DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA the first inventor to file provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Line 1 the term “the different mount areas” should be changed to “the different mouth areas” for typographical/grammar issues to avoid clarity issues to prevent a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 1, recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “receiving, by a computing device” [Line 2].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “generating, by the computing device” [Line 5].
Claim 1; recites the limitation, “determining, by the computing device” [Line 8].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 1:
“computing device” (Fig. 36, #3602. Paragraph [0112]- Device 3602 may include any computation or communications device that is capable of communicating with a network (e.g., network 3601). For example, device 3602 may include X-ray machine, a dental imagery machine, a smart phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, or another type of computation or communications device Further in Paragraph [0124]- While various actions are described as selecting, displaying, transferring, sending, receiving, generating, notifying, and storing, it will be understood that these example actions are occurring within an electronic computing and/or electronic networking environment and may require one or more computing devices, as described in FIG. 36 . (wherein the computing device has sufficient structure associated with it of a computer.).)).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more nor an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention simply performs obtaining image data of multiple views and searching for a dental implant location See analysis below for more details.
Regarding Independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4,
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a (Method), which falls within one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Please see MPEP §2106.04.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“receiving, by a computing device, two-dimensional images;
determining, by the computing device, a dental implant within the person's mouth.”
The limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Please see MPEP §2106.04. The limitations of:
“determining, by the computing device, a dental implant within the person's mouth wherein the benchmark database includes: views of different mouth areas” is a mental process activity abstract idea; particularly, steps of observations and evaluation mental process, performing a search for and deciding a location of a dental implant.
Notes: under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), mental process (thinking) “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): "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." (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 ("mental 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).
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; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, generic circuit or device, or the likes. See " 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) (‘with 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.’’).
Because both product/device 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).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“receiving, by a computing device, two-dimensional images, wherein the two- dimensional images are slices from three-dimensional electronic scans,
generating, by the computing device, a benchmark database; wherein the benchmark database includes: views of different mouth areas
by the computing device”
The additional elements by the computing device - recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a processor performing executing instructions stored, a memory storing instruction program, a computer to have computer components executing the instructions of the invention, a non-transitory computer readable medium performing storing instructions, generic devices [interface, screen, camera, sensor, etc.], etc.) such that it amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components, devices, additional elements.
The additional elements “receiving, by a computing device, two-dimensional images, wherein the two- dimensional images are slices from three-dimensional electronic scans” and “generating, by the computing device, a benchmark database; wherein the benchmark database includes: views of different mouth areas” -include steps of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, data generating, data transmitting, etc [acquiring data/information, transmitting data/info., outputting data/information, displaying data/info., converting data/info., generating data/info., etc].
Accordingly, 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. The claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.04.(d).III.C.
Step 2B Analysis: there are no additional elements, such as for these additional elements as indicated above, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Please see MPEP §2106.05. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Please see MPEP §2106.05
For all of the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 USC 101.
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-4 do not provide elements that overcome the deficiencies of the independent claim 1.
Moreover, claim 2 recites, in part,
“the received two-dimensional images is preprocessed data that has irrelevant electronic information removed.”
Which is a mental process activity abstract idea of observation and evaluation, judgement, merely ignoring regions surrounding the region of interest.
Moreover, claim 3 recites, in part,
“the different mount areas include full head views, medium views, and small views”
Which is a insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activities of data gathering, data generating, data transmitting, etc [acquiring data/information, transmitting data/info., outputting data/information, displaying data/info., converting data/info., generating data/info., etc].
Moreover, claim 4 recites, in part,
“wherein the determining the dental implant location includes splitting the three-dimensional electronic scans”
Which is a insignificant extra-solution/post-solution activities of data gathering, data generating, data transmitting, etc [acquiring data/information, transmitting data/info., outputting data/information, displaying data/info., converting data/info., generating data/info., etc].
Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-4 are not patent eligible under 101.
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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20250143852 A1) hereafter referenced as Yang.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method, comprising (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0007]- Yang discloses according to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for generating a restoration dental model),
receiving, by a computing device, two-dimensional images, wherein the two- dimensional images are slices from three-dimensional electronic scans (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0087]- Yang discloses the aforementioned 3D oral image refers to image data obtained through Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). CBCT is a medical imaging technique that obtains high-quality 3D images by using a cone beam X-ray source and a planar detector. CBCT data typically includes 3D voxel data, 2D slice images, and reconstructed images.),
and wherein the two-dimensional images are for a region of interest within a person's mouth (Fig. 2a, Paragraph [0147]- Yang discloses finally, the voxel positions and indices are reallocated and reorganized to generate the target 3D oral image with the same voxel spacing; Crop the region of interest of the target 3D oral image to obtain a 3D oral image. This can be done as needed by cropping the region of interest of the target 3D oral image, as shown in FIG. 2a and FIG. 2b, which illustrate the marked region of interest.);
and generating, by the computing device, a benchmark database (Fig. 2a, Paragraph [0109]- Yang discloses according to the selected dividing method, the 3D oral image is divided, and the divided multiple image blocks are saved as separate image files.);
wherein the benchmark database includes: views of different mouth areas (Fig. 2a, Paragraph [0142]- Yang discloses obtaining multiple 2D oral images of the target object can be achieved by using an oral photography device to obtain multiple 2D oral images, which can ensure coverage of different perspectives and regions of the target object's oral cavity);
determining, by the computing device, a dental implant within the person's mouth (Paragraph [0096]- Yang discloses the model of the dental implant can be obtained based on the predicted key points of the dental implant. This can be achieved by first processing and converting the predicted key points data of the dental implant, and then using Computer-Aided Design software (CAD) or other 3D modeling tools to draw the shape and structure of the dental implant based on the position and size of the key points, creating a dental implant model.).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the method of claim 1, Yang further teaches wherein the determining the dental implant location includes splitting the three-dimensional electronic scans (Fig. 10, Paragraph [0107]- Yang discloses the aforementioned image blocks refer to multiple uniform, non overlapping image blocks that are divided from the entire 3D oral image, each of which is a local area of the 3D oral image that can be used for further analysis, processing, or feature extraction.).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20250143852 A1) hereafter referenced as Yang in view of Oota et al. (US 20100189341 A1) hereafter referenced as Oota.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the method of claim 1, Yang is silent to explicitly teach wherein the received two-dimensional images is preprocessed data that has irrelevant electronic information removed.
However, Oota explicitly teaches wherein the received two-dimensional images is preprocessed data that has irrelevant electronic information removed (Fig. 11, Paragraph [0093]- Oota discloses then, the two-dimensional image processing unit 34 performs pre-processing such as gray level correction and noise removal on the captured image data (step S22).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Yang of having a method, comprising, receiving, by a computing device, two-dimensional images, wherein the two- dimensional images are slices from three-dimensional electronic scans, and wherein the two-dimensional images are for a region of interest within a person's mouth with the teachings of Oota wherein the received two-dimensional images is preprocessed data that has irrelevant electronic information removed.
Wherein having Yang’s system for determining dental implant location wherein the received two-dimensional images is preprocessed data that has irrelevant electronic information removed.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for greater accuracy of data obtained, since both Yang and Oota are both systems that image and obtain information about a persons mouth. Wherein Yang’s system wherein improved efficiency of generating a dental implant location, while Oota’s system provides a way to improve accuracy of data obtained. Please see Yang et al. (US 20250143852 A1), Paragraph [0041] and Oota et al. (US 20100189341 A1) Paragraph [0010].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20250143852 A1) hereafter referenced as Yang in view of Levin et al. (US 20160045282 A1) hereafter referenced as Levin.
Regarding claim 3, Yang teaches the method of claim 1, Yang is silent to explicitly teach wherein the different mount areas include full head views, medium views, and small views.
However, Levin explicitly teaches wherein the different mount areas include full head views, medium views, and small views (Figs. 9A-C Paragraph [0036]- Levin discloses for example, as shown in FIGS. 9A-9C, the generated three-dimensional image may have a limited FOV as illustrated by the box in FIG. 9A, a medium FOV as illustrated by the box in FIG. 9B, or a large FOV as illustrated by the box in FIG. 9C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Yang of having a method, comprising, receiving, by a computing device, two-dimensional images, wherein the two- dimensional images are slices from three-dimensional electronic scans, and wherein the two-dimensional images are for a region of interest within a person's mouth with the teachings of Levin wherein the different mount areas include full head views, medium views, and small views.
Wherein having Yang’s system for determining dental implant location wherein the different mount areas include full head views, medium views, and small views.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to allow for greater detail information obtained of obtaining information, since both Yang and Levin are both systems that image and obtain information about a persons mouth. Wherein Yang’s system wherein improved efficiency of generating a dental implant location, while Levin’s system provides a way to obtain more detailed information about regions of interest of a mouth. Please see Yang et al. (US 20250143852 A1), Paragraph [0041] and Levin et al. (US 20160045282 A1) Paragraph [0035-36].
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered
pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
Chernov et al. (US 20220165388 A1)- Provided herein are systems and methods for automatically segmenting a 3D model of a patient's teeth. A patient's dentition may be scanned with a 3D scanning system, such as CT, CBCT, or MRI. The 3D scan data may be automatically segmented with one or more neural networks. The segmented 3D scan can be incorporated into a dental treatment plan....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Wang et al. (US 20210307882 A1)- Embodiments of the present application provides a method and a system for evaluating implanting precision of an implant. The method includes: obtaining a second surface model of an oral cavity containing a target implant; obtaining an actual position of the target implant in a first three-dimensional model based on the second surface model, the first three-dimensional model and a first surface model; and obtaining an evaluation result of the implanting precision of the target implant based on the actual position of the target implant in the first three-dimensional model and an predicted position of the target implant in the first three-dimensional model. By means of the method and system according to the embodiments of the present application, the second surface model of the oral cavity containing the target implant is obtained after implantation is completed using an oral digital scanning device to obtain the evaluation result of the implanting precision of an implant of the target implant. More accurate evaluation result of implant can be obtained due to the elimination of metallic implant artifacts in the obtained secondary surface model as compared to the three-dimensional digital model obtained based on CT device in the prior art.....................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Ryakhovsky et al. (US 20200268495 A1)- In the invention, a method for using a dynamic virtual articulator for simulating occlusion during a change in the initial position of the lower jaw or fragments thereof, and for modeling the position of the teeth in relation to one another and the position and shape of false teeth is described, said method being carried out with a computer. The method includes the following steps: providing a virtual articulator comprising a virtual three-dimensional model of the upper jaw and dental arch and a virtual three-dimensional model of the lower jaw and dental arch, resembling the upper jaw and upper teeth and the lower jaw and lower teeth, respectively, of the patient; and providing simulated movements of the virtual upper jaw and the virtual lower jaw in relation to one another for simulating dynamic occlusion, during which penetrating and non-penetrating contact may occur between teeth in the virtual upper and virtual lower jaw. Providing the virtual articulator further includes providing virtual three-dimensional models of the temporomandibular joints, resembling the heads of the lower jaw, the mandibular fossae, and the articular tubercles of the temporal bones, and carrying out simulated movements of the jaws in relation to one another is preceded by clinically or virtually setting initial and final positions. Furthermore, the virtual surfaces of the heads of the lower jaw and the virtual surfaces of the articular tubercles and the mandibular fossae of the temporal bones of the patient are disengaged. Also, a non-volatile machine-readable medium is described with a stored code containing instructions which, when executed, allow the proposed method to be carried out. The group of inventions makes it possible to provide a virtual articulator that simulates as closely as possible the actual processes occurring in the patient's mouth......................Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIUS C.G. ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5987. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5pm (EST).
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571)272-9752. 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.
/LUCIUS CAMERON GREEN ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
