DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This analysis is based on the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128).
Step 1:
Claims 1-18 are directed to a method, system or non-transitory computer readable medium which fall under the statutory categories of invention of machines. Therefore, step 1 is met.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite “a processor” or using a computer for “determining an impression side of the digital model” and “deleting a non-impression side from the digital model.” The limitations, excluding the processor/computer, therefore falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the use of one or more neural networks encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18 further clarify previously established limitations that may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. For example, determining the impression side based on cusps can be accomplished by a person observing a model and visually determining which side has cusps, which are noted as surface peaks generally corresponding to local height maxima.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13 are recited as being performed by a “processor” or a computer. The computer/processor is recited at a high level of generality. The computer/circuitry is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), which provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
In evaluation of whether the invention integrates into a practical application, it should be clear that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. To evaluate an improvement to a computer or technical field, the specification must set forth an improvement in technology and the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
According to the specification, the improvement is to be able to determine a jaw orientation by means of determining an occlusion axis. However, there is no clear recitation of determination of such axis. Though claims 6, 12 and 18 mention the occlusion axis, they do not describe any step of the actual determination, nor do they require the direction to be purposely matched to the occlusion axis.
Step 2B:
In claims 1, 7 and 13, the limitation of “receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression” amounts to merely receiving data. This limitation is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. In consideration, this limitation is further evaluated to take into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Receiving data is very well understood and routine in the field and therefore these do not add an inventive concept to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chisti et al. (US 20080248443) and Marshall et al. (US 2009/0316966).
Regarding claim 1, Chisti et al. discloses a computer-implemented method of digitally processing a digital dental impression, comprising:
receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression (“In some implementations, the initial digital data set includes data obtained by scanning a physical model of the patient's teeth, such as by scanning a positive impression or a negative impression of the patient's teeth with a laser scanner or a destructive scanner” at paragraph 0018, line 1);
determining an impression side of the digital model (“Another feature detection technique uses automatic detection of tooth cusps. Cusps are pointed projections on the chewing surface of a tooth. In one implementation, cusp detection is performed in two stages: (1) a "detection" stage, during which a set of points on the tooth are determined as candidates for cusp locations; and (2) a "rejection" stage, during which candidates from the set of points are rejected if they do not satisfy a set of criteria associated with cusps” at paragraph 0105).
Chisti et al. does not explicitly disclose deleting a non-impression side from the digital model.
Marshall et al. teaches a method in the same field of endeavor of dental scan processing, comprising:
receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression (“A scan operation 310 acquires positional information pertaining to the obtained impression or fabricated casting. In certain embodiments, the scan operation 310 can acquire positional information pertaining to multiple impressions or castings. By scanning the teeth or physical representation thereof directly with a line scanner, high resolution and speed are gained. In one embodiment, the scan operation 310 can obtain a first scan of a mandibular impression or casting” at paragraph 0076, line 1);
deleting a non-impression side from the digital model (“An optional remove operation 208 enables removal of a portion of the dental model. For example, in one embodiment, when an impression or casting of a dentition is scanned, the impression or casting can include an artificial base to provide stability to the impression or casting without representing any portion of the patient's dentition. In other case, data points acquired during an intra-oral scan can include data representing a greater region of the patient's dentition or mouth than was intended to be obtained. The remove operation 208 enables identification of a section of the dental model (e.g., the base of a casting) to be deleted and elimination of the identified section from the dental model” at paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the removal operation as taught by Marshall et al. on the digital model of Chisti et al. to allow the user to clean up the model of the patient (see Marshall et al. at paragraph 0068 as cited above).
Regarding claim 7, Chisti et al. discloses a system for digitally processing a digital dental impression, the system comprising:
a processor (“The data processing system 300 typically includes at least one processor 302” at paragraph 0188, line 3); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor (“Storage subsystem 306 maintains the basic required programming and data constructs. The program modules discussed above are typically stored in storage subsystem 306. Storage subsystem 306 typically comprises memory subsystem 308 and file storage subsystem 314” at paragraph 0191) to perform steps comprising:
receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression (“In some implementations, the initial digital data set includes data obtained by scanning a physical model of the patient's teeth, such as by scanning a positive impression or a negative impression of the patient's teeth with a laser scanner or a destructive scanner” at paragraph 0018, line 1);
determining an impression side of the digital model (“Another feature detection technique uses automatic detection of tooth cusps. Cusps are pointed projections on the chewing surface of a tooth. In one implementation, cusp detection is performed in two stages: (1) a "detection" stage, during which a set of points on the tooth are determined as candidates for cusp locations; and (2) a "rejection" stage, during which candidates from the set of points are rejected if they do not satisfy a set of criteria associated with cusps” at paragraph 0105).
Chisti et al. does not explicitly disclose deleting a non-impression side from the digital model.
Marshall et al. teaches a system in the same field of endeavor of dental scan processing, comprising:
a processor (“The computer 100 includes a processor unit (CPU) 112” at paragraph 0057, line 5);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor (“The drives and their associated computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage of computer readable instructions, data structures, programs, and other data for the computer 100” at paragraph 0058, last sentence) to perform steps comprising:
receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression (“A scan operation 310 acquires positional information pertaining to the obtained impression or fabricated casting. In certain embodiments, the scan operation 310 can acquire positional information pertaining to multiple impressions or castings. By scanning the teeth or physical representation thereof directly with a line scanner, high resolution and speed are gained. In one embodiment, the scan operation 310 can obtain a first scan of a mandibular impression or casting” at paragraph 0076, line 1);
deleting a non-impression side from the digital model (“An optional remove operation 208 enables removal of a portion of the dental model. For example, in one embodiment, when an impression or casting of a dentition is scanned, the impression or casting can include an artificial base to provide stability to the impression or casting without representing any portion of the patient's dentition. In other case, data points acquired during an intra-oral scan can include data representing a greater region of the patient's dentition or mouth than was intended to be obtained. The remove operation 208 enables identification of a section of the dental model (e.g., the base of a casting) to be deleted and elimination of the identified section from the dental model” at paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the removal operation as taught by Marshall et al. on the digital model of Chisti et al. to allow the user to clean up the model of the patient (see Marshall et al. at paragraph 0068 as cited above).
Regarding claim 13, Chisti et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable computer program instructions to provide digitally process a digital dental impression (“Storage subsystem 306 maintains the basic required programming and data constructs. The program modules discussed above are typically stored in storage subsystem 306. Storage subsystem 306 typically comprises memory subsystem 308 and file storage subsystem 314” at paragraph 0191), the computer program instructions comprising instructions for:
receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression (“In some implementations, the initial digital data set includes data obtained by scanning a physical model of the patient's teeth, such as by scanning a positive impression or a negative impression of the patient's teeth with a laser scanner or a destructive scanner” at paragraph 0018, line 1);
determining an impression side of the digital model (“Another feature detection technique uses automatic detection of tooth cusps. Cusps are pointed projections on the chewing surface of a tooth. In one implementation, cusp detection is performed in two stages: (1) a "detection" stage, during which a set of points on the tooth are determined as candidates for cusp locations; and (2) a "rejection" stage, during which candidates from the set of points are rejected if they do not satisfy a set of criteria associated with cusps” at paragraph 0105).
Chisti et al. does not explicitly disclose deleting a non-impression side from the digital model.
Marshall et al. teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium in the same field of endeavor of dental scan processing (“The drives and their associated computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage of computer readable instructions, data structures, programs, and other data for the computer 100” at paragraph 0058, last sentence), the computer program instructions comprising instructions for:
receiving a digital model of a single-jaw dental impression (“A scan operation 310 acquires positional information pertaining to the obtained impression or fabricated casting. In certain embodiments, the scan operation 310 can acquire positional information pertaining to multiple impressions or castings. By scanning the teeth or physical representation thereof directly with a line scanner, high resolution and speed are gained. In one embodiment, the scan operation 310 can obtain a first scan of a mandibular impression or casting” at paragraph 0076, line 1);
deleting a non-impression side from the digital model (“An optional remove operation 208 enables removal of a portion of the dental model. For example, in one embodiment, when an impression or casting of a dentition is scanned, the impression or casting can include an artificial base to provide stability to the impression or casting without representing any portion of the patient's dentition. In other case, data points acquired during an intra-oral scan can include data representing a greater region of the patient's dentition or mouth than was intended to be obtained. The remove operation 208 enables identification of a section of the dental model (e.g., the base of a casting) to be deleted and elimination of the identified section from the dental model” at paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the removal operation as taught by Marshall et al. on the digital model of Chisti et al. to allow the user to clean up the model of the patient (see Marshall et al. at paragraph 0068 as cited above).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 14, Chisti et al. discloses a method, system and medium wherein determining the impression side of the digital model comprises determining one or more cusps (“Another feature detection technique uses automatic detection of tooth cusps. Cusps are pointed projections on the chewing surface of a tooth. In one implementation, cusp detection is performed in two stages: (1) a "detection" stage, during which a set of points on the tooth are determined as candidates for cusp locations; and (2) a "rejection" stage, during which candidates from the set of points are rejected if they do not satisfy a set of criteria associated with cusps” at paragraph 0105).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, Chisti et al. discloses a method, system and medium wherein determining one or more cusps comprises determining one or more digital surface peaks in the digital model (“One process for the "detection" stage is set forth in FIG. 6A. In the detection stage, a possible cusp is viewed as an "island" on the surface of the tooth, with the candidate cusp at the highest point on the island. "Highest" is measured with respect to the coordinate system of the model” at paragraph 0106, line 1; The set of all possible cusps is determined by looking for all local maxima on the tooth model that are within a specified distance of the top of the bounding box of the model. First, the highest point on the model is designated as the first candidate cusp” at paragraph 0107, line 1).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 16, Chisti et al. discloses a method, system and medium wherein determining one or more digital surface is based on one or more selected from the group consisting of highest curvature, height (“The set of all possible cusps is determined by looking for all local maxima on the tooth model that are within a specified distance of the top of the bounding box of the model. First, the highest point on the model is designated as the first candidate cusp. A plane is passed through this point, perpendicular to the direction along which the height of a point is measured” at paragraph 0107, line 1), and height to radius ratio.
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 17, Chisti et al. discloses a method, system and medium wherein determining one or more peaks comprises determining local maxima by directions (“The set of all possible cusps is determined by looking for all local maxima on the tooth model that are within a specified distance of the top of the bounding box of the model. First, the highest point on the model is designated as the first candidate cusp. A plane is passed through this point, perpendicular to the direction along which the height of a point is measured” at paragraph 0107, line 1), and height to radius ratio.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 18, Chisti et al. discloses a method, system and medium wherein one direction is along an occlusion axis (“One process for the "detection" stage is set forth in FIG. 6A. In the detection stage, a possible cusp is viewed as an "island" on the surface of the tooth, with the candidate cusp at the highest point on the island. "Highest" is measured with respect to the coordinate system of the model” at paragraph 0106, line 1; as seen in Figures 1A and 18 there is an associated vertical axis for the coordinate system that is an occlusion axis).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA R FUJITA whose telephone number is (571)270-1574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-5:30 pm ET.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 5712723638. 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.
/KATRINA R FUJITA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672