DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The application is a CON of US application 18768241 and CIP of US applications 17564565, 17215315, 16783615 and 16175067. However none of parent applicant application discloses the feature of “determining a baseline in the received dental structure; determining a measured area of the received dental structure based on the determined baseline; calculating a distance to the baseline based on the determined measured area; visualizing the calculated distance as a gradient color map; and plotting measurement lines by rendering every fragment with a predefined distance value.” in the independent claims 1, 10. In addition features of independent claim 16 “determine a baseline; determine a measured area; calculate a distance to the baseline; visualize the distance as a gradient color map via a mapping module; and plot measurement lines via a plotting module.” are also absent from the disclosure of the parent documents.
Therefore the priority of the claims 1-16 are considered as the current filing date 2024-08-29 for examination purpose.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “color mapping system” in claim 8, “module” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12, 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea as they describe a set of mathematical operations of “determining a measured area of the received dental structure based on the determined baseline; calculating a distance to the baseline based on the determined measured area” and outputting the calculated distance as a gradient color map and plotting measurement lines by rendering every fragment with a predefined distance value (Mathematical Calculations steps as specifics of the calculations steps in the independent claims (See In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902, 214 U.S.P.Q. 682 (CCPA 1982); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) etc). Here the distance calculation and plotting/rendering are simple mental task and can be performed by a dentist/clinician on the paper based on dental x-ray image. In addition “rendering every fragment” is a routine computer process for data visualization and does not represent any technical improvement.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it doesn’t include additional element that direct it to:
– Improvements to another technology or technical field
– Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
– Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine
– Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
– Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
– Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-9 describe additional mathematical/mental process of the defining baseline and plotting using colors. Similarly claims 10-12, 14-15 are directed simple abstract idea of mathematical operations and mental task of generating report, and interactive manipulation. Rendering on GPU is a routine computer process for data visualization and does not represent any technical improvement.
Claim 16 describes performing the abstract idea comprising mental/mathematical steps of “receive medical imagery; determine a baseline; determine a measured area; calculate a distance to the baseline; visualize the distance as a gradient color map via a mapping module; and plot measurement lines via a plotting module.” by A system for visualizing medical conditions as a gradient color map with measurement lines plotted, comprising: a processor; a memory element with stored instructions. However the system and the mapping/plotting module add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform basic mathematical calculation functions routinely provided by a general purpose computer. Limiting performance of the mathematical calculations to a general purpose computing device, is not sufficient to transform the recited judicial exception into a patent-eligible invention.
Claim 13 reciting “the step of preprocessing to remove noise and artifacts before determining the baseline and measured area” is considered significantly more as it performs image enhancement improving visual quality.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Everett et al (US 20070103693 A1).
RE claim 16, Everett teaches A system for visualizing medical conditions as a gradient color map with measurement lines plotted, comprising: a processor; a memory element with stored instructions; said processor coupled to the memory element, wherein the processor (Fig 11, [0001], [0025] wherein a typical processing and rendering system comprises a processor; a memory element with stored instructions), when executing the stored instructions, is configured to:
receive medical imagery; determine a baseline; determine a measured area; calculate a distance to the baseline (claim 1, abstract, [0026], [0032]-[0033]);
visualize the distance as a gradient color map via a mapping module (Figs 6-10 abstract, [0033]); and
plot measurement lines via a plotting module (Figs 5, 7, abstract, [0033]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearney (US 20220012815 A1), and further in view of Everett et al and Vannahme et al (US 20220148263 A1).
RE claim 1, Kearney teaches A method for visualizing a dental condition (abstract) as a gradient color map, comprising the steps of:
receiving medical imagery of a dental structure, wherein the dental structure is at least one of a root, crown, or bone (Fig 1 #102,39A, [0109]);
determining a baseline in the received dental structure (Figs 20, 39B (see below), [0114] “identifying other anatomical features for each identified tooth, such as its cementum-enamel junction (CEJ), bony points corresponding to periodontal disease around the tooth, gingival margin (GM), junctional epithelium (JE), or other features of the tooth that may be helpful in characterizing the health of the tooth and the gums and jaw around the tooth.”, [0214] “determining clinical attachment level (CAL)..”, [0317] “Each tooth 2000 may have a CEJ 2002 that can be measured at various points around the tooth 2000. A GM, e.g., gum line, 2004 may also be represented along with the bone level 2006.”);
PNG
media_image1.png
530
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a measured area of the received dental structure based on the determined baseline (Figs 39B, 40, [0507] “the predicted orthodontic points 3922 and target orthodontic points 3924 may include values for each point 3932a-3932h on each tooth number of the patient. Using the orthodontic points 3932a-3932h, distances between them may be estimated. For example, the distance 3936a between point 3932b on tooth 3934a and point 3932a on tooth 3934b. In another example, distance 3936b between a point 3932d and a point 3932f (a point on the CEJ) of the same tooth may be calculated. In yet another example, a distance 3936c between a root tip 3932h and a point 3932f on the CEJ may be calculated. These examples are non-limiting, distances between any pair of orthodontic points may be calculated.”, [0548]-[0551]);
calculating a distance to the baseline based on the determined measured area (Figs 39 B-40, [0507]);
Kearney is silent RE: visualizing the calculated distance as a gradient color map; and plotting measurement lines by rendering every fragment with a predefined distance value.
However Everett teaches visualize the distance as a gradient color map (Figs 6-10 abstract, [0033]); and plot measurement lines by rendering (Figs 5, 7, abstract, [0033]) to simultaneously display multiple information on elevation, thickness on 3D surface. In addition Vannahme teaches rendering every fragment with a predefined distance value with mapped measurement lines in Figs 5, 8-12, [0098]-[0100] in order to visually indicate region-specific severity value or level of severity or other properties like scoring value, rate, or development of the dental condition over a 3D dental model. This can equally be combined to visualize the measured distance and measurement lines relating to each of the tooth area 3 dimensionally on the display providing in order to assist the clinician with 3D visual indication of the conditions of each teeth, as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kearney a system and method of visualizing the calculated distance as a gradient color map; and plotting measurement lines by rendering every fragment with a predefined distance value, as set forth above combining Everett and Vannahme to assist the clinician with 3D visual indication of the conditions of each teeth, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 5, Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme teaches wherein the measured area is determined by removing all triangles that contain vertices beyond the measured area and removing triangles outside the bone and the crown (Kearney teaches removing areas outside the teeth/ROI boundaries Figs 37, 39B, [0472]-[0474] wherein the input is a 3D point cloud/mesh ([0157]). In addition Vannahme teaches define the region using mesh segmentation that removes all triangle beyond the defined/outlined area from a input mesh model in [0031], [0022] that can be equally applied to define the 3D model).
RE claim 6, Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme teaches wherein the distance to the baseline is calculated by determining the geodesic distance from every vertex of the measured area to the baseline (Figs 20, 39B, 40, [0507], [0317]).
RE claim 8, Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme teaches wherein visualizing the distance as a gradient color map includes implementing a color mapping system to indicate different distance values (Everett Figs 6-10 abstract, [0033]).
RE claim 9, Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme teaches wherein plotting the measurement lines includes rendering on a GPU every fragment with a predefined distance value (Kearney [0476], [0852], and Vannahme Figs 5, 8-12, [0098]-[0100]).
Claims 2-4, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme, and further in view of Raslambekov (US 20230172691 A1).
RE claim 2, Kearney teaches wherein the dental condition is periodontal bone loss (PBL) ([0734]); and the baseline is determined by calculating vertices on the root (Figs 20, 39B, [0317] “Each tooth 2000 may have a CEJ 2002 that can be measured at various points around the tooth 2000. A GM, e.g., gum line, 2004 may also be represented along with the bone level 2006.” Wherein the lines the connecting the cej points define the baseline).
Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme is silent RE vertices that are closer than a predefined distance from the crown. However Raslambekov teaches in Fig 3, 10, [0083], [0086]-[0087], [0174] and wherein the reference lines 48 and 44 are determined by a predefined distances from the root or crown reference points. This is readily available in Kerney in order to effectively determine the appropriate baseline for accurate measurement of the tooth.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme to establish baseline with the root vertices that are closer than a predefined distance from the crown, as suggested by Raslambekov, to effectively determine the appropriate baseline for accurate measurement of the tooth and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 3 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
RE claim 4, Kearney teaches wherein the measured area is determined by finding vertices on the root for removal (Figs 37, 39B, [0472]-[0474]).
Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme is silent RE vertices that are closer than a predefined distance to either the bone or the crown. However Raslambekov teaches in Fig 3, 10, [0083], [0086]-[0087], [0174] and wherein the reference lines 48 and 44 are determined by a predefined distances from the root or crown reference points. This is readily available in Kerney in order to effectively determine the appropriate baseline for accurate measurement of the tooth.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme to find the root vertices that are closer than a predefined distance from the bone or the crown, as suggested by Raslambekov, to effectively determine the measurement area or the teeth boundaries for accurate measurement of the tooth and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 10 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 3-4, 6, 9 combining the features and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Kearney as modified by Everett, Vannahme and Raslambekov teaches indicating severity of bone loss, wherein the gradient color map is visualized using a color scale that indicates the severity of bone loss (Vannahme [0098], [0106]).
RE claim 11, Kearney teaches wherein the medical imagery is obtained from at least one of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or Intra-oral (IOS) ([0157]).
RE claim 12, Kearney as modified by Everett, Vannahme and Raslambekov teaches wherein the medical imagery is received in the form of polygonal meshes (Vannahme [0031]).
RE claim 13, Kearney as modified by Everett, Vannahme and Raslambekov teaches further comprising the step of preprocessing to remove noise and artifacts before determining the baseline and measured area (Kearney Fig 1 #108, [0159], [0111]).
RE claim 14, Kearney as modified by Everett, Vannahme and Raslambekov teaches wherein the gradient color map includes interactive features allowing clinicians to manipulate the 3D model and view different angles (Kearney Fig 36, [0465]. In addition Vannahme Figs 10-12, [0033]).
RE claim 15, Kearney as modified by Everett, Vannahme and Raslambekov teaches further comprising the step of integrating the visualization with patient records in an electronic health record (EHR) system and generating a report that includes the gradient color map, measurement lines, and quantitative analysis of the bone loss (Kearney Fig 29, [0380], [0774]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme, and further in view of Zatonyi et al (US 20170011546 A1).
RE claim 7, Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme is silent RE
further comprising calculating the geodesic distance for every internal point of a triangle by using linear interpolation of distances to adjacent vertices.
However Zatonyi teaches in Figs 14C-D, [0045].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kearney as modified by Everett and Vannahme to calculate the geodesic distance for every internal point of a triangle by using linear interpolation of distances to adjacent vertices, as suggested by Zatonyi, to improve the accuracy of the distance calculation and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See attached 892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614