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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 11, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6 lines 2-3, “frame data sets” should read “frames”
In claim 8 line 4, “first and second reconstruction parameter” should read “first or second reconstruction parameter”
In claim 11 line 3, “first or second provisional panoramic images” should read “first or second provisional panoramic image”
In claim 11 line 4, “first and second reconstruction parameter” should read “first or second reconstruction parameter”
in claim 11 lines 5-6, “first and second provisional panoramic images” should read “first or second provisional panoramic image”
in claim 15 line 4, line 6 and lines 9-10, “plurality of frame data sets” should read “plurality of frames”
in claim 19 lines 2-3, “first or second panoramic image” should read “first or second provisional panoramic image”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (EP 2852153) in view of Ogawa et al. (NPL " Development of a new dental panoramic radiographic system based on a tomosynthesis method") and in further view of Eichner et al. (EP 3685752).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an image processing method to provide a final panoramic image (paragraph 0037: “a method of providing panoramic images”) of at least a portion of a head (paragraph 0053: “the region of interest (the dental arch)”), wherein the image processing method comprises:
providing a single frame data set comprising a plurality of frames captured by a medical or dental imaging system (paragraph 0020: “the images to be reconstructed are a plurality of projection images captured by a dental panoramic imaging apparatus”) having a radiation source and a radiation detector which move about a patient while taking the plurality of frames (paragraph 0041: “the panoramic image obtaining apparatus may include an X-ray source, an image sensor, and an image processing unit…the X-ray source may irradiate X-rays while rotating around the object along multiple image layer trajectories where an area of interest of the object is located. The image sensor has a certain area, and receives X-rays and obtains images along multiple image layer trajectories while moving with the X-ray source with the object located between the two”);
calculating by a computer, and before step iv. (paragraph 0041: “The image processing unit receives the images obtained from the image sensor and reconstructs the images for the image layer trajectories”), at least a first and second provisional panoramic image (paragraph 0039: “Step 100 of scaling images is a step of reconstructing images captured by an imaging apparatus according to predetermined multiple image layers”), so that the first calculated provisional panoramic image differs from the second calculated provisional panoramic image (FIG. 5: images 3 and 4 are clearly different, see also images 96 in FIG. 10);
determining imaging quality (paragraph 0055: “the sharpness of the image may be analyzed by using the boundary information…a step 220 of summing the boundary surface detected”) of the recognizable structures (FIG. 5, paragraph 0055: “a region of interest 50”), comparing the imaging quality of identical recognizable structures of the first and second provisional panoramic images (FIG. 5, paragraph 0055: “The sums of the boundaries are compared”) and selecting the recognizable structure of identical recognizable structures of the first or second provisional panoramic image having the highest imaging quality (FIG. 5, paragraph 0055: “an image having optimum sharpness may be selected…it is preferable to select an image which has largest number of pixels at the boundaries as the optimum image”);
determining variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter used in step (ii) (paragraph 0039: the “various image layers” are interpreted to represent variation in reconstruction parameter since the images are reconstructed “according to predetermined multiple image layers”) for calculation of the first and second provisional panoramic images of those frames which have the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (paragraph 0059: in order to perform “estimating an image layer for the specific reason using the image layer of at least one image sharing the specific region”, the image layer used in the calculation of at least one of the selected optimum images being combined must be determined);
calculating with reference to the determined variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter of step (v) a final panoramic image data set representing a final panoramic image (paragraph 0058: “In a step of providing a panoramic image S300, the image selected in the step of selecting the image S200 are combined to generate a single combined image”);
displaying the final panoramic image represented by the final panoramic image data set (paragraph 0062: “In a step of providing a panoramic image S300, the image generated by combining the optimum image selected in the step of selecting the image S200 is provided through a display unit 400”).
Choi additionally discloses detecting boundaries in the provisional panoramic images that may delineate an object of interest (paragraphs 0053-0054: “the boundary of the respective images…are detected. According to this embodiment, it is preferable that the boundary is a plane with which the region of interest (the dental arch) to be imaged can be discriminated from background regions other than the region of interest…the shape, size and texture of an object may be shown with the boundary”). However, Choi fails to explicitly disclose the radiation source and the radiation detector move about the patient on a single trajectory (step i); calculating from said single frame data set, at least a first and second provisional panoramic image, wherein for the calculation of the first provisional panoramic image a first reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter is applied to the frames of the single frame data set, and for the calculation of the second provisional panoramic image a second reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter is applied to the frames of the single frame data set, wherein the second reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter is different than the first reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter (step ii); and scanning the first and second provisional panoramic images for recognizable structures (step iii).
In the related art of dental panoramic systems, Ogawa discloses the radiation source and the radiation detector move about the patient on a single trajectory (Ogawa Figure 1; page 48, left hand column [LHC], last paragraph: “An X-ray tube rotates around isocentre O along trajectory TS with rotation radius RS, and a strip detector rotates around the same isocentre along trajectory TD with rotation radius RD”); and calculating from said single frame data set, at least a first and second provisional panoramic image (Ogawa Figure 5 displays three different panoramic images focused on different planes), wherein for the calculation of the first provisional panoramic image a first reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter is applied to the frames of the single frame data set (Ogawa page 50, right hand column [RHC], first paragraph: “Figure 5b is a synthesized image focused on the central plane of the image layer”), and for the calculation of the second provisional panoramic image a second reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter is applied to the frames of the single frame data set (Ogawa page 50, RHC, first paragraph: “decreased…the position of the image layer, by 5 mm virtually with the tomosynthesis method (Figure 5a), or increased by 5 mm virtually (Figure 5c)”), wherein the second reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter is different than the first reconstruction parameter or value of a reconstruction parameter (Ogawa page 49, LHC, first paragraph: “if the shift amount was increased or decreased according to the size of the jaws, it is possible to easily change the location of the focused image plane”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Ogawa to reconstruct multiple panoramic images with a single trajectory to reduce radiation dose to the patient and avoid retakes (Ogawa page 52). In addition, a final high-quality panoramic image can be reconstructed, in which radiographers are free from the burden of setting up a patient’s jaws at the exact central plane of the image layer of the panoramic unit and dentists can freely select a panoramic plane to be reconstructed after acquisition of the raw data (Ogawa page 48, LHC, second paragraph). However, Choi, modified by Ogawa, still fails to explicitly disclose scanning the first and second provisional panoramic images for recognizable structures.
In the related art of generating panoramic images, Eichner discloses scanning the first and second provisional panoramic images for recognizable structures (Eichner col 2 lines 51-52: Step D - identification of the at least one anatomical feature in the calculated image). Choi expresses a goal of representing a predetermined region of interest clearly (Choi paragraph 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Eichner to ensure the structure(s) of interest is displayed clearly to facilitate the diagnosis of pathological features of the dentition (Eichner col 2 lines 10-31).
Regarding claim 3, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein the variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter in step (ii) is pre-set (Choi paragraph 0039: “reconstructing images captured by an imaging apparatus according to predetermined multiple image layers”).
Regarding claim 4, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the imaging quality in step (iv) comprises image data processing of the frames comprising recognizable structures (Choi paragraph 0054: “Detection of the boundary in this embodiment is preferably performed using the Sobel mask. The boundary may exist in the changing point where a brightness of the image varies from a high value to a low value or vice versa, and the shape, size and texture of an object may be shown with the boundary”).
Regarding claim 5, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 4, wherein image data processing comprises at least one of: frequency analysis; grey value distribution analysis; brightness distribution analysis (Choi paragraph 0054: “The detection of the boundary is to detect the contrast or brightness change rate based on the intensity”).
Regarding claim 6, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein the first or second reconstruction parameter comprises at least one of: a rate of overlap of the frames (Ogawa page 52, LHC: “a panoramic image is reconstructed using tomosynthesis, that is shifting and adding (or overlapping and adding) these narrow images”, where different values of shift/overlap result in panoramic images of different image layers, as further evidenced by supporting NPL document “Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential” - see Conclusion); a rate of scaling of the frames; a pixel shift.
Regarding claim 7, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second provisional panoramic images are divided into a plurality of sections or regions of interest (a-e) (Choi paragraph 0004: “dividing reconstructed respective images into uniform blocks”), wherein the plurality of sections or regions of interest (a-e) is identical for the first and second provisional panoramic images (Choi FIG. 6: blocks 60; paragraph 0004: “uniform blocks”).
Regarding claim 8, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 7, wherein step (v) further comprises that the imaging quality of a recognizable structure of identical sections or regions of interest (a-e) of the first and second provisional panoramic images is determined (Choi FIG. 4; paragraphs 0050, 0055: “a step of dividing the received image on a block-by-block basis S204” is performed before “the step of detecting the boundary S220” and “a step 232 of summing the boundary surface detected”) and the variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter of those frames forming the section or region of interest of said identical sections or regions of interest (a-e) (Choi paragraphs 0059-0060: in order to “estimate an image layer for a specific region 80c shared by two blocks 80a and 80b shown in FIG. 9” by “using the image layer of at least one image sharing the specific region”, the image layer used in the calculation of at least one of the selected optimum images for blocks 80a and/or 80b must be determined) which has a recognizable structure with the highest imaging quality is determined (Choi paragraphs 0011, 0056: “the selecting a clear image at the step of (b) includes: dividing the scaled images into a plurality of blocks and selecting…an image having optimum sharpness for each divided image”).
Regarding claim 9, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated based on the plurality of frames captured in step (i) and the determined variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter of those frames of the first or second provisional panoramic image having the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (Eichner col 1 lines 45-47, col 5 line 49 – col 6 line 6, col 6 lines 53-56: “after the variation of the at least one reconstruction parameter in Step F, the entire image can be recalculated to once more compare the thus calculated image with the model”, the repetition of Step F implies that the entire image would also be recalculated with the optimized reconstruction parameters in the “calculation of the 2D panoramic image from the plurality of projection images…that uses reconstruction parameters”).
Regarding claim 10, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated by combining those frames of the first and second provisional panoramic images having the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (Choi paragraph 0032: “a method for providing a panoramic image, the method includes steps of: scaling sizes of images reconstructed with an image layer…selecting an image in part or full representing a predetermined region of interest clearly among scaled images; and providing a panoramic image by combining the selected image”).
Regarding claim 11, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated based on one of the first or second provisional panoramic image (Eichner col 2 lines 44-47: Step B - calculation of an image including at least one anatomical feature from the plurality of projection images using a calculation rule with reconstruction parameters) and the determined variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter of those frames of the first or second provisional panoramic image having the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (Eichner col 6 lines 7-13, col 6 line 53 – col 7 line 7: “after the variation of the at least one reconstruction parameter in Step F…only that part of the image which shows the at least one anatomical feature is recalculated…at least one part of the image not yet calculated in Step F is recalculated with the optimized reconstruction parameters only once the at least one reconstruction parameter is optimized”).
Regarding claim 12, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein calculating the final panoramic image data set comprises scaling the final panoramic image data set (Choi FIG. 1, paragraph 0042: “At a step of scaling image S100, a size of a reconstructed image of frame images taken by the panoramic image obtaining apparatus…may be changed”).
Regarding claim 13, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein the recognizable structure in step (iii) comprises at least a portion of an anatomical structure or of an artificial structure (Eichner col 9 lines 24-39: “in addition to very specific anatomical structures…the term anatomical feature in the context of the present application also includes structures, such as an implant or a crown, that are artificial”).
Regarding claim 14, it is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the limitations of claim 14 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses a medical or dental imaging system (Choi paragraph 0020: “the images to be reconstructed are a plurality of projection images captured by a dental panoramic imaging apparatus”) for generating an image of at least a part of the head of a patient (Choi paragraph 0053: “the region of interest (the dental arch)”), comprising: a radiation source and a radiation detector which are configured to move about a patient to capture a plurality of frames (Choi paragraph 0041: “the panoramic image obtaining apparatus may include an X-ray source, an image sensor, and an image processing unit…the X-ray source may irradiate X-rays while rotating around the object along multiple image layer trajectories where an area of interest of the object is located. The image sensor has a certain area, and receives X-rays and obtains images along multiple image layer trajectories while moving with the X-ray source with the object located between the two”), and a computer which is operatively connected to the radiation detector to receive the plurality of frames (Choi paragraph 0041: “The image processing unit receives the images obtained from the image sensor and reconstructs the images for the image layer trajectories into a panoramic image for a final trajectory”) and which is programmed to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the limitations of claim 15 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the medical or dental imaging system claimed in claim 15, wherein the radiation source comprises an X-ray radiation source (Choi paragraph 0041: “The X-ray source irradiates X-rays”).
Regarding claim 17, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 8, wherein in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated based on the plurality of frames captured in step (i) and the determined variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter of the frames forming those respective sections or regions of interest (a-e) of the first or second provisional panoramic image (Eichner col 10 lines 54-57: Step F - at least one reconstruction parameter for the first section and at least one reconstruction parameter for the second section of the calculated image are varied separately from one another) which have the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (Eichner col 1 lines 45-47, col 5 line 49 – col 6 line 6, col 6 lines 53-56: “after the variation of the at least one reconstruction parameter in Step F, the entire image can be recalculated to once more compare the thus calculated image with the model”, the repetition of Step F implies that the entire image would also be recalculated with the optimized reconstruction parameters in the “calculation of the 2D panoramic image from the plurality of projection images…that uses reconstruction parameters”). It is noted the Examiner interprets teachings in Eichner as applying to the embodiment including multiple sections, even if not explicitly delineated. For example, Step A of acquiring a plurality of projection images is not repeated for the embodiment including multiple sections but is arguably implied.
Regarding claim 18, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 8, wherein in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated by combining those respective sections or regions of interest (a-e) of the first or second provisional panoramic image (Choi FIG. 6, paragraph 0056: “it is preferable to divide an image into a plurality of blocks”) which have the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (Choi paragraphs 0056, 0058: “to select an image having optimum sharpness for each divided image…and to combine the image selected as the optimum image for the divided image”).
Regarding claim 19, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 8, wherein in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated based on the first or second provisional panoramic image (Eichner col 2 lines 44-47: Step B - calculation of an image including at least one anatomical feature from the plurality of projection images using a calculation rule with reconstruction parameters) and the determined variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter of the frames forming those respective sections or regions of interest (a-e) of the first or second provisional panoramic image (Eichner col 10 lines 54-57: Step F - at least one reconstruction parameter for the first section and at least one reconstruction parameter for the second section of the calculated image are varied separately from one another) which have the selected recognizable structures with the highest imaging quality (Eichner col 6 lines 7-13, col 6 line 53 – col 7 line 7: “after the variation of the at least one reconstruction parameter in Step F…only that part of the image which shows the at least one anatomical feature is recalculated…at least one part of the image not yet calculated in Step F is recalculated with the optimized reconstruction parameters only once the at least one reconstruction parameter is optimized”).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Ogawa and Eichner in view of Araki et al. (JP 4844886).
Regarding claim 2, Choi, modified by Ogawa and Eichner, discloses the method claimed in claim 1. However, Choi fails to disclose the variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter depends on the dimension of the portion of the head to be imaged. In related art, Araki discloses the variation of the first or second reconstruction parameter or value of the reconstruction parameter depends on the dimension of the portion of the head to be imaged (Araki paragraph 0060: “In the first stage, a panoramic image of a standard plane is reconstructed with a relatively roughly set gain, allowing the entire dentition to be quickly observed, and in the second stage, a region of interest can be specified, for example manually, from this overall panoramic image, and a panoramic image of that region of interest is reconstructed with a more detailed gain that has been set in advance.” Thus, the variation in the gain [ the reconstruction parameter] can be changed according to the dimension of the region of interest). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Choi to incorporate the teachings of Araki to allow local regions to be observed in more detail using high-accuracy gains after overall observation, achieving both optimal image quality and calculation time (Araki paragraph 0060).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that “None of the cited references, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests calculating from a frame data set, and before a determining step, at least first and second provisional panoramic images by applying different reconstruction parameters or different values of a reconstruction parameter to the frames of the single frame data set for the first and the second provisional panoramic images, so that the first calculated provisional panoramic image differs from the second calculated provisional panoramic image and then determining imaging quality of recognizable structures”, Choi teaches calculating first and second provisional panoramic images that are different (Choi FIG. 10). Ogawa teaches the first and second provisional panoramic images can be calculated by applying different shift amounts to the frames of a single frame data set (Ogawa page 49, LHC, first paragraph). Choi and Eichner teach determining imaging quality of recognizable structures from the provisional panoramic images (Choi FIG. 5; Eichner col 2 lines 51-52: Step D). Therefore, the combination of Choi, Ogawa and Eichner teaches the limitations in question.
Regarding the argument that Choi does not disclose “according to the present invention, the object is captured along a single trajectory, not in different trajectories, and the different provisional panoramic images are generated from the same frames by varying the reconstruction parameters”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ogawa teaches the object is captured along a single trajectory (Ogawa Figure 1; page 48, LHC, last paragraph), and the different provisional panoramic images are generated from the same frames by varying the shift amount (Ogawa page 49, LHC, first paragraph).
Regarding the argument that the “sequence of steps in Choi and in claim 1 are different” where “according to claim 1, the frames are first processed with the reconstruction parameters and then the provisional panoramic images are generated”, as previously presented in the Final Office Action mailed August 12, 2025 (see under Response to Arguments), generating the provisional panoramic images in Choi requires the frames to be first processed with reconstruction parameters. Choi teaches receiving the images obtained from the image sensor and reconstructing the images for the image layer trajectories (Choi paragraph 0041). Thus, the images are first processed with reconstruction parameters for the specific image layer in order to then generate the associated panoramic image.
Regarding the argument that “according to claim 1 there is no stitching together of ROIs, but a redetermination of the reconstruction parameters and a reconstruction of an optimized image based on these redetermined reconstruction parameters”, as previously presented in the Final Office Action mailed August 12, 2025 (see under Response to Arguments), MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning sections I, II, and III disclose the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, and “plain meaning” refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art, respectively. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, combining the ROIs is an example of calculating the final panoramic image with reference to the determined/estimated optimal image layer(s) for each ROI (Choi paragraphs 0058-0060). This is further supported by claim 18 that claims “in step (vi) the final panoramic image data set is calculated by combining those respective sections or regions of interest (a-e)”. Therefore, step (vi) can be taught by combining ROIs of different provisional panoramic images.
Regarding the argument that “if Ogawa's teaching - to move the source and detector on only a single trajectory - is applied to Choi, then Choi would receive only a single image layer and thus Choi's method could not be performed”, an objective of Choi is “to form a consecutive combined image by dividing reconstructed respective images into uniform blocks, by performing noise removal and boundary(edge) detection, and by combining the selected images using interpolation” (Choi paragraph 0004) in order to “remove unclear focal plane regions and to provide an image containing regions being in focus only” (Choi paragraph 0034). Ogawa teaches obtaining a plurality of panoramic images reconstructed with different shift amounts that result in different locations of the focused region (Ogawa Figure 5; page 50, RHC, first paragraph). Ogawa’s teaching to move the source and detector on only a single trajectory still provides generating multiple panoramic images, on which Choi’s processing can be performed to obtain a final panoramic image containing regions being in focus only. Therefore, modifying Choi by using only a single trajectory does not result in an inoperable process or a final panoramic image with undesirable properties, see MPEP 2143.01. V.
Regarding the argument that “the combination [of Choi and Eichner] is improper. It is not apparent how the step of identifying recognizable structures would be used in Choi”, as previously presented in the Final Office Action mailed August 12, 2025 (see under Response to Arguments), Choi teaches detecting boundaries in the provisional panoramic images that may delineate an object of interest, where it is preferable that the boundary is a plane with which the region of interest (dental arch) to be imaged can be discriminated from background regions other than the region of interest (Choi paragraphs 0053-0054). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Choi can be modified to incorporate the teachings of Eichner such the region of interest is a recognizable structure(s) and to specifically detect boundaries that delineate the recognizable structure(s). Furthermore, Eichner does not teach away from determining imaging quality. As previously presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 20, 2025 (see under Response to Arguments), Eichner is relevant prior art and sufficient for combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dobbins et al. (NPL “Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential”) discloses digital x-ray tomosynthesis is a technique for producing an arbitrary number of in-focus planes to be generated retrospectively from a sequence of projection radiographs that are acquired during a single motion of the x-ray tube. By shifting and adding these projection radiographs, specific planes may be reconstructed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571)270-5183. 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.
/C.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677