DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following reasons are provided to evaluate subject matter eligibility.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the analysis is a ‘yes’, claim 1 recites a process, claim 7 recites a machine/device, and claim 13 recites a manufacture.
With regard to (2A) Prong One, the analysis is a “yes”. Claim 1 recites “obtaining a first three-dimensional oral cavity model generated by scanning an object; obtaining a margin line of the first three-dimensional oral cavity model; and obtaining a second three-dimensional oral cavity model in which the margin line is represented by changing an attribute of data corresponding to a position of the margin line obtained in the first three-dimensional oral cavity model.” When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation the claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes. The step of “obtaining the margin line…” is generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data, and evaluating the data in the mind. The concepts, as claimed, are observations and/or evaluations (“obtaining...”). There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen/paper, can perform. One can perform the process using pen and paper, and the recitation of a processor and memory in the system/device claim is a mere use of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG.
With regard to (2A) Prong Two: the analysis is a “No”. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “changing an attribute of data corresponding to a position of the margin line obtained in the first three-dimensional oral cavity model,” this additional element represents mere data gathering and indexing the data all together that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity, and changing the attribute is a generic operation. See MPEP 2106.05(1). The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B): the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, including the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. It has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Claims 7 and 13 are similarly rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are rejected for the same reasons and not repeated herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rohaly et al. (U.S. patent 10,667,887).
Regarding claim 1: Rohaly et al. discloses a method of processing a three-dimensional oral cavity model (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining a first three-dimensional oral cavity model generated by scanning an object (col. 4 line 45 to col. 5 line 61, a three dimensional model of the oral cavity is obtained);
obtaining a margin line of the first three-dimensional oral cavity model (col. 4 line 45 to col. 5 line 61, a margin line is placed on the image and 3D model); and
obtaining a second three-dimensional oral cavity model in which the margin line is represented by changing an attribute of data corresponding to a position of the margin line obtained in the first three-dimensional oral cavity model (col. 4 line 45 to col. 5 line 61, the margin line/points and model are manipulated resulting in an updated 3D model, i.e. read as a second 3D oral cavity model).
Regarding claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein the changing of the attribute of the data corresponding to the position of the margin line comprises changing an attribute of data on at least one of vertices, polygons, and vertices of the polygons corresponding to the position of the margin line (col. 7 line 65 to col. 8 line 8, the image/model are composed of polygons and by manipulating the image and/or margin lines results in changing the polygons).
Regarding claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein the changing of the attribute of the data corresponding to the position of the margin line comprises one of:
changing colors of vertices of polygons corresponding to the position of the margin line in the first three-dimensional oral cavity model; and changing colors of faces of the polygons (col. 23 line 53 to col. 24 line 3, the color and/or intensity is manipulated for the image/3D model, i.e. read as changing colors of the polygons.).
Regarding claim 7: See claim 1.
Regarding claim 8: See claim 2.
Regarding claim 9: See claim 3.
Regarding claim 13: See claim 1.
Note: Regarding claims 4-6 and 10-12, these claims are not rejected with prior art since prior art was not found on the claimed subject matter but are still rejected under 35USC 101.
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
November 18, 2025