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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite steps that could be performed in the mind including providing, computing, acquiring, and rendering. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (storage medium and computing units; intraoral scanner just used as data source for software, the intraoral scanner itself is not positively recited as part of the software, nor would this be expected; claim 13 discusses using for a dental procedure, however this is broad and could include further abstract ideas) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing and retrieving information in memory is well-understood, routine, conventional computer function MPEP 2106.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss et al. (US 2021/0059796).
Weiss shows a computer-implemented method for optical intraoral imaging of an oral anatomy via an intraoral scanner (Fig. 2A; paragraphs starting at [184]), which method comprises: providing initial data related to the oral anatomy and/or the intraoral scanner (Fig. 2A; [184] discusses using processing logic and therefore initial data to select scanning mode; the mode selected could also be considered initial data, in addition to any prior scans); computing, using the initial data, a number of intraoral images to be captured via the intraoral scanner and acquiring, via the intraoral scanner, said number of intraoral images at a given location of the oral anatomy ([2], [98], [102] all discuss minimum required scanned images, thus establishing a number to be scanned, or establishing how many scans based on how many margin lines to be scanned); rendering, from at least one of the acquired intraoral images and the initial data or from a plurality of the acquired intraoral images, a more optimally exposed two- dimensional intraoral image (Fig. 2A; [186] in particular discusses taking multiple scanned images and blending them based on an average and various algorithms, which may remove any temporary foreign objects in the image or average out images with poor data). With respect to claim 2, further comprising: providing a plurality of the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral images capturing different locations of the oral anatomy ([115], [116] discloses the resulting blending images capture different locations of the oral anatomy; steps 218, 219, and 240); reconstructing, using the plurality of the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral images, a three-dimensional digital impression of the oral anatomy (step 219 for instance generates a 3D surface of a static dental site). With respect to claim 3, wherein the initial data comprise any one or more of, light intensity measured at the oral anatomy, aperture and/or exposure settings, kinematic data measured via one or more sensors of the intraoral scanner, data from previously acquired intraoral images (initial data involving the scanner mode would have these characteristics). With respect to claim 4, wherein the rendering of the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral image comprises: analyzing each of the acquired intraoral images to select one or more regions of desired exposure ([0132] discusses collecting/analyzing the acquired images and selecting desired exposure by removing excess material); combining the selected regions to provide the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral image ([132]-[133] discuss the combining of images to provide the optimally exposed image). With respect to claim 5, wherein at least some of the regions are selected via a segmentation logic, the segmentation logic preferably being at least partially a data-driven logic (see 112 above; Fig. 1, [0133] and [0141] in particular). With respect to claim 6, wherein the rendering of the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral image comprises adjusting image properties of at least one of the acquired intraoral images and/or at least one of the selected regions (as discussed above, image properties are adjusted such as by removal of excess materials or averaging of content). With respect to claim 7, wherein the rendering of the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral image is at least partially performed via a data-driven rendering logic (blending algorithms of [132] and discussion of machine learning of [133] for instance). With respect to claim 8, wherein image acquisition settings of the intraoral scanner are determined using the initial data (as discussed above, processing logic for mode selection as discussed in [184]). With respect to claim 9, wherein the reconstruction of the three-dimensional digital impression is performed via a data-driven reconstruction logic ([151] and [194] for instance). With respect to claim 13, further comprising using the three-dimensional digital impression for performing a dental procedure and/or for manufacture of a dental object ([100] discusses prosthodontic procedures and [181] for instance discusses manufacture). With respect to claims 14-15, further comprising storing one or more of the more optimally exposed two-dimensional intraoral images and/or the three-dimensional digital impression in a data storage medium ([114] discusses the memory that will be utilized to hold the data while being processed and collected).
Computer software product claim 10 is rejected similarly to the above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5898. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW M NELSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights