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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/22/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 21,22,24,25,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al 20200000551.
With regard to claim 21, Li et al discloses method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of a dental structure of a subject, the method comprising: (a) capturing image data associated with the dental structure of the subject using a camera of a mobile device (capturing a first 2D image of a patient's face, including the patient's teeth; capturing the first 2D image may include Instructing a mobile phone or a camera to image the patient's face (see paragraph 17); (b) constructing a first 3D model of the dental structure from the image data (capturing a first 2D image of a patient's face, including the patient's teeth, building a parametric 3D model of the patient's teeth based on the 2D image, developing a simulated outcome of a dental treatment of the patient's teeth by rendering the 3D model with the patient's teeth; rendering the 3D parametric model of the patient's teeth (see paragraph 37); (c) registering the first 3D model with an initial 3D surface model to determine a transformation for at least one element of the dental structure (silhouette of the 3D parametric model matches one or more edges of the 2D image a first time; parametric models of the teeth match the original (initial) 3D models; case-specific parameters are used as the generic parameters of mean tooth position and mean tooth shape; generating a parametric model of one or more of a patient's teeth and converting the parametric model of one or more teeth Into a 3D model of a dental arch; generating a 3D model of a
tooth arch of a patient based on a parametric model of the patient's teeth (see paragraphs 18,19,92 and 93; and (d) generating an updated 3D surface model by updating the initial 3D surface model, wherein updating the initial 3D surface model comprises at least one of (i) applying the transformation to update a position of the at least one element (alignment position Is performed based on the updated parametric model; the patient's parameterized arch made may be modified with the tooth locations and orientations in the matched record or the match record may be updated with the shape of the patient's teeth; each tooth's relative shape, location, and rotation (transformation) are determined in order to build the distribution for each case specific parameter; the surface model of the each respective tooth in all of the retrieved models Is determined (see paragraphs 121,155,189) and (ii) deforming a surface of a local area of the at least one element using a deformation algorithm (building a parametric 3D model of the patient's teeth based on the first 2D image, using one or more case-specific parameters for the one or more shapes associated with the at least one of the patient's teeth; an initial determination of the patient's gingiva (element) contours may be identified by a machine learning algorithm (see paragraphs 7 and 149).
With regard to claim 22, note that Li et al discloses wherein the first 3D model comprises a first 3D point cloud reconstructed from the image data. See paragraph 79 which discloses a sphere 210 having a plurality of vertices in fixed or known locations and orientations; a tooth may be placed or otherwise modeled at the center of the sphere; the center of volume of the tooth 220, the scanned portion of the tooth, or the crown of the tooth, may be aligned with the center of the sphere; then each vertex 230a, 230b of the sphere 210 may be mapped toa location on the surface of the tooth model; the mapping may be represented by an n*3 matrix, where n represents the number of points on the sphere, and then for each point, the x, y, and z location is recorded; showing an example of how wall parametric models of the teeth match the original 3D model.
With regard to claim 24, note that Li et al discloses wherein the registering the first 3D model with an initial 3D surface model to determine transformation for at least one element of the dental structure further comprises (see paragraph 79) generating a second 3D point cloud for the initial 3D surface model and wherein the first 3D model is registered with the second 3D point cloud to identify the at least one element that has a transformation (to generate a parametric 3D model of a patient's tooth from a 3D tooth model derived from an image of a patient's tooth, the tooth may be modeled based on displacement (transformation) of the scanned tooth surface from a fixed shape, such as a fixed sphere; a sphere having a plurality of vertices (point cloud) in fixed or known locations and orientations is shown; each vertex 230a, 230b of the sphere 210 may be mapped to a location on the surface of the tooth model; the matrix stores the difference between a location on a mean tooth with the corresponding position on the model of the actual; showing an example of how well parametric models of the teeth match the original 3D models.
With regard to claim 25, note that Li et al discloses wherein the transformation comprises a rotational movement or a translational movement (each tooth's motion (movement) within a segment stays within threshold limits of linear and rotational translation, see paragraph 210).
With regard to claim 26, note that Li et al discloses that the initial 3D surface model of the dental structure of the subject is obtained from a clinical intraoral scan of the subject. See paragraphs 17 and 37.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al 20200000551 in view of O’ Neill et al 20160373155.
With regard to claim 28, Li et al discloses wherein the image data comprises intraoral image data (see paragraph 17, but does not disclose coupling an intraoral adapter to the mobile device to facilitate imaging of an intraoral region of the subject's mouth through a viewing channel of the intraoral adapter.
O’Neill et al disclose a method of collecting intraoral image data comprising coupling an adapter to the mobile device to facilitate imaging of the subject's mouth through a viewing channel (see paragraphs 11 and 23 which disclose attaching a handle via accessory mounting component 308
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill In the art at the time the invention was made to include the step of coupling an intraoral adapter to the mobile device of Li et alto facilitate imaging of an intraoral region of the subject's mouth through a viewing channel of the intraoral adapter, as taught by Oneill et al, with the method of Li et al if one wished to include a handle in order to allow users a more comfortable and/or secure grip on the mobile device during use, such as when taking photographs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,3,5-14 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 21, applicant argues (page 8 of response) that Li et al does not teach that “the initial model is of the dental structure of the subject”. This is not found persuasive, as Li et al clearly disclose in paragraph 79 (first line) that the parametric 3D model of the patient’s tooth is generated from a 3D tooth model derived from an image of a patient’s tooth. The “patient’s tooth” is considered “dental structure of the subject”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights