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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The USPTO “Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility” (Official Gazette notice of 23 February 2010), Annex IV, reads as follows:
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473(Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 16 defines a “computer program ” embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a non-transitory computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In see Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG212, February 23,2010). That is, the scope of the presently claimed “computer program product ” typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. The examiner suggests amending the claim to embody the program on a “computer readable medium” and adding the limitation ”non-transitory ” to the claim or equivalent in order to make the claim statutory. Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “a computed tomography (CT) image depth map generation unit, a depth map coordinate difference information determination unit; a depth map correction unit.” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a linking word “ configured to” coupled with functional language respectively recited after each of the aforementioned claim limitations, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: see figure 2 and corresponding text. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOO ET AL (Automatic matching of computed tomography and stereolithography data) in view of Lipnik et al (US 2023/0149135).
As to claim 1 , Woo et al teaches the method of matching three-dimensional (3D) intraoral scan data, comprising:
generating a depth map of a computed tomography (CT) frame from a CT image using information about one scan frame of scan data (Then, based on the aligned STL, we generated two masks: a weighted mask (Fig. 8(a)) and a binary mask (Fig. 8(b)). The weighted mask was a depth map of the aligned STL. The STL depth map was generated simply by projecting the vertices and computing the maximum distance of the vertices for the corresponding pixel. Section 2.2.1) ;
determining depth map coordinate difference information between the depth map of the CT frame and a depth map of the scan frame (The similarity measure between the STL and CT depth maps was computed using the mean of absolute difference, section 2.3.1equation 26-27) ;
correcting the depth map of the scan frame on the basis of the depth map coordinate difference information (After rotating the STL images, fine-tuning was performed by volume matching. Since the STL data was composed of surfaces, additional processes were required to transform the STL data into volume data, section 2.3.3; we generated a STL volume from the STL depth map as follows (Fig. 17(b))).
While Woo et al. meets a number of the limitations of the claimed invention, as pointed out more fully above, Woo et al. fails to specifically teach “reconstructing a 3D intraoral scan model on the basis of the corrected depth map of the scan frame”
Specifically, Lipnik et al. teaches the rough 3D model reconstruction method may include generating the three-dimensional model using one or more aspects of passive triangulation. Passive triangulation may involve using stereo-vision methods to generate a three-dimensional model based on a plurality of images obtained using a stereoscopic camera comprising two or more lenses. In other cases, the 3D model construction method may include generating the three-dimensional model using one or more aspects of active triangulation. Active triangulation may involve using a light source (e.g., a laser source) to project a plurality of optical features (e.g., a laser stripe, one or more laser dots, a laser grid, or a laser pattern) onto one or more intraoral regions of a subject's mouth. Active triangulation may involve computing and/or generating a three-dimensional representation of the one or more intraoral regions of the subject's mouth based on a relative position or a relative orientation of each of the projected optical features in relation to one another. Active triangulation may involve computing and/or generating a three-dimensional representation of the one or more intraoral regions of the subject's mouth based on a relative position or a relative orientation of the projected optical features in relation to the light source or a camera of the mobile device ( paragraph [0058]) . Lipnik et al clearly teaches the rough 3D model can be reconstructed using various other methods. For instance, the rough 3D model may be reconstructed from a depth map(paragraph [0056]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reconstructing a 3D intraoral scan model on the basis of the corrected depth map of the scan frame in Woo in order to provide patients and dentists with a precise, current and manipulatable 3D image of the patient's complete dental structure for determining a dental condition of the subject, diagnostic and treatment planning purposes. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant.
As to claim 2 , Woo et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the depth map coordinate difference information includes a depth map rotation matrix (, we rotate the STL teeth arch so that its horizontal orientation matches to that of the CT teeth arch, section 2.1, page 216) representing a degree of rotation between the depth map of the CT frame and the depth map of the scan frame, and a depth map translation vector representing a degree of translation between the depth map of the CT frame and the depth map of the scan frame (Translations with the minimum difference were chosen as the optimal rotation along the z-axis. This process was executed separately for the upper and lower jaws, equation 26,27; page 220).
As to claim 3 , Woo et al teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the depth map rotation matrix and the depth map translation vector minimize a sum of differences between the depth map of the CT frame and the depth map of the scan frame(Translations with the minimum difference were chosen as the optimal rotation along the z-axis. This process was executed separately for the upper and lower jaws, equation 26,27; page 220).
As to claim 4 , Woo et al teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining image coordinate difference information between the scan data and the CT image; and matching a coordinate system of the scan data to a coordinate system of the CT image on the basis of the image coordinate difference information(volume matching, section 2.3.3) .
As to claim 5 , Woo et al teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the image coordinate difference information includes an image rotation matrix representing a degree of rotation between the scan data and the CT image, and an image translation vector representing a degree of translation between the scan data and the CT image (the matching algorithm produced a solution (θˆ z−axis, six, sˆy, size ), where θˆ z−axis represents the rotation along the z-axis, and six, sˆy and size represent the shifts along the x, y and z axes. For accurate matching, small rotations and translations were applied to the solution; section 2.3.3).
As to claim 6, Lipnik et al teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the image rotation matrix and the image translation vector minimize a sum of differences between the scan data and the CT image (The 3D rigid transformation may comprise a translation (change in position with respect to one or more reference axes) and/or a rotation (change in orientation with respect to one or more reference axes). The rigid transformation can be represented as six floating-point numbers.; paragraph [0068][0075]).
As to claim 7 , Woo et al teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: acquiring scan data for an oral cavity of a patient using an intraoral scanner; and acquiring a CT image of the oral cavity of the patient using CT equipment (CT scan data (D1: abstract). It is implied that the optical 3D dental images corresponding to the STL data (D1: abstract) are obtained by a scanner that is “intraoral”) .
As to claim 8 , Woo et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D intraoral scan model is reconstructed by merging point clouds of corrected depth maps of a plurality of frames of the scan data in three dimensions and averaging common parts (3D STL data that can be triangle mesh data , which is a more structured version of a typical point cloud; section 2.1.1) .
As to claim 9 Lipnik et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the information about the scan frame includes information about a position and direction of a camera of the scan frame(the camera poses may be derived or estimated from the video frames, in order to support the above procedure, paragraph [0076]).
As to claim 10, Woo et al teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a size of the depth map of the CT frame is identical to a size of the depth map of the scan frame ( figure 8a,8b and equation 12).
The limitation of claims 11-16 has been addressed above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NANCY BITAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 p.m..
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, Mrs. Jennifer Maroun can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
NANCY . BITAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/NANCY BITAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664