DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 8 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 7-11 of the response in essence that: Weise does not disclose
generation of position information "based on an adhesive surface of the attached bracket" and ICP matching via translation/rotation matrices applied to feature points of the matching bracket image.
Weise discloses that a bracket is bonded to the patient’s teeth (paragraph 97). Because the bracket is adhered to the teeth, the position of the bracket image is an adhesive surface of the attached bracket. The Examiner notes that the Applicant’s specification discusses the adhesive surface of the attached brackets as referring to the brackets attached to the teeth (page 8, lines 5-7). Weise further discloses that the transformation matrices basically contain information as to how each frame of three-dimensional points needs to be translated and rotated in a three-axis Cartesian coordinate system in order to be registered with the other frames in a best-fit manner (paragraph 89). Therefore, an efficient method of referencing a local coordinate system to a global system is a vector defining the translatory offset, and a 3x3 matrix defining the rotational offset (paragraph 92).
The Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of the response in essence that: Weise does not disclose providing bracket groove position information in the correction image based on bracket groove information of the matching orthodontic bracket, with the same definition of "bracket groove information." Thus, the claims require: Bracket groove information in the orthodontic bracket information itself, where that groove information explicitly comprises at least one of groove shape or groove position; and a calculation of bracket groove position information in the correction image based on that groove information, and provision of that groove position information to the user.
Weise discloses that if the brackets are being scanned, and their location with respect to each other or with respect to the teeth is determined by the registration process, the transformation matrices could be fed into an algorithm that has knowledge of the location of the bracket slot with respect to the local coordinate system of the bracket (paragraph 193).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the image corrector configured to compare the image of the attached bracket with an orthodontic bracket image included in pre-stored orthodontic bracket information, to extract an orthodontic bracket image that matches the image of the attached bracket in the pre-stored orthodontic bracket information to initialize alignment of the matching orthodontic bracket image with the attached bracket image at the position coordinates of the adhesive surface, to match the image of the attached bracket and the matching orthodontic bracket image by calculating a translation matrix and a rotation matrix using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm with the adhesive-surface-initialized alignment as a starting point and applying the translation matrix and the rotation matrix to feature points of the matching orthodontic bracket image”. The Applicant’s specification generally discusses calculating a translation matrix and a rotation matrix using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm to match the attached bracket image and the matching orthodontic bracket image (page 9, lines 6-13). However, the Applicant’s specification fails to discuss using the adhesive-surface-initialized alignment as a starting point.
Claim 1 further recites “the provider configured to provide a user with the correction image generated by the image corrector and to calculate, based on bracket groove information of the matching orthodontic bracket, a wire insertion path comprising a centerline extending through a groove of the matching orthodontic bracket in the correction image and provide the wire insertion path to the user for bending an orthodontic wire the bracket groove information comprising at least one of a shape or a position of a groove formed in the matching orthodontic bracket.” While the Applicant’s specification generally discusses generating bracket groove information, the specification fails to discuss generating a wire insertion path comprising a centerline extending through a groove of the matching orthodontic bracket in the correction image and providing the wire insertion path to the user for bending an orthodontic wire the bracket groove information.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an image analyzer implemented by the one or more processors and stored programs, the image analyzer configured to analyze the oral image obtained from the image acquisition part, to generate a tooth image and an image of a bracket attached to a plurality of teeth through the obtained oral image, and to generate position information of the attached bracket based on an adhesive surface of the attached bracket based on an adhesive surface of the attached bracket, the position information comprising position coordinates of the adhesive surface relative to the tooth image“. The statement “to generate position information of the attached bracket based on an adhesive surface of the attached bracket based on an adhesive surface of the attached bracket” is unclear.
Claim 1 and 8 are recite the limitation " the adhesive-surface-initialized alignment" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weise et al. US Publication 2003/0021453 (hereafter “Weise”) and Chang US Publication 2023/0274438 (hereafter “Chang”).
Referring to claim 8, Weise discloses a correction image generation method for orthodontic treatment, the method performed in a computing device including one or more processors, and a memory for storing one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising:
obtaining an oral image of an inside of a target patient's oral cavity, the scan data being recorded as a 3D stereo-lithography file (paragraph 107, At step 90, a monitoring scan is performed wherein a scan is made of the patient's dentition, including any dental appliances);
generating a tooth image and an image of a bracket attached to a plurality of teeth through the obtained oral image (paragraph 78, Each image captured by the imaging device 56 is converted to a 3-D point cloud, referred to herein as a "frame." The scanning system therefore includes a processing subsystem which is used to extract this information and construct a three-dimensional virtual model of the object 40), and generating position information of the attached bracket based on an adhesive surface of the attached bracket (paragraph 97, A patient data record is maintained to include the bracket tray information, including a digital representation of a three-dimensional model of each bracket bonded to the patient's teeth);
comparing the image of the attached bracket with an orthodontic bracket image included in pre-stored orthodontic bracket information, extracting an orthodontic bracket image that matches the image of the attached bracket in the pre-stored orthodontic bracket information, matching the image of the attached bracket and the matching orthodontic bracket image (paragraph 72, Also stored as three-dimensional computer models in computer memory is a library of template dental appliances, such as brackets, archwires, retainers, inlays, etc. For example, the library of dental appliances could include the various types of brackets and other structures from various dental appliance manufactures such that the back office server workstation 28 could, based on some type of operator input data, retrieve a digital three dimensional model of a specified dental appliance. In yet another alternative scenario, these models may be retrieved automatically by a registration algorithm, as discussed in detail below) by matching the image of the attached bracket and the matching orthodontic bracket image by calculating a translation matrix and a rotation matrix using an algorithm and applying the translation matrix and the rotation matrix to feature points of the matching orthodontic bracket image (paragraph 89, 92, The transformation matrices basically contain information as to how each frame of three-dimensional points needs to be translated and rotated in a three-axis Cartesian coordinate system in order to be registered with the other frames in a best-fit manner. Therefore, an efficient method of referencing a local coordinate system to a global system is a vector defining the translatory offset, and a 3x3 matrix defining the rotational offset), generating a correction image by combining the matching orthodontic bracket image based on the position information of the attached bracket with an image of each tooth, and placing the matching orthodontic bracket image in a same portion as the attached bracket image (paragraph 108, Then, at step 92 a bracket registration process is initiated in order to replace poor scan data from the bracket with more complete 3-D surface data from a stored 3-D model of this bracket); and
providing the correction image generated by an image corrector to a user and providing bracket groove position information in the correction image based on bracket groove information of the matching orthodontic bracket (paragraph 110, After a monitoring scan is completed, a 3-D model of the patient's dentition is obtained. For example, FIG. 7 provides a screen shot of a three dimension model 100 of a portion of a patient's complete 3-D dentition model. The three dimension model 100 includes scan data 102 that comprises both tooth scan data 104 and bracket scan data 103), the bracket groove information comprising at least one of a shape or a position of a groove formed in the matching orthodontic bracket (paragraph 193, If the brackets are being scanned, and their location with respect to each other or with respect to the teeth is determined by the registration process, the transformation matrices could be fed into an algorithm that has knowledge of the location of the bracket slot with respect to the local coordinate system of the bracket).
While Weise discloses matching the image of the attached bracket and the matching orthodontic bracket image using a registration algorithm, Weise does not disclose expressly using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm to perform the matching.
Chang discloses using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm (paragraph 106, When the data processing apparatus 100 aligns the tooth model data 600 with the tooth area image 420, the data processing apparatus 100 may use various alignment algorithms and may use, for example, a known iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm).
At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize a well-known method for comparing three-dimensional data that is efficient and more accurate than other methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Weise with Kumamoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682