DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Office Action is responsive to claims filed on 08/07/2024. Please note Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 18 recites “a computer-readable recording medium”. A “computer readable recording medium”, absent evidence to the contrary from the specification or prosecution history, would normally be patent-eligible (statutory) because of the scope narrowing modifier “recording.” A “recording” is a “record”, which is defined by Marriam-Webster’s online dictionary as follows: 1c. “to register permanently by mechanical means”; 3. “to cause (sound, visual images, data, etc.) to be registered on something (such as a disc or magnetic tape) in reproducible form”. Therefore, the permanent, reproducible nature of a “record” as indicated by the plain meaning weighs against interpretation as a transitory signal which is fleeting and does not persist over time.
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a screen direction”. Claim 10 and Claim 18 recite similar feature. One of ordinary skill in the art could not understand what direction the “screen direction” refers to. A screen usually defines a plane, not a direction. Clarification is needed.
Other claims are dependent from claim 1 or claim 10, and are therefore rejected.
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 of this title, 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, 6, 7, 10, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 20210217222 A1), in view of Andreiko (US 20090098502 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nielsen discloses a data processing apparatus comprising:
a memory storing one or more instructions ([0088] “The instructions may be program code means loaded in a memory, such as a RAM, from a storage medium or from another computer via a computer network.”); and
a processor configured to execute the one or more instructions ([0088] “The features of the method described above and in the following may be implemented in software and carried out on a data processing system or other processing means caused by the execution of computer-executable instructions.”) to:
display an intraoral model including one or more teeth (Fig. 4C. [0016] “For a visible anatomical structure, such as teeth, a surface scanning for example using an intraoral scanner can provide the first digital 3D representation”);
select a target tooth from among the one or more teeth included in the intraoral model ([0003] “3D volumetric data relating to the selected portion” inherently teaches a step of selection); and
display transparently an area of the intraoral model included in a transparent processing area ([0002] “When the volume rendering should select only 3D volumetric data relating to a particular anatomical structure, clipping planes and/or bounding boxes can be used to exclude portions of the 3D volumetric data relating to other anatomical structures”) plane ([0002] “Clipping planes enclosing the 3D volumetric data that should be included in the volume rendering are then defined such that objects located outside the clipping planes are invisible in the generated 2D projection.”)
Nielsen does not expressly disclose the transparent processing area located in a screen direction, and the clipping plane located at a predetermined distance from the target tooth in the screen direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Andreiko discloses display transparently an area of the intraoral model included in a transparent processing area located in a screen direction (Fig. 7. [0072] “Referring now to FIGS. 7 and 8, the clipping plane functionality provides a sectioned view of a tooth. A plane (clipping plane 72) is used to section the tooth.”) based on a clipping plane located at a predetermined distance from the target tooth in the screen direction ([0073] “Method 1: The clipping plane 72 will be parallel to the screen & as the user moves the plane 72 by using slider bar/dragging the mouse, the assembly 40, 42 will rotate keeping the plane parallel to the screen.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Nielsen with the feature of displaying transparently an area of the intraoral model included in a transparent processing area located in a screen direction based on a clipping plane located at a predetermined distance from the target tooth in the screen direction. Doing so could assist the user to view the model and provide “a significant advance in the technology of developing treatment plans for orthodontics”, as taught by Andreiko.
Regarding Claim 6, Nielsen-Andreiko discloses the data processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the one or more instructions: display a predetermined icon; and display the intraoral model without setting the transparent processing area by removing the clipping plane according to an input for selecting the icon (Andreiko [0076] “To utilize the clipping plane 72, the user selects the Clipping Interaction icon 70 from the tool bar or selects from the menu, View and Clipping Interaction.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Nielsen-Andreiko discloses the data processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, by executing the one or more instructions: rotate and display the intraoral model in response to a user input for rotating the intraoral model (Andreiko [0080] “The three rotational degrees of freedom, Rotation 103, Tip 105, and Torque 107 rotate the tooth around the translational axes. Movement of the tooth in any of these directions is accomplished by selecting the appropriate degree of freedom with the mouse, then while holding down the left mouse button, manipulating the tooth.”); generate a new transparent processing area based on a new clipping plane by generating a new clipping plane at the predetermined distance in the screen direction from the target tooth rotated according to the rotation of the intraoral model (Andreiko [0076] “In the second mode, the clipping plane 72 is positioned parallel to the screen and remains stationary as the teeth 40, 42 are rotated through the plane.”); and display transparently the area of the intraoral model included in the new transparent processing area (Nielsen [0002] “…objects located outside the clipping planes are invisible in the generated 2D projection”).
Regarding Claim 10, it recites similar limitations of claim 1. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites similar limitations of claim 7. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 15.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 1. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONG WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5207. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/CHONG WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights