DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The objections to claims 6 and 11 under 37 CFR 1.75(c) are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections to claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 9 of the response in essence that: The Examiner's § 101 rejection rests in part on the proposition that the claimed steps are mental processes that can be performed by a human using pen and paper. This characterization does not apply to at least the step of displaying a view on a display.
Displaying the reprojection panoramic view on a display is merely post-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89 (1978).
The Applicant argues on page 9 of the response in essence that: Further, even if the claims are considered to recite an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), the additional elements (e.g., the DVT volume as input, the X-ray device in claim 14, the specific geometric operations of guide curve placement and extrusion, and the display of the resulting RPV) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The combination of these elements integrates any abstract idea into a practical application that produces a specific, useful medical imaging output.
The limitations of generating a reprojection panoramic view from a dental digital volume tomography volume, an X-ray device and display of the resulting RPV are 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations involve no more than generic equipment performing generic functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
The processing sequence of Arai is directly contrary to the sequence as claimed. In Arai, the spline curve is set at step S2a2 using tooth segmentation data. In Arai, the mandibular canal is not localized until step S2a4, which occurs after the panoramic images have already been generated from the tooth-arch-derived spline curve. The mandibular canal in Arai is therefore an output of the panoramic image generation process. In the cited claims, the mandibular canal localization is an input to the guide curve placement process. These are structurally and functionally opposite roles.
Arai discloses that the segmentation device 3 performs segmentation a biologically important region such as a mandibular canal passing through the constituent maxillofacial region (paragraph 58). While Applicant discusses Arai setting the spline curve SP along the curve of the dental arch to pass through the centers in a buccolingual direction of upper and lower teeth, that is merely one alternative that is listed. Arai discloses that the spline curve SP may be set representatively using the lower teeth out of the upper and lower teeth. Since the mandibular canal which is located in the mandible is close to the lower teeth, use of the spline curve SP focused on the lower teeth is helpful (paragraph 107).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/13/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-14 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 a display, 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 § 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 1-14 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 digital volume tomography volume (DVT volume) of a patient, the DVT volume being aligned with a mandibular canal of the patient, the method comprising:
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);
automatically defining a projection region of the RPV by:
automatically setting a guide curve in a plane perpendicular to a 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);
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); and
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);
generating the RPV by reprojecting the volume in the 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); and
displaying the RPV on a display (paragraph 114, In Step S4, the output unit 38 outputs information based on the result of calculation in Step S3. The outputting may include display of a visualized image).
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 wherein the guide curve is automatically set, but does not disclose expressly avoiding local distortions or reducing asymmetry of the RPV.
Chen discloses wherein the guide curve is automatically set 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:
preservation of aesthetics of the RPV, wherein a measure of aesthetics is based on at least one of: avoidance of local distortions of the RPV or reduction of recording-related asymmetry of the RPV (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);
limitation of a curve complexity when the guide curve is spanned by freely selected control points, the curve complexity being determined by a 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 associated optimization freedoms of the guide curve includes one of:
a first curve which is defined by freely selectable control points and an interpolation rule, wherein 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);
a second 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 second curve from the predetermined set are optimized; or
a third 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: 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 a tip of a chin of the patient at a point of severe curvature of the mandibular canal at a foramen mentale (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 6, Arai discloses wherein the thickness profile results from determining for each point on the guide curve a local thickness proportionally adapted to a respective diameter of the mandibular canal (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 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 localizing the mandibular canal comprises at least one of:
use of prior knowledge;
manual localization by a physician using an input means;
automatic image processing of the DVT volume; or
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 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 11, Arai discloses wherein a location is marked on the RPV to show where the localized mandibular canal is located outside the projection region (paragraph 126, A biologically important region (blood vessels, neural tubes, a mandibular canal, a biological tissue passing through the mandibular canal) is visibly presented on an image such as a tomographic image and a cross-section image (see FIGS. 12B to 12E) [by indicating the location of the mandibular canal, the edges of the indications will indicate where the canal is located outside the projection region).
Referring to claim 12, Arai discloses wherein data pairs of DVT volumes and annotations are used for training, wherein said annotations comprises at least one of: segmentation masks, probability distributions, heat maps, center lines, point clouds, triangular grids, or 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights