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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Image Processing Apparatus and Method including Modifying Mesh Data Based on User Input”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recite(s) obtaining and modifying mesh data and then providing feedback. These are steps that could be carried out manually and/or mentally by a person, e.g. by using pencil and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed features are recited in a generic sense. For example, the claim only mentions mesh data but no more specific detail as to exactly what the claim itself is directed towards. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 makes no mention about how specific computer hardware is used with the claimed invention and is required to be part of the inventive concept (performing the mesh modification and providing the feedback on this modification).
Dependent claims 2, 4-6, and 8-12, do not add any more significant detail to make the claim satisfy 35 USC 101 requirements. The additional detail provided by these claims are generic steps that can be performed as part of an abstract idea.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed computer-readable recording medium includes embodiments to be a signal or carrier wave. It is noted the 2nd paragraph on page 30 in the specification states that the recording medium “may be” a non-transitory storage medium. However, this is not considered a limited definition. The use of the words “may be” indicates that the claimed computer-readable recording medium is not limited to non-transitory (i.e. non-signal) embodiments. Thus, it is implied that the computer-readable storage medium on page 30 in the specification may still also include “transitory” (i.e. signal) embodiments.
Claims that recite nothing but the physical characteristics of a form of energy, such as a frequency, voltage, or the strength of a magnetic field, define energy or magnetism, per se, and as such are nonstatutory natural phenomena. One useful and possibly helpful description of the claimed computer-readable recording medium is to indicate in the claim language itself that it is a "non-transitory" type of computer readable recording medium.
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 3, 12, and 15 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.
As per claims 3 and 15, recite: “wherein the at least one menu item includes at least one of a first menu item corresponding to a mesh adding function, a second menu item corresponding to a mesh removing function, a third menu item corresponding to a mesh smoothing function, and a fourth menu item corresponding to a mesh morphing function” (emphasis has been added). The scope of the claim is unclear here because the phrase: “at least one of” implies that only 1 of the 4 menu items is required to satisfy the claim requirements but the “and” clause also implies that all four of the menu items are required to satisfy the claim requirements. Thus, it is not clear whether 1 menu item or all 4 menu items have to be present in the prior art to read on the claimed invention.
For purposes of examination in this office action, the examiner will assume that only 1 of the 4 menu items options is required to satisfy the claim requirements (in order words, the Examiner will assume that the “and” clause is really an “or” clause).
As per claim 12, it recites: “wherein the providing of the feedback comprises displaying at least one of a minimum allowable thickness and a maximum allowable thickness of the mesh data” (emphasis has been added). The scope of the claim is unclear here because the phrase: “at least one of” implies that only 1 of the 2 options is required to satisfy the claim requirements but the “and” clause implies that both of the options is required to satisfy the claim requirements. Thus, it is not clear whether 1 option or both options have to be present in the prior art to read on the claimed invention. For purposes of examination in this office action, the examiner will assume that only 1 of the 2 options is required to satisfy the claim requirements (in order words, the Examiner will assume that the “and” clause is really an “or” clause).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 11, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (Pub No. US 2019/0197691 A1).
As per claim 1, Chen teaches the claimed:
1. An image processing method comprising:
obtaining mesh data about an object (Chen in the abstract “A computer-implemented method for generating one or more segmented 3-D teeth models obtains a 3-D mesh model of a patient's dentition and executes a first segmentation procedure on the obtained 3-D mesh model, displaying one or more segmented teeth from the 3-D mesh model.”);
modifying the mesh data based on a user input (Chen in [0073] “FIGS. 9A-9C show operator interface screens 52 for portions of a sequence for review and entry of markup instructions for refining mesh segmentation processing according to certain exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure.”
Figures 9A-9C show the user input as input controls on the left side on the operator interface screens 52. Chen in figures 15A-B and in [0091] teach another example of modifying mesh data based on use input from using on-screen controls); and
providing feedback to a user about the modified mesh data (Chen in [0073] “FIGS. 9A-9C show operator interface screens 52 for portions of a sequence for review and entry of markup instructions for refining mesh segmentation processing according to certain exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. Interim mesh segmentation results are shown in a display area 86 on screen 52. A number of controls 90 for adjustment of the segmentation process are available, such as an adjustment control 84 for setting a level for overall aggressiveness or other parameter or characteristic of the segmentation processing algorithm. Optional selection controls 88 allow the viewer to specify one or more segmentation algorithms to be applied”) based on at least one threshold condition (Chen in [0075] “In one embodiment, segmentation of individual teeth from each other can use curvature thresholds to compute margin and border vertices, then use various growth techniques to define the bounds of each tooth relative to margin detection.” Chen in figures 15A-B and in [0091] teach another example where visual feedback is provided to the user based on individual teeth and their modified mesh data, e.g. [0091] recites “… An optional window 1508 can be used to display the original 3D mesh or the segmented result or the segmented result with segmentation types actually used. For example, operator control 1512 can be used to display to the practitioner the complete segmentation results for the full dental arch (or portion thereof) when all segmentations have been run with the segmentation type 1514 highlighted for each recorded tooth as shown in FIG. 15B.” Chen also teaches of using a threshold with figure 15A as well, e.g. [0090] states “… Each successive segmentation in certain exemplary automatic segmentation embodiments can record and then remove teeth segmented with a confidence factor over a threshold from further segmentation”).
As per claim 3, Chen teaches the claimed:
3. The image processing method of claim 1, further comprising
displaying at least one menu item for modifying the mesh data on a screen, wherein the at least one menu item includes at least one of a first menu item corresponding to a mesh adding function, a second menu item corresponding to a mesh removing function, a third menu item corresponding to a mesh smoothing function, [[and]] or a fourth menu item corresponding to a mesh morphing function (Please see the transition between figures 11 and 14 where the menu items on the left side of the screen provide controls 110 and 112 in order to add teeth to the mesh function or remove teeth from the mesh function), and
the modifying of the mesh data comprises modifying the mesh data based on a
user input for selecting the at least one menu item ([0087] “It should also be noted that one or more teeth that have been segmented can be “cleared” and restored or returned to the 3-D mesh model using a Clear instruction 112 (FIG. 11). Thus, for example, the viewer may determine that results for a particular tooth are not satisfactory or can be improved and that additional segmentation procedures would be helpful. Restoring a specified tooth to the modified 3-D mesh model allows further processing of the tooth in subsequent segmentation operations, either using different segmentation algorithms or applying different values to segmentation variables.”)
As per claim 11, Chen teaches the claimed:
11. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the providing of the feedback comprises displaying a modified area of the mesh data in a color according to a modification amount thereof (Chen teaches this feature in figure 9A where a color outline of a segmentation (modified area) is display or in figures 9B or 9C where a colored highlight is used to display a modified area of a mesh data for an individual tooth. In this instance, the modification amount corresponds to the outer boundaries of the mesh tooth shape or the shape of the segmentation boundary).
As per claims 13 and 15, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 1 and 3, respectively, and thus are rejected under the same rationale.
Chen teaches the claimed processor, display, and memory in [0053].
As per claim 20, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Chen teaches the claimed computer readable storage medium in [0092].
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Cunliffe et al. (Pub No. US 2022/0054234 A1).
As per claim 2, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen in combination with Cunliffe teaches the claimed:
2. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the mesh data includes restoration data about at least one tooth ([0065] “Embodiments of this invention could also be applied in a dentistry setting to enable automated or semi-automated planning of the location of a crown, bridge, or implant. In this application, a dentist could roughly place an implant in a digital arch form such that it achieves general aesthetic goals. Intelligent perturbation functions could then be used to automatically minimize or removing both collisions between teeth on a single arch and collisions between teeth on opposite arches. Mesh deformations (described in the next section) could also be applied to the implant in order to design an implant that fits correctly in a patient's mouth”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the mesh data to include restoration data about a tooth as taught by Cunliffe with the system of Chen in order to better design an implant, crown, or bridge that fits correctly in the patient’s mouth ([0065] in Chuliffe).
As per claim 14, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 2 and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Matov et al. (Pub No. US 2015/0142400 A1).
As per claim 4, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen in combination with Matov teaches the claimed:
4. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the providing of
the feedback comprises:
determining whether the modified mesh data satisfies the threshold condition; and providing the feedback indicating that the modified mesh data is not suitable based on the threshold condition not being satisfied (Matov [0134] “In some embodiments, the occlusal information data sets may include the space or collision depth between the upper teeth and lower teeth. Also, the occlusal information data sets may be displayed as a virtual 3D mesh object, where the virtual 3D mesh object may be overlaid on top of the virtual tooth model.” In this passage, the threshold condition includes when there is no collision between the upper and lower teeth. It is not suitable when there is a collision present. The feedback corresponds to the display of the collision being present).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the determining and displaying as taught by Matov with the system of Chen in order to provide to the design of a visual indication when a collision is present between the upper and lower teeth (Matov in [0134]).
As per claim 16, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 4 and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wen (Pub No. US 2006/0127856 A1).
As per claim 5, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen in combination with Wen teaches the claimed:
5. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the threshold condition includes at least one of a distance condition between an outer surface and an inner surface of the mesh data, whether an interference area in which the outer surface of the mesh data overlaps tooth data corresponding to the mesh data occurs, and a distance condition between the outer surface of the mesh data and the tooth data (Wen teaches this feature in figure 20 where rays of a given distance are cast from the inner surface of a tooth toward its outer surface. A distance condition is met when this distance intersections through another tooth (tooth data) which results in the overlap 2030 as an interference area. Also, please see Wen in [0093]. Also, please see Wen in figure 1 in step 160 “Predicting the interference of the two physical tooth models”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the distance condition as taught by Wen with the system of Chen in order to determine when two teeth collide. This determination then helps plan orthodontics that does not collide with the surrounding teeth (Wen in [0100]-[0102]).
As per claim 17, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 5 and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wen in further view of Fisker et al. (Pub No. US 2015/0150660 A1).
As per claim 6, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen and Wen in combination with Fisker teaches the claimed:
6. The image processing method of claim 5, wherein the mesh data includes restoration data about at least one tooth, and the tooth data includes data about at least one of an antagonist occluding with the restoration and an adjacent tooth adjacent to the restoration (Fisker [0030] “For a given design of the virtual 3D model of the dental restoration it may be determined whether there exists an insertion path along which the manufactured dental restoration can be moved to the target site in the patient's set of teeth. This may be along a path with no collision with the neighbor teeth or along a path which requires a limited displacement of the neighbor teeth to make space for the insertion of the dental restoration.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to as taught by Fisker with the system of Chen as modified by Wen in order to virtually model to help determine whether the dental restoration can be placed into the target site without collisions from neighboring teeth (Fisker in [0030]).
As per claim 18, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 6 and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wen in further view of Yuryev et al. (Pub No. US 2020/0000555 A1).
As per claim 8, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen and Wen in combination with Yuryev teaches the claimed:
8. The image processing method of claim 5, wherein the providing of the feedback comprises displaying an area, to be distinguished from other areas, in which a distance between an outer surface and an inner surface of the modified mesh data does not satisfy the threshold condition (As mentioned above for claim 5, Wen teaches of determining that the modified mesh data does not satisfy the threshold condition (e.g. a collision between teeth was determined) using the distance. Yuryev teaches that it was known to display an area, to be distinguished from other areas, when a collision between teeth is determined, e.g. please see Yuryev in figure 6 shows a displayed area 805 and Yuryev in [0049] “FIG. 6 shows one example of a collision region 805. Occlusion contacts represented by outline splines in a treatment file may be output as of computing backend during 3D modification. Described herein is a method and apparatus for restoring the shape (e.g., 3D shape) of an occlusion contact between two teeth, and visualizing it so that the doctor using provided outline and shape of tooth where contact appear using graphics card acceleration (OpenGL, WebGL)” and Yuryev in [0047] “… In practice, a collision may be detected between two or more teeth in any appropriate manner. Once detected, the region of collision may be modeled. In general, the modeling may be done by modeling the collision region using a standard mesh model, including vertices and triangular-shaped region.” In this instance, the threshold condition is not satisfied when a collision or occlusion contact occurs between teeth)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the distance condition as taught by Wen with the system of Chen to determine when two teeth collide. The motivation of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the area as taught by Yuryev with the system of Chen as modified by Wen in order to help alert the user that a collision occurred when planning the orthodontic treatment plan ([0051] of Yuryev).
As per claim 9, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen and Wen in combination with Yuryev teaches the claimed:
9. The image processing method of claim 5, wherein the providing of the feedback comprises displaying an overlap degree between the modified mesh data and the tooth data in the interference area in color when the interference area occurs (Yuryev in figure 6 shows displayed overlap degree 805 in a color when the interference area occurs and Yuryev in [0049] “FIG. 6 shows one example of a collision region 805. Occlusion contacts represented by outline splines in a treatment file may be output as of computing backend during 3D modification. Described herein is a method and apparatus for restoring the shape (e.g., 3D shape) of an occlusion contact between two teeth, and visualizing it so that the doctor using provided outline and shape of tooth where contact appear using graphics card acceleration (OpenGL, WebGL)” and Yuryev in [0047] “… In practice, a collision may be detected between two or more teeth in any appropriate manner. Once detected, the region of collision may be modeled. In general, the modeling may be done by modeling the collision region using a standard mesh model, including vertices and triangular-shaped region.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to displaying an overlap degree as taught by Yuryev with the system of Chen as modified by Wen. The motivation of claim 8 is incorporated herein.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Yuryev.
As per claim 10, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen in combination with Yuryev teaches the claimed:
10. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the providing of the feedback comprises displaying a message indicating that the modified mesh data is not suitable based on the modified mesh data not satisfying the threshold condition (Yuryev in figure 6 shows a displayed message 805 and Yuryev in [0049] “FIG. 6 shows one example of a collision region 805. Occlusion contacts represented by outline splines in a treatment file may be output as of computing backend during 3D modification. Described herein is a method and apparatus for restoring the shape (e.g., 3D shape) of an occlusion contact between two teeth, and visualizing it so that the doctor using provided outline and shape of tooth where contact appear using graphics card acceleration (OpenGL, WebGL)” and Yuryev in [0047] “… In practice, a collision may be detected between two or more teeth in any appropriate manner. Once detected, the region of collision may be modeled. In general, the modeling may be done by modeling the collision region using a standard mesh model, including vertices and triangular-shaped region.” In this instance, the threshold condition is not satisfied when a collision or occlusion contact occurs between teeth)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the message as taught by Yuryev with the system of Chen to help alert the user that a collision occurred when planning the orthodontic treatment plan ([0051] of Yuryev).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Meier et al. (Pub No. US 2013/0179126 A1).
As per claim 12, Chen alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Chen in combination with Meier teaches the claimed:
12. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the providing of the feedback comprises displaying at least one of a minimum allowable thickness [[and]] or a maximum allowable thickness of the mesh data (Meier in [0097] “For the manufacturing of the dental restoration it is required that a certain minimum wall thickness is ensured. Therefore, a minimal surface 17, as shown in FIG. 6, may be constructed and every vertex of the deformed tooth template 18 may be required to lie above this minimal surface 17. The minimal surface 17 may be constructed by an offset on the rest tooth 1 and the mesh of the cavity to be provided with the dental restoration” and Meier in [0071] “The schematic representations shown in FIGS. 1 to 6 may be displayed for example on a computer display or the like, wherein data sets may be provided corresponding to the depicted objects” and Meier at the end of [0012] “… The surface of the rest tooth may be described by a mesh of triangles” and Meier in [0014] “… The surface of the tooth template may be described by a mesh of triangles, wherein the triangles may all be the same or wherein the triangles may have different shapes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the minimum allowable thickness as taught by Meier with the system of Chen to better communicate to the user how the vertexes and mesh structure of the dental restoration will fit over the minimal surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F HAJNIK whose telephone number is (571) 272-7642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
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.
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights