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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 14 has been amended for clarification and the amendment does not change the scope or contents of the claim.
Applicant’s amendment filed October 28, 2025 overcomes the following objection/rejection(s) from the last Office Action of May 29, 2025:
Objections to the claims for minor informalities
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1 (and similarly claim 14), Applicant argues, “The Office Action does not establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references to arrive at the features in claim 1 (Remarks, 7).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the prior office action, the examiner provided reasons for combining Nikolskiy and Schafer, and further Heumann. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
First with regard to Nikolskiy and Schafer, the examiner noted Nikolskiy is directed toward, “Systems and methods are provided for scanning a dental impression to obtain a digital model of a patient's dentition as an input to computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) methods for producing dental prostheses (abstract).” Nikolskiy performs the scanning of a dental impression using CT; paragraph 0028, “In one embodiment of the present method, a computed tomography (CT) scanner uses x-rays to make a detailed image of a physical impression.” Schafer is directed toward performing x-ray tomography of a subject (read as CT) (abstract). Thus, as can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art both Nikolskiy and Schafer are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of analyzing imaging data of an object.
Further, the examiner took the position that it is well known in the art, that accuracy and efficiency are of utmost importance to a physician, and is noted as a key feature of Schafer at paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan”. The examiner notes that having inaccurate and inefficient processes is well known in the art to a person at the time of filing the claimed invention to produce more accurate treatment. Said differently, if inaccurate data is generated, an inaccurate diagnosis could be made. For example, if an impression is scanned incorrectly, a diagnosis may be inaccurate, further leading to inaccurate treatment, with poor patient outcomes. A concrete example could be dental braces; if a scan of a patient is made where the teeth look more straight than they are in reality, the diagnosis may be a less severe level of dental issues, and thus treatment may be less aggressive than it would need to be to correct the true condition of the teeth.
Further, waiting too long for data to be generated can lead to inefficient processes within the dental office itself. A dental office sees patients based on a schedule, and not completing analysis in a specific time may lead to a patient needing to come back for a later appointment, or a doctor making a rash and inaccurate decision based on the limited time left after processing.
As such, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Schafer in order to prevent a user form waiting until all data is obtained in order to present data to a user, aiding in increased efficiency.
With regard to the combination of Nikolskiy, Schafer and Heumann, the examiner noted previously, “As noted above, Nikolskiy and Schafer are directed toward methods of processing CT data of an object (see above). Heumann is directed toward methods of computed tomography acquiring projections and performing reconstruction (abstract). As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art, Nikolskiy, Schafer and Heumann are all directed toward similar methods of endeavor of CT generation and analysis.” Thus, the examiner has first determined that the pieces of prior art are within the same general field of art
Further, as previously discussed, “noted in Heumann, discarding images would aid in preventing storage of useless images, and further reduce the likelihood of filling a memory (paragraph 0021).” The examiner expands on this point to note that it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art that computers and processing systems in general do not contain infinite memory, and further that processors with higher memory capacity often cost more. Deleting images would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to maintain as little data as possible on the processor, and further to not be storing unnecessary patient information.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Heumann in order to optimize the system, reduce data storage, aiding in limiting the possibility of filling the memory of a system.
Regarding independent claim 1 (and similarly claim 14), Applicant argues “the Office Action does not establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Heumann’s disclosure of acquiring at least one projection but less than all projections to be used in reconstruction with Schafer to arrive at beginning reconstruction of one or more of the detected radiographs before all of the detected radiographs are acquired as recited in claim 1. (Remarks, 8)”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Heumann is specifically relied upon to disclose “wherein a detected radiograph is discarded after its reconstruction” as claimed in claims 1 and 14. Further, Schafer is relied upon to disclose “beginning reconstruction of one or more of the detected radiographs before all of the detected radiographs are acquired” as claimed. The argument directed at the combination of references is noted above. Further with regard to performing a rotation around an object 360 degrees once, this is read as another obvious feature in that rotating multiple times around an object can cause redundant data; if the goal is to generate the most low cost and time optimized system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to ensure as little rotation occurs (saving time) and limit acquiring unnecessary data (less storage needed = less expensive).
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, 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) 1-11 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0132982 to Nikolskiy et al. (hereinafter Nikolskiy), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0085389 to Schafer (hereinafter Schafer) and U.S. Publication No. 2004/0022348 to Heumann (hereinafter Heumann).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nikolskiy discloses a computer-implemented method for CT reconstruction (abstract, “Systems and methods are provided for scanning a dental impression to obtain a digital model of a patient's dentition as an input to computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) methods for producing dental prostheses;” paragraph 0028, “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the processor 150 may comprise one or more computers that may be directly connected to the detector, wirelessly connected, connected via a network, or otherwise in direct or indirect communication with the detector 148;” paragraph 0038, “For example, a computing environment may include one or more processing units and memory. The processing units execute computer-executable instructions. A processing unit can be a central processing unit (CPU), a processor in an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or any other type of processor;” paragraph 0031, “For example, in an embodiment, the plurality of images 160 undergo tomographic reconstruction in order to generate a 3D virtual image 170 (see FIG. 5) from the plurality of 2D images 160 generated by the scanning system 140.”), comprising:
receiving a plurality of detected radiographs from a CT scanner during a single CT scan of a physical dental impression (paragraph 0031, “For example, in an embodiment, the plurality of images 160 undergo tomographic reconstruction in order to generate a 3D virtual image 170 (see FIG. 5) from the plurality of 2D images 160 generated by the scanning system 140.”); and
wherein the single CT scan comprises rotating the object 360 degrees once (paragraph 0030, “In one embodiment, a series of 720 images are collected as the impression 146 is rotated in place between the source 142 and the detector 148. In other embodiments, more images or fewer images may be collected as will be understood by those skilled in the art;” additional or less images can be used while the object is being rotated to allow the object to rotate however many degrees are desired).
Nikolskiy fails to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Schafer discloses beginning reconstruction of one or more of the detected radiographs before all of the detected radiographs are acquired (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” reconstruction beginning during the scan, is read as the scan not being complete yet thus all of the data has not been acquired).
Nikolskiy is directed toward, “Systems and methods are provided for scanning a dental impression to obtain a digital model of a patient's dentition as an input to computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) methods for producing dental prostheses (abstract).” Nikolskiy performs the scanning of a dental impression using CT; paragraph 0028, “In one embodiment of the present method, a computed tomography (CT) scanner uses x-rays to make a detailed image of a physical impression.” Schafer is directed toward performing x-ray tomography of a subject (read as CT) (abstract). Thus, as can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art both Nikolskiy and Schafer are directed toward similar methods of endeavor of analyzing imaging data of an object. Further, it is well known in the art, that accuracy and efficiency are of utmost importance to a physician, and is noted as a key feature of Schafer at paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan”. As such, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Schafer in order to prevent a user form waiting until all data is obtained in order to present data to a user, aiding in increased efficiency.
Nikolskiy and Schafer in the combination as a whole fail to explicitly disclose as further recited. However, Heumann discloses wherein a detected radiograph is discarded after its reconstruction (paragraph 0021, “ A computed tomography reconstruction formulated so that each projection is processed immediately after acquisition and then discarded not only drastically reduces storage requirements, but allows computation to begin as soon as the first projection has been acquired and which could be overlapped with acquisition of subsequent images.”).
As noted above, Nikolskiy and Schafer are directed toward methods of processing CT data of an object (see above). Heumann is directed toward methods of computed tomography acquiring projections and performing reconstruction (abstract). As can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art, Nikolskiy, Schafer and Heumann are all directed toward similar methods of endeavor of CT generation and analysis. Further, as noted in Heumann, discarding images would aid in preventing storage of useless images, and further reduce the likelihood of filling a memory (paragraph 0021). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Heumann in order to optimize the system, reduce data storage, aiding in limiting the possibility of filling the memory of a system.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein beginning reconstruction of the one or more radiographs is during CT scanning (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” paragraph 0035, “FIG. 4 schematically and exemplarily shows trajectories of a focus point of an X-ray beam during first and second rotational passes of a two-pass CT scan” the scan is read as a CT scan).
Regarding dependent claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Nikolskiy in the combination further discloses wherein CT scanning comprises acquiring the one or more radiographs (paragraph 0030, “In one embodiment, a series of 720 images are collected as the impression 146 is rotated in place between the source 142 and the detector 148. In other embodiments, more images or fewer images may be collected as will be understood by those skilled in the art;” the radiographs are read as the images collected; further acquiring is read as collecting).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction is performed during scanning (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction of each of the one or more radiographs is performed in a sequence received (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” thus as more data is acquired from scanning, it can be reconstructed)
Regarding dependent claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Nikolskiy in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction of each of the one or more radiographs is performed upon receipt (paragraph 0031, “For example, in an embodiment, the plurality of images 160 undergo tomographic reconstruction in order to generate a 3D virtual image 170 (see FIG. 5) from the plurality of 2D images 160 generated by the scanning system 140.”).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Nikolskiy in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction of a radiograph is performed immediately after its acquisition (paragraph 0031, “For example, in an embodiment, the plurality of images 160 undergo tomographic reconstruction in order to generate a 3D virtual image 170 (see FIG. 5) from the plurality of 2D images 160 generated by the scanning system 140.”).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction begins before scanning is complete (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” reconstruction beginning during the scan, is read as the scan not being complete yet).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction begins before all radiographs are received by the computer-implemented method (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” the reconstruction is noted as beginning during the scan, thus all of the data hasn’t been obtained yet)
Regarding dependent claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein a reconstructed volume is available immediately after scanning of an object completes (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” being available quickly is read as being available immediately).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer in the combination further discloses wherein reconstruction is performed in parallel with scanning (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” reconstruction starting while the scan is occurring is read as the operations being performed in parallel).
Regarding independent claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 applies directly. Additionally, Nikolskiy discloses a system for CT reconstruction (abstract, “Systems and methods are provided for scanning a dental impression to obtain a digital model of a patient's dentition as an input to computer aided design (CAD) and computer aided manufacturing (CAM) methods for producing dental prostheses;” paragraph 0031, “For example, in an embodiment, the plurality of images 160 undergo tomographic reconstruction in order to generate a 3D virtual image 170 (see FIG. 5) from the plurality of 2D images 160 generated by the scanning system 140.”), comprising:
a processor (paragraph 0029, “The processor 150 may include a storage medium that is configured with instructions to manage the data collected by the scanning system.”);
a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions executable by the processor to perform steps (paragraph 0029, “The processor 150 may include a storage medium that is configured with instructions to manage the data collected by the scanning system;” paragraph 0038, “For example, a computing environment may include one or more processing units and memory. The processing units execute computer-executable instructions. A processing unit can be a central processing unit (CPU), a processor in an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or any other type of processor. In a multi-processing system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions to increase processing power. For example, a representative computing environment may include a central processing unit as well as a graphics processing unit or co-processing unit. The tangible memory may be volatile memory (e.g., registers, cache, RAM), non-volatile memory (e.g., ROM, EEPROM, flash memory, etc.), or some combination of the two, accessible by the processing unit(s). The memory stores software implementing one or more innovations described herein, in the form of computer-executable instructions suitable for execution by the processing unit(s).”) comprising:
receiving a plurality of detected radiographs from a CT scanner during a single CT scan of a physical dental impression (see claim 1 analysis); and
beginning reconstruction of one or more of the detected radiographs before all of the detected radiographs are acquired (see claim 1 analysis),
wherein the single CT scan comprises rotating the object 360 degrees once (see claim 1 analysis),
wherein a detected radiograph is discarded after its reconstruction (see claim 1 analysis).
Regarding dependent claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Schafer further discloses begin performing reconstruction of one or more of the detected radiographs before all of the detected radiographs are acquired (paragraph 0017, “an accurate image reconstruction can be carried out and the image reconstruction can start during the scan, so that the reconstructed image is available quickly after completion of the scan;” the reconstruction is noted as beginning during the scan, thus all of the data hasn’t been obtained).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 2 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 3 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 4 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 19, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 5 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 6 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 21, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 7 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 22, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 8 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 23, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 9 applies directly.
Regarding dependent claim 24, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Additionally, the rejection of claim 10 applies directly.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolskiy further in view of Schafer and Heumann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0148370 to Maury et al. (hereinafter Maury).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Additionally, Nikolskiy, Schafer and Heumann in the combination as a whole fail to explicitly disclose wherein CT reconstruction comprises filtering one or more of the plurality of detected radiographs and using the filtered radiographs to determine one or more geometric parameters.
However, Maury discloses wherein CT reconstruction comprises filtering one or more of the pluralities of detected radiographs and using the filtered radiographs to determine one or more geometric parameters (paragraph 0049, “Embodiments of the present invention correct for beam hardening and other effects using an iterative filtering technique that compensates for the polyenergetic contribution of the scan radiation, so that reconstruction uses data that more closely approximates the more accurate data that would be obtained from monochromatic radiation. With this technique, beam hardening effects are successively removed so that the air volume that is generated is relatively free of artifacts;” the geometric parameter is read as removing beam hardening effects)
As noted above, Nikolskiy, Schafer and Heumann are directed toward methods of analyzing imaging data of an object (see claim 1 analysis). Maury is directed toward forming a digital model of a patient’s teeth by scanning a patient’s dental impression (abstract). Maury performs the scanning by using computed tomography (see paragraphs 0006, 0015 and 0036) to scan either the negative impression (i.e. the mold), or scanning the plaster model (see paragraph 0037). Thus, as can be easily seen by one of ordinary skill in the art, Nikolskiy, Schafer, Heumann and Maury are all directed toward processing imaging data of an object and more specifically related to CT imaging. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would easily understand that CT images often have artifacts within the image, degrading the quality and causing potential issues with reviewing the images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to incorporate the teaching of Maury in order to ensure the images are of highest quality, resulting in a more accurate image and thus potentially a more accurate post analysis steps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Courtney J. Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-3956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, John Villecco can be reached on 571-272-7319. 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.
/COURTNEY JOAN NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661