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
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is not clear what claim dependency is. Appropriate correction is required.
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- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite a method of digital tooth representation alignment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Claim 1 is directed to a method system, i.e., process
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e., abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind therefore, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
subdividing each of the at least first and second tooth digital representations into at least two sub-regions (a human can divide object in the image either mentally or using a pen and paper) as a mental process as an abstract idea);
applying a separate alignment process for aligning a sub-region of the first tooth digital representation with a corresponding sub-region of the second tooth digital representation (a human can compare object in the image visually as a mental process as an abstract idea); and
aligning the first tooth digital representation to the second tooth digital representation by performing a complete tooth-to-tooth alignment (a human can compare object in the image visually) as a mental process as an abstract idea); and
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As such, a person could perform subdividing image and aligning image either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by one or more hardware processors (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mental step which could be performed with a simple tool such as a pen and paper, then it falls within the “mental steps” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites:
processing unit (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
a scanner, display (device for adding insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere data gathering/ outputingto the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
claim 1 recite:
obtaining at least a first and a second tooth digital representation of a tooth (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
With regard to (2b) the Guidance provided the following examples of limitations that may be enough to qualify as “significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception:
Improvement to another technology or technical field
Improvement to functioning of computer itself and/or 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 that what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application
Meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The Guidance further set forth limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on a computer
Simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic
Computer to perform generic computer functions that are well -understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1- 20 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The above identified additional computer components, using instructions to apply the judicial exception, are merely generic computer components that are well-known, routine, and conventional as is evidenced by Bancorp Services v. Sun Life (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
claim 1 recite:
obtaining at least a first and a second tooth digital representation of a tooth (adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea);
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101. Similar analysis is made for the dependent claims 2- 7 - 20 and the dependent claims are similarly identified as: being directed towards an abstract idea, not reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and not reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 22 November 2005), Annex IV, reads as follows (see also MPEP 2106):
Descriptive material can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." In this context, "functional descriptive material" consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. (The definition of "data structure" is "a physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions." The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 308 (5th ed. 1993).) "Nonfunctional descriptive material" includes but is not limited to music, literary works and a compilation or mere arrangement of data.
When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (claim to data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency held statutory) and Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1360-61, 31 USPQ2d at 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory).
In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 19 defines a computer program product embodying functional descriptive material (i.e., a computer program or computer executable code). However, the claim does not define a “computer-readable medium or computer-readable memory” and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). The scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products that are not necessarily computer readable, and thus NOT able to impart any functionality of the recited program. The examiner suggests amending the claim(s) to embody the program on “computer-readable medium” or equivalent; assuming the specification does NOT define the computer readable medium as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium” which are deemed non-statutory (refer to “note” below). Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Note:
“A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Should the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure encompass non-statutory subject matter such as a “signal”, the claim as a whole would be non-statutory. Should the applicant’s specification define or exemplify the computer readable medium or memory (or whatever language applicant chooses to recite a computer readable medium equivalent) as statutory tangible products such as a hard drive, ROM, RAM, etc, as well as a non-statutory entity such as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium”, the examiner suggests amending the claim to include the disclosed tangible computer readable storage media, while at the same time excluding the intangible transitory media such as signals, carrier waves, etc.
Merely reciting functional descriptive material as residing on a “tangible” or other medium is not sufficient. If the scope of the claimed medium covers media other than “computer readable” media (e.g., “a tangible media”, a “machine-readable media”, etc.), the claim remains non-statutory. The full scope of the claimed media (regardless of what words applicant chooses) should not fall outside that of a computer readable medium.
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)(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, 2 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaza et al. (US Patent 9,839,494).
With respect to claim 1, Kaza et al. teach a. obtaining at least a first and a second tooth digital representation of a tooth (Fig. 6A, S600 and S602);
b. subdividing each of the at least first and second tooth digital representations
into at least two sub-regions (col. 6 lines 55-58, the scanned imaged is segmented; col. 6 line 23-25, Processing module receives data from input module and a technician/user then segments the individual teeth using digital data);
c. applying a separate alignment process for aligning a sub-region of the first
tooth digital representation with a corresponding sub-region of the second tooth digital
representation (Fig. 6A, S604 col. 6 line 63- col. 7 line 12, determines that there is distortion in two separate teeth), wherein the sub-region of the first tooth digital representation and the corresponding sub-region of the second tooth digital representation correspond to a part of the tooth without change in morphology (Fig. 6A, S604 col. 6 line 63- col. 7 line 12, determines that there is distortion in two separate teeth, No (distortion)), wherein at least one other sub-region of the first tooth digital representation and its corresponding sub-region of the second tooth digital representation, representing a part of the tooth affected by change in morphology, is disregarded in the separate alignment process (Fig. 6A, S604 col. 6 line 63- col. 7 line 12, determines that there is distortion in two separate teeth, Yes (distortion)); and
d. based on the sub-regions alignment, aligning the first tooth digital representation to the second tooth digital representation by performing a complete tooth-to- tooth alignment (Fig. 6A, user examines both impressions after the alignment and determines if the two impressions have distortion in separate areas/teeth. If the answer is no, then one of the impressions is selected and the process continues (step S606)) .
With respect to claim 2, Kaza et al. teach that disregarding the at least one other sub-region of the first tooth digital representation and its corresponding sub-region of the second tooth digital representation comprises ignoring the at least one other sub-region of the first tooth digital representation and its corresponding sub-region of the second tooth digital representation during the separate alignment process (Fig. 6A, user examines both impressions after the alignment and determines if the two impressions have distortion in separate areas/teeth. If the answer is no, then one of the impressions is selected and the process continues (step S606)).
With respect to claim 14, Kaza et al. teach that the step of aligning each
sub-region separately is based on correspondences between points in corresponding subregions of the at least first and second tooth digital representations (Fig. 6A, S604 col. 6 line 63- col. 7 line 12, determines that there is distortion in two separate teeth)
With respect to claim 15, Kaza et al. teach that the first tooth digital
representation is a representation of a tooth from a subject, obtained with a scan, and the second tooth representation is a computer-based artificial model of a tooth (col. 4 lines 60-62, A computer model of jaws is generated, and a computer simulation models interactions among the teeth on jaws).
With respect to claim 16, Kaza et al. teach that the at least first and second tooth digital representation is a mesh, a point cloud, a voxel-based volumetric scan, or any other digital representation or digital model of a tooth (col. 6 lines 56-58, A scanning system is used to scan the three-dimensional jaw impressions)
With respect to claim 17, Kaza et al. teach that the step of
obtaining the at least first and second tooth digital representation by segmentation of
respectively an at least first and second jaw representation (col. 6 lines 55-56, both the impressions are scanned. A digital image is created for both the impressions).
With respect to claim 18, Kaza et al. teach a. at least one input peripheral, such as a scanner, configured to generate image data of a jaw or a tooth (col. 6 line 55-58, A scanning system);
b. at least one output peripheral, such as a display, configured to display at
least one digital representation of jaw or teeth and to provide visual data on digital
representation alignment (Fig. 1 ref. label 4); and
c. at least one processing unit configured to generate, based on the image data,
digital representations of jaws and/or teeth (col. 6 lines 55-56, both the impressions are scanned. A digital image is created for both the impressions). and further configured to perform the steps according to clairn 1 (See claim 1).
Claim 19 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected as same reason as claim 1 above.
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 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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kaza et al. (US Patent 9,839,494) in view of Reynard et al. (US 2022/0122264).
Kaza et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 5 respectively depend.
Kaza et al. do not teach expressly that step of aligning the at least first tooth digital representation and the second tooth digital representation directly based on a complete initial first tooth-to-tooth alignment using an Iterative Closest Point technique.
Reynard et al. teach step of aligning the at least first tooth digital representation and the second tooth digital representation directly based on a complete initial first tooth-to-tooth alignment using an Iterative Closest Point technique (para [0063]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Iterative Closest Point technique to generate a distance measure in the method of Kaza et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to use well known method to generate a distance between two model .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Reynard et al. with Kaza et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Reynard et al. teach that computing an indication of a quality of the complete initial first tooth-to-tooth alignment (para [0063], distance (less is better)).
With respect to claim 7, Reynard et al. teach that the subdivision of the at
least first and second tooth digital representations into sub-regions is triggered when the indication of the quality of the complete initial first tooth-to-tooth is below a first threshold (para [0064], Accept or reject the relative placement based on the generated distance measure. The updated relative placement can be rejected in case the distance measure is below a predetermined threshold).
With respect to claim 8, Reynard et al. teach the indication of the quality of the complete initial first tooth-to-tooth alignment is based on a statistical histogram and/or a tooth difference map of distances of corresponding points between the first and second tooth digital representation (para [0059]).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kaza et al. (US Patent 9,839,494) in view of Xue et al. (US 2018/0360567).
Kaza et al. teach all the limitations of claim 1 as applied above from which claim 9 respectively depend.
Kaza et al. do not teach expressly that the first and second tooth
digital representations are subdivided by a buccal-lingual plane into a buccal sub-region and a lingual sub-region.
Xue et al. teach the first and second tooth digital representations are subdivided by a buccal-lingual plane into a buccal sub-region and a lingual sub-region (para [0099]).
At the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to subdivided by a buccal-lingual plane into a buccal sub-region and a lingual sub-region in the method of Kaza et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that to use well known method to segment efficiently.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Xue et al. with Kaza et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Reynard et al. teach that the buccal-lingual plane is
obtained, for incisors and canines, by identifying high positive curvature facets (para [0099]).
With respect to claim 11, Reynard et al. teach that the buccal-lingual plane is
obtained, for molar and/or pre-molar teeth, by use of a central vector field, centred at a central point of the tooth (para [0099]).
With respect to claim 12, Reynard et al. teach that the first and second tooth
digital representations are subdivided by a mesial-distal plane into a mesial sub-region and a distal sub-region (para [0099]).
With respect to claim 13, Reynard et al. teach that the first and second tooth
digital representations are subdivided by at least one additional plane, preferably two additional planes, into at least a cervical sub-region and at least an occlusal sub-region (para [0099]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randolph Chu whose telephone number is 571-270-1145. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 7:30 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached on (571) 272-7778.
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).
/RANDOLPH I CHU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights