile along the patient longitudinal axis (paragraph 117, A cross-section CR may be set as a plane crossing the panoramic sectional layer PN1 as illustrated in FIG. 11B. The cross-section CR may perpendicularly cross the panoramic sectional layer PN1); and
(S3) generating the RPV by reprojecting the volume in the defined projection region (paragraph 108, In Step S2a3, the calculation unit 34 generates at least one image of a panoramic tomographic image along the spline curve SP set in Step S2a2 and a cross-section image crossing the spline curve SP).
While Arai discloses a dental volume comprising an X-ray CT or MRI, Arai does not disclose expressly the dental volume is a dental DVT volume.
Chen discloses a dental DVT of a patient (paragraph 127, The schematic diagram of FIG. 1 shows an imaging apparatus 100 for 3-D CBCT cephalometric imaging).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a dental volume of a patient via DVT. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain an accurate and detailed 3d image of the patient using standardized dental equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Arai to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 13 and 14.
Referring to claim 2, Arai discloses determining the guide curve in step (S2.1), but does not disclose expressly avoiding local distortions or reducing asymmetry of the RPV.
Chen discloses wherein the guide curve is determined in step (S2.1) using an optimization, which is performed with respect to a distance measure between the guide curve and the localized mandibular canal, taking into account at least one of the following criteria:
- preservation of aesthetics of the resulting RPV, wherein a measure of aesthetics is based on at least one of the following criteria: avoidance of local distortions of the RPV to be generated in (S3), reduction of the recording-related asymmetry of the RPV to be generated in step (S3) (paragraph 187, According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, this type of misalignment of upper and lower jaw planes (inertia system) due to one or more missing teeth can be corrected by excluding companion teeth of each missing tooth as illustrated in FIGS. 20A and 20B);
- In a case of the guide curve spanned by freely selected control points, limitation of a curve complexity, which is determined by the number of control points or degree of a polynomial.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to avoid local distortions or reduce asymmetry of the RPV. The motivation for doing so would have been to correct inaccuracies and inconsistencies in dental images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Arai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Referring to claim 3, Arai discloses wherein the guide curve to be set has one of the following representations with associated optimization freedoms:
- a curve which is defined by freely selectable control points and an interpolation rule, wherein the positions of the control points are free optimization parameters (paragraph 107, various methods are used to set the spline curve SP. By manually correcting the spline curve SP which has been acquired as described above and inputting the corrected data to the input unit 32, it may be possible to achieve improvement in accuracy of training data and machine learning);
- the curve which is selected from a set of predetermined curve forms and adapted under geometric transformations, wherein both transformation parameters of the geometric transformations and the selection of the curve from the predetermined set are optimized;
- the curve which is parameterized through a function, wherein the function parameters represent free optimization parameters.
Referring to claim 4, Arai discloses wherein, in addition to the mandibular canal, further dental-relevant structures are added to optimize the guide curve, which include at least one of the following: Teeth, Incisal point, Foramen Mandibulae, Foramen Mentale, Tuberculum Mentale, Protuberantia Mentalis, Foramen Lingualis, Spina Mentalis, Fossa Digastrica (paragraph 107, the spline curve SP may be set along the curve of the dental arch to pass through the centers in a buccolingual direction of upper and lower teeth).
Referring to claim 5, Arai discloses wherein the guide curve is selected such that it continues toward the tip of a chin at the point of severe curvature of the mandibular canal at a foramen mentale, and follows the criteria of aesthetics, wherein detection of this point is made either according to claim 4 or using a measure of curvature (paragraph 119, FIG. 11D illustrates an example of segmentation data of a mandibular bone region. A spline curve SP is set for the segmentation data SGJ of the jawbone region).
Referring to claim 7, Arai discloses wherein a constant thickness profile with a small thickness (D) is selected such that the resulting RPV corresponds to a curved sectional view (paragraph 119, FIG. 11D illustrates an example of segmentation data of a mandibular bone region. A spline curve SP is set for the segmentation data SGJ of the jawbone region).
Referring to claim 8, Arai discloses wherein (S1) comprises at least one of the following:
(S1.1) use of prior knowledge;
(S1.2) manual localization by a physician using an input means;
(S1.3) automatic image processing of the DVT volume;
(S1.4) use of a trained machine learning method (paragraph 73, The learning model 36 is generated (trained) using training data such that segmentation data of a biologically important region is output when data of the constituent maxillofacial region is input).
Referring to claim 9, Arai discloses wherein the projection region of the RPV optimized to the mandibular canal to facilitate mandibular canal-specific workflows (paragraph 114, In Step S4, the output unit 38 outputs information based on the result of calculation in Step S3. FIG. 7C illustrates a cross-section image. In FIG. 7C, the position of the mandibular canal is marked), but does not disclose expressly wherein the projection region of the RPV serves as a starting point for post navigation through the DVT volume to facilitate mandibular canal-specific workflows.
Chen discloses wherein the projection region of the RPV serves as a starting point for post navigation through the DVT volume to facilitate mandibular canal-specific workflows (paragraph 143, As part of the interface of display 108, an optional control 166 enables the viewer to adjust the perspective angle from which one or more of the 2-D views are obtained, either by toggling between alternate fixed views or by changing the relative perspective angle in increments along any of the 3-D axes (x, y, z)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable navigation through the DVT volume. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the operator to view the state of the patient’s mouth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Arai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Referring to claim 10, Arai discloses wherein a result of a mandibular canal localization is shown on the created RPV (paragraph 114, In Step S4, the output unit 38 outputs information based on the result of calculation in Step S3. FIG. 7C illustrates a cross-section image. In FIG. 7C, the position of the mandibular canal is marked).
Referring to claim 12, Arai discloses wherein data pairs of DVT volumes and annotations are used in (S 1.4) for training, wherein said annotations comprises at least one of the following: segmentation masks, probability distributions, heat maps, center lines, point clouds, triangular grids, bounding boxes (paragraph 89, FIG. 5B is an image in which a region of interest (specifically a tooth region) in the image illustrated in FIG. 5A is segmented and masked. An image other than the masked part is removed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682