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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 11/6/25. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine), and claim 9 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-9 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for improving a medical scan of a head anatomy of a patient obtained by a scanning apparatus that includes an extraoral acquisition part and an intraoral patient stabilization part, each of which are fixedly attached to the scanning apparatus, comprising:
obtaining, using the extraoral acquisition part, a plurality of scan datasets related to the head anatomy, wherein at least some of the plurality of scan datasets are usable for obtaining the medical scan;
obtaining, using the intraoral patient stabilization part, intraoral data related to one or more intraoral features of the patient, the intraoral data having been captured during acquisition of the plurality of scan datasets by the extraoral acquisition part, wherein the intraoral patient stabilization part is deterministically positioned relative to the extraoral acquisition part;
determining, using the intraoral data, parts of the plurality of scan datasets during acquisition of which a movement related to the one or more intraoral features is detected, wherein said movement of the one or more intraoral features is relative to the intraoral patient stabilization part;
constructing and/or correcting the medical scan, from the plurality of scan datasets, in response to the determination, to produce a plurality of corrected scan datasets; and
generating a 3D model of the head anatomy using the plurality of corrected scan datasets.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because obtaining a plurality of scan datasets related to the head anatomy, wherein at least some of the plurality of scan datasets are usable for obtaining the medical scan; obtaining intraoral data related to one or more intraoral features of the patient; determining, using the intraoral data, parts of the plurality of scan datasets during acquisition of which a movement related to the one or more intraoral features is detected, wherein said movement of the one or more intraoral features is relative to the intraoral patient stabilization part; and constructing and/or correcting the medical scan, from the plurality of scan datasets, in response to the determination, to produce a plurality of corrected scan datasets amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 9, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a scanning apparatus, parts, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a computer, and a processor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the scanning apparatus, parts, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of obtaining data, determining data, constructing and/or correcting data, and generating data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims recite the additional limitation of the intraoral data having been captured during acquisition of the plurality of scan datasets by the extraoral acquisition part. Such step would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art and are well-understood, routine and conventional activities specified at a high level of generality. It is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and therefore adds insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-7 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 2-7 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-7 describe further limitations regarding performing any of one or more operations for reducing an effect of the movement from the medical scan; compensating for the movement which occurred in corresponding parts of the plurality of scan datasets; transforming coordinates from the intraoral data to coordinates related to the plurality of scan datasets; applying a relative coordinate transformation determined from the intraoral data to a coordinate system of the medical scan; determining one or more reference intraoral positions with respect to one or more of the one or more intraoral features; and determining one or more movement values by measuring displacement of the one or more intraoral features from their respective reference intraoral positions. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claim 1, without adding significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 8, and 9 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to a computer/processor obtaining data, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-9 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin (US 2014/0120493 A1) in view of Lecuyer et al. (US 2014/0147803 A1), and further in view of Vartiainen et al. (US 2019/0231285 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Levin discloses A computer-implemented method for improving a medical scan of a head anatomy of a patient obtained by a scanning apparatus, comprising (abstract of Levin):
obtaining, using the extraoral acquisition part, a plurality of scan datasets related to the head anatomy, wherein at least some of the plurality of scan datasets are usable for obtaining the medical scan (para. 6, 7, & 14 of Levin; A scanning system may be used to obtain digital data representing a patient's teeth in their current position (i.e., at the time of the scan), which will be considered herein as an initial digital data set (IDDS) representing an initial tooth arrangement. The patient's teeth may be imaged directly or indirectly (e.g., through the use of a model or impression) to obtain digital data using direct and/or indirect structured light, X-rays, three-dimensional X-rays, lasers, destructive scanning, computing device-aided tomographic images or data sets, magnetic resonance images, intra-oral scanning technology, photographic reconstruction, and/or other imaging techniques.);
determining, using the intraoral data, parts of the plurality of scan datasets during acquisition of which a movement related to the one or more intraoral features is detected (para. 28, 32, 35, 36, & 51 of Levin; FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating motion of a scanner 206 relative to an object 210 being scanned according to a number of embodiments of the present disclosure. The result of scanning (e.g., after some processing of the scanned data) is a collection of points (x,y,z,t), where t is a time of focus and x, y, and z are 3D coordinates with respect to the coordinate system of the scanner 206 at time t. Data that might otherwise be captured by a scanner 206 may be lost due to motion drift of the scanner 206 during scanning.);
constructing and/or correcting the medical scan, from the plurality of scan datasets, in response to the determination, to produce a plurality of corrected scan datasets (para. 51, 58, & 67-69 of Levin; a distorted scan can be registered to a plurality of previous 3D scans and/or to a plurality of subsequent 3D scans. In some embodiments, there may be multiple distorted scans (e.g., every scan). Thus, the term "distorted scan" with respect to the description of the use of registration results merely identifies a particular scan that can be used along with a previous scan and a subsequent scan for motion compensation. In various embodiments, a subsequent or previous scan may not be distorted, which can improve correction of the distorted scan by registering it to a scan that is not distorted. A corrected scan 552 (e.g., S*(n)) can be calculated for the distorted scan by compensating for the motion trajectory during the scanning time of the distorted scan. The scan can be corrected in response to the amount of movement being within the registration threshold.); and
generating a 3D model of the head anatomy using the plurality of corrected scan datasets (para. 51, 62, and 65 of Levin; Multiple consecutive 3D scans can be used for motion compensation. A sequence of 3D scans 536 can be taken (e.g., at a rate of at least ten 3D scans per second). For example, the 3D scans can be 3D intraoral scans of a patient's dentition. The 3D scans can be saved 538 and distorted scans 540 (e.g., S(n)) can be registered 542 to a previous scan (e.g., an immediately previous scan S(n-1)) and/or to a subsequent scan (e.g., an immediately subsequent scan S(n+1)). In a number of embodiments, a distorted scan can be registered to a plurality of previous 3D scans and/or to a plurality of subsequent 3D scans. In some embodiments, there may be multiple distorted scans (e.g., every scan). Thus, the term "distorted scan" with respect to the description of the use of registration results merely identifies a particular scan that can be used along with a previous scan and a subsequent scan for motion compensation. The processing module 681 can be configured to provide a visual indication of a virtual dental model on the display 690 (e.g., on a GUI running on the processing module 681 and visible on the display 690). The processing module 681 can further be configured (e.g., via computer executable instructions stored in a tangible non-transitory computer readable medium) to perform the various methods, algorithms, and/or functionality described herein. The processing module 681, in association with the data storage device 682, can be associated with data and/or application modules 692. The processing module 681, in association with the data storage device 682, can store and/or utilize data and/or execute instructions to provide a number of application modules for motion compensation in a 3D scan.).
Levin does not disclose that the scanning apparatus includes an extraoral acquisition part and an intraoral patient stabilization part, each of which are fixedly attached to the scanning apparatus; obtaining, using the intraoral patient stabilization part, intraoral data related to one or more intraoral features of the patient, the intraoral data having been captured during acquisition of the plurality of scan datasets by the extraoral acquisition part, wherein the intraoral patient stabilization part is deterministically positioned relative to the extraoral acquisition part, and wherein said movement of the one or more intraoral features is relative to the intraoral patient stabilization part.
Lecuyer discloses a scanning apparatus that includes an extraoral acquisition part and an intraoral patient stabilization part, each of which are fixedly attached to the scanning apparatus (para. 6, 20, 27, and 28 and Figures 3 & 5 of Lecuyer; The perspective view of FIG. 2 shows one type of patient stabilization apparatus in an extra-oral imaging apparatus 50 that is typical of such systems. A handle 52 is mounted on column 18, giving the patient a place to grip for steadily maintaining a position. A chin rest 54 provides a bite element 56 and guides 58 for holding the head still while x-ray source 10 and sensor panel 20 revolve about the patient. FIG. 5 is a perspective view of the open-faced shield of the present invention, showing details of the chin rest and bite element.).
Vartiainen discloses obtaining, using the intraoral patient stabilization part, intraoral data related to one or more intraoral features of the patient, the intraoral data having been captured during acquisition of the plurality of scan datasets by the extraoral acquisition part, wherein the intraoral patient stabilization part is deterministically positioned relative to the extraoral acquisition part (see Figures 1a & 2a, abstract, para. 22, 23, 124-128, and 131 of Vartiainen; FIG. 2c presents how the markers 231, 232 of the bite part 230 are used in the motion correction in the Panoramic, CT, or Cephalometric X-ray imaging when the patient 201 has been moved during the imaging. When the patient 201 is in an imaging position for the imaging and the bite part 230 is arranged at least partly in his/her mouth 202, the source part 124 and the detector part 126 are used in order to take X-ray images about the desired imaging area 204. The source of the source part 124 irradiates the patient 201 during scanning movements of the unit 100 in order to take the images and to provide image data from the images captured by the detector part 126. The source of the source part 124 and the detector part 126 serve as a camera part 177 and those are used to take at least two X-ray images 237, 238, which are used to detect the motion x.sub.AMy.sub.AMz.sub.AM, x.sub.BMy.sub.BMz.sub.BM of the patient 201 and which present at least the markers 231, 232. The markers 231, 232, which can be inside or outside the mouth 202, are taken during the scanning movements of the unit 100 that provide the image data about the desired imaging area 204.), wherein said movement of the one or more intraoral features is relative to the intraoral patient stabilization part (abstract and para. 134-139 of Vartiainen; The bite part comprises a first end (233) and a second end (234). The bite part has known dimensions. The first end is configured to be positioned in a mouth (202) of the object. The bite part further comprises markers (231, 232), which make possible to recognize positions of the markers from at least two images (237, 238) presenting the bite part and to calculate the motion of the object with respect to an X-ray imaging unit (100) by using the positions of the markers and the known dimensions of the bite part. The bite part 230 and the camera part 177 enables to determine a movement x.sub.A-My.sub.AMz.sub.AM, x.sub.BMY.sub.BMZ.sub.BM of the patient 201 during e.g. the Panoramic or CT imaging mode.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Lecuyer and Vartiainen within Levin. The motivation for doing so would have been to support the patient's head during the imaging session (para. 1 of Lecuyer) and to calculate and correct the motion of the object with respect to an imaging unit (abstract of Vartiainen).
(B) Referring to claim 2, Levin discloses wherein the constructing and/or correcting of the medical scan involves performing any of one or more operations for reducing an effect of the movement from the medical scan, the one or more operations including any one or more of: deleting, replacing, averaging, compensating, recalculating, extrapolating, or masking, data of the parts of the plurality of scan datasets (para. 51 of Levin).
(C) Referring to claim 3, Levin discloses wherein the correcting of the medical scan involves compensating for the movement which occurred in corresponding parts of the plurality of scan datasets (para. 51 of Levin).
(D) Referring to claim 4, Levin discloses wherein the correcting of the medical scan involves transforming coordinates from the intraoral data to coordinates related to the plurality of scan datasets (para. 44, 49, & 53 of Levin).
(E) Referring to claim 5, Levin discloses further comprising: applying a relative coordinate transformation determined from the intraoral data to a coordinate system of the medical scan (para. 44 of Levin).
(F) Referring to claim 6, Levin discloses further comprising: determining one or more reference intraoral positions with respect to one or more of the one or more intraoral features (para. 23, 27, 32, 33, & 36 of Levin).
(G) Referring to claim 7, Levin discloses further comprising: determining one or more movement values by measuring displacement of the one or more intraoral features from their respective reference intraoral positions (para. 54-58 of Levin).
(H) Claims 8 and 9 differ from claim 1 by reciting ”A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, including instructions…which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to…” (para. 59 of Levin) and “A system...the system comprising…a processor configured to…” (para. 59 of Levin).
The remainder of claims 8 and 9 repeat substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's additional arguments filed 11/6/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 11/6/25.
(1) Applicant respectfully requests that the § 101 rejections be reconsidered and withdrawn.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because obtaining a plurality of scan datasets related to the head anatomy, wherein at least some of the plurality of scan datasets are usable for obtaining the medical scan; obtaining intraoral data related to one or more intraoral features of the patient; determining, using the intraoral data, parts of the plurality of scan datasets during acquisition of which a movement related to the one or more intraoral features is detected, wherein said movement of the one or more intraoral features is relative to the intraoral patient stabilization part; and constructing and/or correcting the medical scan, from the plurality of scan datasets, in response to the determination, to produce a plurality of corrected scan datasets amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the scanning apparatus, parts, non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer, and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of obtaining data, determining data, constructing and/or correcting data, and generating data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims recite the additional limitation of the intraoral data having been captured during acquisition of the plurality of scan datasets by the extraoral acquisition part. Such step would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art and are well-understood, routine and conventional activities specified at a high level of generality. It is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and therefore adds insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments regarding improving “computer imaging technologies” and “computer performance” are not persuasive because Applicant’s claim merely recites “generating a 3D model….” As such, it is unclear in what way technology is being improved or how Applicant’s 3D model differs from conventional 3D models.
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 LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687