Ank you Allyson.010DETAILED 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
Claim 1 recites: A method for processing an image, comprising: receiving an intraoral image including maxillary scan data and mandibular scan data; calculating an occlusal distance to antagonist (distance to antagonist) of the intraoral image based on an occlusal state of the intraoral image; and adjusting the occlusal distance to antagonist corresponding to the occlusal state of the intraoral image based on the calculating.
The receiving image step is simply a data gathering step without significantly more. The calculating distance and adjusting distance can all be done mentally and/or though mathematical relationships and calculations because calculation of distance are mental processes/mathematical concepts of mathematical relationships and calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above, no additional elements are recited in claim 1.
Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, it depends on claim 1 with additional limitation ”receiving the occlusal distance to antagonist for the intraoral image; and displaying the occlusal state of the intraoral image corresponding to the received occlusal distance to antagonist.”. Receiving the distance result is a data gathering step and displaying the result is a simple data output step without significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, it depends on claim 1 with additional limitation “receiving the occlusal state of the intraoral image; and displaying the occlusal distance to antagonist for the intraoral image corresponding to the received occlusal state.”. Receiving the distance result is a data gathering step and displaying the result is a simple data output step without significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, it depends on claim 1 with additional limitation “the calculating includes: calculating a first occlusal distance to antagonist corresponding to a first occlusal state of the intraoral image and a second occlusal distance to antagonist of the intraoral image corresponding to a second occlusal state different from the first occlusal state; adjusting an occlusal state investigation range based on the first occlusal distance to antagonist and the second occlusal distance to antagonist; and calculating an intermediate occlusal distance to antagonist for an intermediate occlusal state within the occlusal state investigation range”. The calculation distance and adjusting distance steps all involve mathematical equation calculation. Therefore, claim 4 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, it depends on claim 4 with additional limitation “the calculating further includes confirming an investigated occlusal state requiring a calculation of the occlusal distance to antagonist within the occlusal state investigation range.”. The confirming states and calculation of distance are all mental process involving mathematical concepts of relationship and calculation. Therefore, claim 5 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 4, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 6, it depends on claim 5 with additional limitation “the calculating further includes repeating adjusting the occlusal state investigation range and calculating the intermediate occlusal distance to antagonist when there is the investigated occlusal state”. The adjusting and calculating distance involve mental process with mathematics calculation. Therefore, claim 6 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 5, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, it depends on claim 4 with additional limitation “the calculating further includes extracting a tooth region in the intraoral image to extract a maxillary tooth region for the maxillary scan data and a mandibular tooth region for mandibular scan data.”. The identification of area of interest is a mental process which can be done by a human being. Therefore, claim 7 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 4, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 8, it depends on claim 7 with additional limitation “the calculating of the second occlusal distance to antagonist for the second occlusal state includes generating a plurality of intersections where a straight line extending in a normal direction in a plurality of meshes in the mandibular tooth region contacts the mandibular tooth region, calculating a plurality of distance values between the plurality of intersections corresponding to each of the plurality of meshes, and selecting the minimum of the plurality of distance values.”. The calculating distance and choosing the smallest value involve mental process with mathematical calculation and relationship. Therefore, claim 8 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 7, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 9, it depends on claim 4 with additional limitation “the first and second occlusal states and the intermediate occlusal state are calculated in a form of bite opening.”. The calculation step involves mental process. Therefore, claim 9 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 4, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Regarding claim 10, it depends on claim 9 with additional limitation “the first occlusal state corresponds to a state in which the intraoral image is in an occlusal contact relationship.”. Deciding the occlusal state involves a mental process, which can be done by a human being. Therefore, claim 10 recites abstract idea without additional elements. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 9, no additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible subject matter under USC 101.
Claims 11-19 recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claims 1-
10 respectively but with additional elements of An electronic apparatus, comprising: a user interface device; a processor; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to. The electronic apparatus, the user interface device, memory and processor are all generic computer component that do not integrate the abstract ideas recites in these claims into practical application or amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), and (f)).
Claim 20 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to
Claim 1 respectively but with additional elements of A computer readable storage medium including computer readable instructions, wherein the instructions cause the computer to. The computer memory with instructions are all generic computer component that do not integrate the abstract ideas recites in these claims into practical application or amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(a), (b), and (f)).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim(s) 20 recite a computer readable storage medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. $ I01 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Applicant’s specification on page 36, lines 8-9 recites “the machine-readable storage medium may be provided in a form of a non-transitory storage medium.” Here the specification defines “may be”, but fails to positively recite storage medium is non-transitory. In the next paragraph on page 36, the specification further defines “non-transitory storage medium” means … does not include a signal”. However, the claim language itself does not recites “non-transitory storage medium”. Since Applicant’s disclosure does not limit the definition of “a computer readable storage medium”, it could be a signal.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals.
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) 1-3, 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (KR 102085852 B1), hereinafter as Jo, in view of Matov et al. (US 20110104630 A1), hereinafter as Matov. The original and a machine translation of Jo are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Jo teaches A method for processing an image (Jo paragraph [0055] “2 is a view showing a method of designing a dental workpiece using a dental workpiece design device”), comprising: receiving an intraoral image including maxillary scan data and mandibular scan data (Jo paragraph [0040] “The data acquisition part(10) gets the tooth model from teeth including the damaged tooth …… it may be obtained by scanning the inside of the oral cavity of the patient using an intraoral 3d scanner…… Such a tooth model includes an image obtained by photographing an upper jaw tooth under an upper jaw tooth while a patient opens his/her mouth, an image obtained by photographing a lower jaw tooth on a lower jaw tooth while the patient opens his/her mouth, an image obtained by photographing a local region while the patient closes his/her mouth, an oral radiograph, and the like.”);
…… to antagonist (distance to antagonist) of the intraoral image based on an occlusal state of the intraoral image (Jo teaches adjusting occlusal position and state of working tooth, further teaches the occlusal and opposing tooth as the antagonist, paragraph [0061] “The process of fig. 3 relates to a technique for adjusting a vertical positional relationship with an occlusal tooth of a working tooth, and is intended to adjust the working tooth to an occlusal position and state desired by a user through one user operation signal input for selecting a point to be deformed of the working tooth on a screen of the working tooth.”, paragraph [0037] “the modification includes the occlusal position and state adjustment of the working teeth. The occlusal position and state include the cusp tip, the occlusal point, the fossa of the occlusal point, and the position and state of the marginal ridge.”);
and adjusting the occlusal distance to antagonist corresponding to the occlusal state of the intraoral image based on the calculating (Jo paragraph [0021] “The input unit may selectively receive a point to be deformed of the working tooth on the working tooth screen, the output unit may display a user interface for adjusting a vertical positional relationship with the opposing teeth with respect to the selected working tooth deformation point, and the control unit may adjust the vertical positional relationship according to a user operation of the user interface for adjusting the vertical positional relationship.”, paragraph [0047] “The user can adjust the occlusal position and state of the working tooth while checking the occlusal relationship shown on
the screen.”).
Jo is not relied on for the below claim language ……calculating an occlusal distance to antagonist (distance to antagonist) …… Matov teaches ……calculating an occlusal distance to antagonist (distance to antagonist) …… (Matov teaches calculating a minimum occlusal distance to decide corresponding point on an opposite tooth, Jo teaches selecting a point on the working teeth, and displaying an opposing tooth point, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of calculation of occlusal distance with the method of Jo. Matov Figure 14 and paragraph [0101-0102] “Referring to FIG. 14, in order to auto-locate a corresponding point on the opposite jaw of a patient, a first point can be chosen 1410 . The potential occlusal teeth list for the tooth on which the chosen point is located can be obtained in order to narrow the search field to the possible occlusal teeth on the opposite jaw 1420 …… the occlusal distance can be initialized to positive infinite 1430 and a first tooth can be chosen from the potential occlusal teeth list 1440 . The height of the chosen point can be calculated from the height map of the tooth on which the chosen point is located, and the distance, h, to the height map of the potential occlusal tooth can be determined 1450 . If the distance, h, is smaller than the current occlusal distance, then the occlusal distance equals h, and the corresponding point can be set by the interpolated point 1460. This process can then be repeated for all potential occlusal teeth on the potential occlusal teeth list 1470 until the correct corresponding point is found.”, Jo paragraph [0084] “Referring to fig. 8, when the user selects a point to be deformed of the work tooth, a point 710 (see screen 2 of fig. 7) at which the selected work tooth point corresponds to an opposing tooth is displayed”)
Jo and Matov are in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatment, especially in the field of displaying occlusion data of dental site. Matov teaches a method to compute occlusion distance based on a chosen tooth to improve user interaction (Matov paragraph [0100] “FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating auto-locating a related point on the opposite jaw of a point on a tooth based on an embodiment of the present disclosure. Being able to quickly and efficiently locate a related point on a tooth of the opposite jaw from a chosen tooth is desirable in some dental treatments, as it may allow the treatment professional to see which other teeth in the mouth of a patient may be effected by a change in a chosen tooth.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matov with the method of Jo to improve user interaction.
Regarding Claim 2, Jo in view of Matov teach The method of claim 1, and further teach further comprising: receiving the occlusal distance to antagonist for the intraoral image; and displaying the occlusal state of the intraoral image corresponding to the received occlusal distance to antagonist (Jo teaches multiple screens to display working tooth and opposing tooth at the same time, further teaches updating the occlusal position and state of working tooth, Matov teaches displaying a occlusogram window, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matov with Jo. Jo paragraph [0026] “the dental workpiece design screen is divided into an occlusal surface (screen 1) of the dental work model, an occlusal surface (screen 2) of an opposing tooth of the dental model corresponding to the working teeth of the dental work model, a screen (screen 3) of viewing the working teeth and the opposing tooth from the side”, Matov paragraph [0116-0124] “the occlusogram window may be a viewing window, separate from the main treatment window in which tooth position and/or treatment options may be changed…… This can, for example, include the height maps and/or distance field of the crown of a patient's teeth, occlusal distances based on the space and collision depth between the teeth on a jaw and the teeth on its opposing jaw, and/or determining lists of potential occluding teeth.”).
Jo and Matov are in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatment, especially in the field of displaying occlusion data of dental site. Matov teaches a method to compute occlusion distance based on a chosen tooth to improve user interaction (Matov paragraph [0100] “FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating auto-locating a related point on the opposite jaw of a point on a tooth based on an embodiment of the present disclosure. Being able to quickly and efficiently locate a related point on a tooth of the opposite jaw from a chosen tooth is desirable in some dental treatments, as it may allow the treatment professional to see which other teeth in the mouth of a patient may be effected by a change in a chosen tooth.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matov with the method of Jo to improve user interaction.
Regarding Claim 3, Jo in view of Matov teach The method of claim 1, and further teach further comprising: receiving the occlusal state of the intraoral image; and displaying the occlusal distance to antagonist for the intraoral image corresponding to the received occlusal state (Jo teaches updating the occlusal position and state of working tooth, Matov teaches displaying a dynamic updated occlusogram window based on the change of teeth, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matov with Jo. Matov paragraph [0116-0124] “the occlusogram window may be a viewing window, separate from the main treatment window in which tooth position and/or treatment options may be changed…… a dynamic, real-time updated 3D occlusogram is provided for modeling tooth movement, for example, in the course of dental treatment to correct one or more malocclusions or non-optimal positioning of a patient's teeth. This can, for example, include the height maps and/or distance field of the crown of a patient's teeth, occlusal distances based on the space and collision depth between the teeth on a jaw and the teeth on its opposing jaw, and/or determining lists of potential occluding teeth.”).
Jo and Matov are in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatment, especially in the field of displaying occlusion data of dental site. Matov teaches a method to compute occlusion distance based on a chosen tooth to improve user interaction (Matov paragraph [0100] “FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating auto-locating a related point on the opposite jaw of a point on a tooth based on an embodiment of the present disclosure. Being able to quickly and efficiently locate a related point on a tooth of the opposite jaw from a chosen tooth is desirable in some dental treatments, as it may allow the treatment professional to see which other teeth in the mouth of a patient may be effected by a change in a chosen tooth.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matov with the method of Jo to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 11, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in an electronic apparatus form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 11. In addition, Jo teaches An electronic apparatus (Jo paragraph [0072] “the dental workpiece design apparatus 1 displays regions overlapping the opposing teeth on the working teeth of the working tooth screen.”), comprising: a user interface device (Jo paragraph [0072] “a user interface for adjusting the intrusion depth of the opposing teeth in the working teeth is displayed”); a processor (Jo paragraph [0030] “Combinations of each block of the accompanying block diagram and each step of the flowchart may be performed by computer program instructions (execution engine), and these computer program instructions may be mounted on a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus”); and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to (Jo paragraph [0031] “These computer program instructions may be stored in a computer-usable or computer-readable memory that may be directed to a computer or other programmable data processing device to implement functions in a specific manner, and thus the instructions stored in the computer-usable or computer-readable memory may also produce a manufactured item including instruction means for performing the functions described in each block of the block diagram or each step of the flowchart.”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a computer readable storage medium form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 20. In addition, Jo teaches A computer readable storage medium including computer readable instructions, wherein the instructions cause the computer to: (Jo paragraph [0031] “These computer program instructions may be stored in a computer-usable or computer-readable memory that may be directed to a computer or other programmable data processing device to implement functions in a specific manner, and thus the instructions stored in the computer-usable or computer-readable memory may also produce a manufactured item including instruction means for performing the functions described in each block of the block diagram or each step of the flowchart.”).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (KR 102085852 B1), hereinafter as Jo, in view of Matov et al. (US 20110104630 A1), hereinafter as Matov, further in view of Minagi et al. (US 20080311537 A1), hereinafter as Minagi. The original and a machine translation of Jo are provided by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 4, Jo in view of Matov teach The method of claim 1, but are not relied on for the below claim language wherein: the calculating includes: calculating a first occlusal distance to antagonist corresponding to a first occlusal state of the intraoral image and a second occlusal distance to antagonist of the intraoral image corresponding to a second occlusal state different from the first occlusal state; adjusting an occlusal state investigation range based on the first occlusal distance to antagonist and the second occlusal distance to antagonist; and calculating an intermediate occlusal distance to antagonist for an intermediate occlusal state within the occlusal state investigation range.
Minagi teaches wherein: the calculating includes: calculating a first occlusal distance to antagonist corresponding to a first occlusal state of the intraoral image and a second occlusal distance to antagonist of the intraoral image corresponding to a second occlusal state different from the first occlusal state (Minagi teaches predefined occlusal contact as the first occlusal distance and maximum allowable distance as the second occlusal distance, paragraph [0056] “the following condition; if part of the occlusal surface may come in contact with part of the occlusal surface of the lower jaw over each area of tooth row of the occlusal surface of the upper jaw (i.e. the distance is equal to 0, or the distance is less than predefined value (to be defined as occlusal contact)), the condition of whether to bring them close in the perpendicular direction more, or in further approach movement the condition of maximum allowable distance (i.e. maximum allowable cut value).”); adjusting an occlusal state investigation range based on the first occlusal distance to antagonist and the second occlusal distance to antagonist (Minagi teaches using the first and second distances as the upper and lower bounds to decide correction amount, Jo teaches a user interface with slider to define a range of influence area, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Minagi with the method of Jo. Minagi Figure 4 and paragraph [0060] “if the distance of part of the occlusal surface in area 401 is identical with the maximum allowable cut value preset for a condition of the occlusal contact point, before the distance of part 403 of the occlusal surface becomes equal to 0, or the distance becomes less than predefined value, then the condition setting and distance-computing means 30 stops the approach movement, and provides information indicated that the approach movement has stopped to display.”, Jo paragraph [0082] “a user interface 720 defining a range (influence area) that will affect the confrontation value during deformation and a distance to the confrontation value is displayed on the screen. The range items that will affect can be adjusted by moving the slide bar or changing the numerical value.”); and calculating an intermediate occlusal distance to antagonist for an intermediate occlusal state within the occlusal state investigation range (Minagi teaches gradually reducing occlusal distance as intermediate distance while keeping the upper and lower boundaries, Figure 4 and paragraph [0059] “The condition setting and distance-computing means 30 calculates the distance between two jaw models again while gradually bringing close the data of the upper jaw model 100 and the data of the lower jaw model 200 in the predetermined perpendicular direction, and provides each shape of the upper jaw model 100 and the lower jaw model 200, and said calculated distance to display in the display device 4.”).
Jo, Matov and Minagi are in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatment, especially in the field of displaying occlusion data of dental site. Minagi teaches a method to generate intermediate occlusal distance based on upper and lower boundaries to improve results (Minagi paragraph [0017] “According to the present invention, the upper and the lower jaws are moved, the distance of each occlusal part is calculated, and the correction area and the correction-amount of teeth are determined. As a result, this enables to generate necessary, effective information to complete the shape of teeth bitten excellently. For example, this enables to obtain information for adjusting the occlusal state of teeth before jaw surgery.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Minagi with the method of Jo and Matov to improve results.
Regarding Claim 5, Jo in view of Matov and Minagi teach The method of claim 4, and further teach wherein: the calculating further includes confirming an investigated occlusal state requiring a calculation of the occlusal distance to antagonist within the occlusal state investigation range (Minagi teaches achieving a desired occlusal state by gradually computing occlusal distance as intermediate investigation range between an upper and lower boundaries, Figure 4 and paragraph [0059] “The condition setting and distance-computing means 30 calculates the distance between two jaw models again while gradually bringing close the data of the upper jaw model 100 and the data of the lower jaw model 200 in the predetermined perpendicular direction, and provides each shape of the upper jaw model 100 and the lower jaw model 200, and said calculated distance to display in the display device 4. If the operator judges that desired occlusal state has been obtained, the correction area and amount-determining means 40 determines the correction area and the amount of correction based on the occlusal state of the upper jaw and the lower jaw in the stopped state, according to the operator's operation. ”).
Jo, Matov and Minagi are in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatment, especially in the field of displaying occlusion data of dental site. Minagi teaches a method to generate intermediate occlusal distance based on upper and lower boundaries to improve results (Minagi paragraph [0017] “According to the present invention, the upper and the lower jaws are moved, the distance of each occlusal part is calculated, and the correction area and the correction-amount of teeth are determined. As a result, this enables to generate necessary, effective information to complete the shape of teeth bitten excellently. For example, this enables to obtain information for adjusting the occlusal state of teeth before jaw surgery.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Minagi with the method of Jo and Matov to improve results.
Regarding Claim 7, Jo in view of Matov and Minagi teach The method of claim 4, and further teach wherein: the calculating further includes extracting a tooth region in the intraoral image to extract a maxillary tooth region for the maxillary scan data and a mandibular tooth region for mandibular scan data (Jo teaches using 3d scanner for upper jaw tooth and lower jaw tooth, paragraph [0040] “Such a tooth model includes an image obtained by photographing an upper jaw tooth under an upper jaw tooth while a patient opens his/her mouth, an image obtained by photographing a lower jaw tooth on a lower jaw tooth while the patient opens his/her mouth”, paragraph [0077] “The vertical cover the extent in which the maxillary tooth covers the mandibular tooth.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Jo in view of Matov and Minagi teach The method of claim 4, and further teach wherein: the first and second occlusal states and the intermediate occlusal state are calculated in a form of bite opening (Matov paragraph [0126] “The 3D occlusogram may, for example, be used for diagnostic purposes, such as determining malocclusions of a patient's teeth and/or bite, including open bite, overbite, under bite, and overjet, and also for determining bite angles, for example, the mandibular plane, or lower jaw, angle.”)
Jo, Matov and Minagi are in the same field of endeavor, namely dental treatment, especially in the field of displaying occlusion data of dental site. Matov teaches a method to compute occlusion distance based on a chosen tooth to improve user interaction (Matov paragraph [0100] “FIG. 14 is a flowchart illustrating auto-locating a related point on the opposite jaw of a point on a tooth based on an embodiment of the present disclosure. Being able to quickly and efficiently locate a related point on a tooth of the opposite jaw from a chosen tooth is desirable in some dental treatments, as it may allow the treatment professional to see which other teeth in the mouth of a patient may be effected by a change in a chosen tooth.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matov with the method of Jo and Minagi to improve user interaction.
Regarding Claim 10, Jo in view of Matov and Minagi teach The method of claim 9, and further teach wherein: the first occlusal state corresponds to a state in which the intraoral image is in an occlusal contact relationship (Jo paragraph [0037] “The dental workpiece design apparatus 1 according to an embodiment modifies the shape of the working teeth in consideration of the working teeth and the contact relationship with the opposing teeth corresponding to the working teeth. In this case, the modification includes the occlusal position and state adjustment of the working teeth.”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 10, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 15 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome 35 U.S.C 101 rejection and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, the closet prior art of Minagi teaches an iterative process to decide occlusion distance in Figure 4 and paragraph [0067] “the condition setting and distance-computing means 30 may set new condition of occlusal contact point through the operator's operation, execute further approach movement over the contact part according to the new condition, and stop the further approach movement if it is determined that the distance becomes 0 as each occlusal part have come in contact. Such approach movement and setting of condition of occlusal contact point may be repeated. Thus, the operator may obtain effective information to adjust occlusal state of tooth.”. However, Minagi fails to teach the combined limitation below as a whole “the calculating further includes repeating adjusting the occlusal state investigation range and calculating the intermediate occlusal distance to antagonist when there is the investigated occlusal state”. Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches the above limitation as a whole. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 are considered to allowable.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, the closet prior art of Matov teaches a method to compute the smallest occlusal distance in Figure 14 and paragraph [0102] “Referring back to FIG. 14, the occlusal distance can be initialized to positive infinite 1430 and a first tooth can be chosen from the potential occlusal teeth list 1440. The height of the chosen point can be calculated from the height map of the tooth on which the chosen point is located, and the distance, h, to the height map of the potential occlusal tooth can be determined 1450. If the distance, h, is smaller than the current occlusal distance, then the occlusal distance equals h, and the corresponding point can be set by the interpolated point 1460. This process can then be repeated for all potential occlusal teeth on the potential occlusal teeth list 1470 until the correct corresponding point is found.”. However, Matov fails to teach the combined limitation below as a whole “wherein: the calculating of the second occlusal distance to antagonist for the second occlusal state includes generating a plurality of intersections where a straight line extending in a normal direction in a plurality of meshes in the mandibular tooth region contacts the mandibular tooth region, calculating a plurality of distance values between the plurality of intersections corresponding to each of the plurality of meshes, and selecting the minimum of the plurality of distance values. “. Furthermore, no prior art of record either alone or in combination teaches the above limitation as a whole. Therefore, claims 8 and 17 are considered to allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alvarez et al. (US 20220246270 A1) teaches a method to determine if a tooth is shaped and oriented properly to avoid collision with virtual mandibular arch or maxillary arch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOMING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-3831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/XIAOMING WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights