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 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 14:
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 14 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 14 are directed an idea for determining and marking severity value on 3D dental model which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1 and 14:
The claims in the instant application include:
receive dental 3D scan data of a patient;
generate a 3D dental model based on the received dental 3D scan data;
identify a plurality of regions of the 3D dental model, each region of the plurality of regions indicating a presence of at least one dental condition;
determine a severity value for one or more regions of the plurality of regions, the severity value indicating a level of severity of the at least one dental condition;
mark, on the 3D dental model, the one or more regions of the plurality of regions with a visual indicator, wherein the visual indicator is selected based on the determined severity value for said region;
group the plurality of regions on the 3D dental model into one or more intraoral areas of interest (AOIs) that connect neighboring regions
indicating presence of the at least one dental condition; and
display the 3D dental model with the one or more intraoral AOIs.
Regarding “receive dental 3D scan data of a patient; generate a 3D dental model based on the received dental 3D scan data”, it can be performed entirely as a mental process or with a simple pen and paper. Taking raw point-cloud data from a scanner and converting or organizing it into a 3D digital file using mathematical algorithms is classified as an abstract idea. The claimed limitation is, thus categorized as mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts.
Regarding “identify a plurality of regions of the 3D dental model, each region of the plurality of regions indicating a presence of at least one dental condition”, a broad claim covering the idea of looking at a 3D dental model and determining whether a dental condition (like a cavity) is present. The claimed limitation is, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “determine a severity value for one or more regions of the plurality of regions, the severity value indicating a level of severity of the at least one dental condition”, it merely indicates the level of a dental condition qualifies. The claimed limitation is, thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “mark, on the 3D dental model, the one or more regions of the plurality of regions with a visual indicator, wherein the visual indicator is selected based on the determined severity value for said region,” it is merely marking that evaluated data onto a visual representation (the 3D model) is viewed as an extension of standard human mental processes or basic data organization. The claimed limitation is thus categorized as mental processes.
Regarding “group the plurality of regions on the 3D dental model into one or more intraoral areas of interest (AOIs) that connect neighboring regions indicating presence of the at least one dental condition,” it can be interpreted as a mental step of identifying/grouping information. The claimed limitation can be broadly read as a concept performed by a human mind, thus categorized as mental processes.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of
display the 3D dental model with the one or more intraoral AOIs;
a computing device.
Regarding “display the 3D dental model with the one or more intraoral AOIs;
a computing device”, it is considered as “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
They are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g., display, and computing device) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g., display, and computing device) simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., display, and computing device) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 – 13 and 15 – 26, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1 and 14 because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1 and 14, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; "comprises ... ", “generating …”, “overlapping …”, “is …”, “comparing …”, “indicate …”, “identifying …”, “assessing …”, “assigning …”, “display …” and “sort …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claim as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
No reference is found for 35 USC § 102/103 rejection.
The current invention is directed to a system/method for determining and marking severity value on 3D dental model wherein identify a plurality of regions of the 3D dental model, each region of the plurality of regions indicating a presence of at least one dental condition; determine a severity value for one or more regions of the plurality of regions, the severity value indicating a level of severity of the at least one dental condition; mark, on the 3D dental model, the one or more regions of the plurality of regions with a visual indicator, wherein the visual indicator is selected based on the determined severity value for said region; group the plurality of regions on the 3D dental model into one or more intraoral areas of interest (AOIs) that connect neighboring regions indicating presence of the at least one dental condition.
The closest reference Paley et al. (US 2007/0172112, IDS) discloses a system/ method concerning one or more scanning parameters to a user during acquisition of a three dimensional scan (abstract) wherein identify a plurality of regions of the 3D dental model, each region of the plurality of regions indicating a presence of at least one dental condition (Fig. 5, [0058 – 0061], generating a 3D model); determine a presence of at least one dental condition for one or more regions of the plurality of regions ([0059, 0071 – 0072], an error or hole is determined).
Yan et al. (EP 2 463 823) discloses an improved caries detection methods wherein the image data are processed and analyzed for carious conditions to provide the clinician with a processed image (possibly also accompanied by a report) indicating caries information, such as apparent location, size, and severity, for example ([0003]).
However, neither Paley nor Yan, alone or in combination, teach all the limitations recited in the independent claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights