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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT PCT/KR2022/011543. Priority to KR10-2021-0102343 with a priority date of 08/04/2021 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 7/29/2025 and 2/2/2024 have been considered and placed in the application file.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a three-dimensional scanner configured to scan a shape of an oral cavity” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blassnig et al (US 20150024336 A1, hereafter referred to as Blassnig) in view of Kim et al (US 20180096463 A1, hereafter referred to as Kim).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Blassnig teaches A method for processing a scan image of a three-dimensional scanner, which is performed by at least one processor of an electronic device comprising the at least one processor and at least one memory configured to store instructions to be executed by the at least one processor, the method comprising:
acquiring first scan data values regarding a surface of a subject by a first scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the first scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners);
acquiring second scan data values regarding the surface of the subject by a second scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the second scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners)
Blassnig does not explicitly teach all of determining first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values; determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values; and in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector.
However, Kim teaches determining first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values (Kim in ¶19-24, 32-35 discloses for each point p from one depth map, a ray is computed from its camera center Vi through p. See FIG. 5);
determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values (Kim in ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses ray from Vi through p is intersected with the triangulated range surface of every other depth map. See FIG. 5); and
in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector (Kim in Abstract, ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses if intersection distance/signed distance indicates inconsistency, the point p is deleted from its depth map/point cloud. See FIG. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blassnig by incorporating a ray-based consistency filtering technique that is taught by Kim, since both reference are analogous art in the field of multi-view 3D surface reconstruction and noise/outlier removal; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Blassnig’s intraoral 3D scanner that acquires first and second depth maps of a subject and integrates them into a TSDF voxel-based 3D image model with Kim’s multi-view 3D reconstruction system where for each point in a depth map a ray is cast from the camera center through the point to test for intersection with the triangulated surface of every other depth map yields the predictable result of automatically removing only noise data while preserving valid surface overlap, thereby improving the accuracy of the resulting 3D oral models by reducing computational artifacts.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a three-dimensional image model based on the acquired first scan data values after the acquiring the first scan data values (Blassnig in ¶77-89 discloses first depth map integrated into a 3D model); and
updating the generated three-dimensional image model based on the deleted data values after the deleting the data values (Blassnig in ¶124-130 discloses deleting inconsistent points to rebuild a cleaned model).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 2, wherein the first scan data values comprise at least one voxel (Blassnig in ¶78-80, 104 discloses a TSDF voxel grid.), and
wherein the updating the generated three-dimensional image model comprises removing, from three-dimensional images associated with the at least one voxel, a three-dimensional image associated with a voxel corresponding to a data value associated with the at least one first vector or a data value intersecting the at least one second vector (Blassnig in ¶77, 88, 94, 124-130 discloses eraser permanently labels voxels far away/empty for volume removal).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values comprises:
determining that, in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects a surface comprising the second scan data values, the at least one first vector intersects at least one of the second scan data values (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-33 discloses ray intersects triangulated surface of second depth map. See FIG. 3-6); and
determining that, in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects a surface comprising the first scan data values, the at least one second vector intersects at least one of the first scan data values (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-33 discloses ray intersects triangulated surface of second depth map. Symmetric).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values comprises:
determining that, in case that a distance between at least one of the first vectors and at least one of the second scan data values is within a threshold value, the at least one first vector intersects the at least one second scan data value (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-41 discloses signed-distance threshold is used to determine if a ray intersection occurs. Blassnig in ¶98-100, 117-122 discloses signed-distance and weighting thresholds are used to determine whether a measurement is considered intersecting or consistent with the surface); and
determining that, in case that a distance between at least one of the second vectors and at least one of the first scan data values is within a threshold value, the at least one second vector intersects the at least one first scan data value (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-41 discloses signed-distance threshold is used to determine if a ray intersection occurs. Symmetric signed-distance threshold applied across all views).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values comprises:
determining that the at least one second scan data value has not intersected the at least one first vector in case that the at least one second scan data value is located within a predetermined distance from a first scan data value, which is associated with the at least one first vector, among the first scan data values (Blassnig in ¶138-195 discloses ray-casting determines intersection status between rays and other scan surfaces. Weighting function and cliff distances preserve close valid surfaces); and
determining that the at least one first scan data value has not intersected the at least one second vector in case that the at least one first scan data value is located within a predetermined distance from a second scan data value, which is associated with the at least one second vector, among the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶138-195 discloses ray-casting determines intersection status between rays and other scan surfaces. Symmetric).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the determining first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values comprises:
setting a virtual volume comprising all of the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶104-107 discloses explicit bricks around surface regions containing all second scan data); and
determining first vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, which are included in the virtual volume, among the first scan data values, or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, which are included in the virtual volume, among the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶105 discloses processing voxels/rays inside brick/viewing cone).
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 7, wherein the virtual volume is formed in a hexahedral, cylindrical, conic, or arbitrary three-dimensional shape (Blassnig in ¶104 discloses bricks are cubic/hexahedral bounding volumes).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the determining first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values comprises determining first vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, each of which has a distance from the virtual focal point within a predetermined value, among the first scan data values, or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, each of which has a distance from the virtual focal point within a predetermined value, among the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶127-128 discloses eraser volume limited to data within predetermined distance from scanner focal/head).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Blassnig teaches An electronic device comprising:
a communication circuit communicatively connected to a three-dimensional scanner (Blassnig in Abstract discloses A method and system capturing three-dimensional information of a scene on a structure includes operating a light pattern projector to project a known light pattern onto the scene);
a display (Blassnig in ¶36 discloses a display); and
at least one processor (Blassnig in ¶1 discloses a specialized application and implementation of structured light computer vision and stereometric computer vision via suitable scanners is presented. The system is especially fit to capture three-dimensional information on natural as well as artificial intra-oral structures, such as teeth, jaw, gum, dental prosthesis, crowns, retainers and so on), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire first scan data values regarding a surface of a subject by a first scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the first scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners);
acquire second scan data values regarding the surface of the subject by a second scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the second scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners)
Blassnig does not explicitly teach all of determine first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values; determine whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values; and in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector.
However, Kim teaches determine first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values (Kim in ¶19-24, 32-35 discloses for each point p from one depth map, a ray is computed from its camera center Vi through p. See FIG. 5);
determine whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values (Kim in ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses ray from Vi through p is intersected with the triangulated range surface of every other depth map. See FIG. 5); and
in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector (Kim in Abstract, ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses if intersection distance/signed distance indicates inconsistency, the point p is deleted from its depth map/point cloud. See FIG. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blassnig by incorporating ray-based consistency filtering technique that is taught by Kim, since both reference are analogous art in the field of multi-view 3D surface reconstruction and noise/outlier removal; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Blassnig’s intraoral scanner with Kim’s intersection test that deletes inconsistent originating data points yields the predictable result of automatically removing only noise data while preserving valid surface overlap, thereby improving the accuracy of the resulting 3D oral models by reducing computational artifacts.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
generate, after acquiring the first scan data values, a three-dimensional image model based on the acquired first scan data values(Blassnig in ¶77-89 discloses first depth map integrated into a 3D model); and
update, after deleting the data values, the generated three-dimensional image model based on the deleted data values (Blassnig in ¶124-130 discloses deleting inconsistent points to rebuild a cleaned model).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the first scan data values comprise at least one voxel (Blassnig in ¶78-80, 104 discloses a TSDF voxel grid.), and
wherein the updating of the generated three-dimensional image model comprises
removing, from three-dimensional images associated with the at least one voxel, a three-dimensional image associated with a voxel corresponding to a data value associated with the at least one first vector or a data value intersecting the at least one second vector (Blassnig in ¶77, 88, 94, 124-130 discloses eraser permanently labels voxels far away/empty for volume removal).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the determining of whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values comprises:
determining that, in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects a surface
comprising the second scan data values, the at least one first vector intersects at least one of the second scan data values (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-33 discloses ray intersects triangulated surface of second depth map. See FIG. 3-6); and
determining that, in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects a surface comprising the first scan data values, the at least one second vector intersects at least one of the first scan data values (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-33 discloses ray intersects triangulated surface of second depth map. Symmetric).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the determining of whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values comprises:
determining that, in case that a distance between at least one of the first vectors and at least one of the second scan data values is within a threshold value, the at least one first vector intersects the at least one second scan data value (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-41 discloses signed-distance threshold is used to determine if a ray intersection occurs. Blassnig in ¶98-100, 117-122 discloses signed-distance and weighting thresholds are used to determine whether a measurement is considered intersecting or consistent with the surface); and
determining that, in case that a distance between at least one of the second vectors and at least one of the first scan data values is within a threshold value, the at least one second vector intersects the at least one first scan data value (Kim in ¶20-21, 31-41 discloses signed-distance threshold is used to determine if a ray intersection occurs. Symmetric signed-distance threshold applied across all views).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 13, wherein the determining of whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values comprises:
determining that the at least one second scan data value has not intersected the at least one first vector in case that the at least one second scan data value is located within a predetermined distance from a first scan data value, which is associated with the at least one first vector, among the first scan data values (Blassnig in ¶138-195 discloses ray-casting determines intersection status between rays and other scan surfaces. Weighting function and cliff distances preserve close valid surfaces); and
determining that the at least one first scan data value has not intersected the at least one second vector in case that the at least one first scan data value is located within a predetermined distance from a second scan data value, which is associated with the at least one second vector, among the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶138-195 discloses ray-casting determines intersection status between rays and other scan surfaces. Symmetric).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the determining of first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values comprises:
setting a virtual volume comprising all of the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶104-107 discloses explicit bricks around surface regions containing all second scan data); and
determining first vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, which are included in the virtual volume, among the first scan data values, or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, which are included in the virtual volume, among the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶105 discloses processing voxels/rays inside brick/viewing cone).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 16, wherein the virtual volume is formed in a hexahedral, cylindrical, conic, or arbitrary three-dimensional shape (Blassnig in ¶104 discloses bricks are cubic/hexahedral bounding volumes).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Blassnig in view of Kim teaches The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the determining first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values comprises determining first vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, each of which has a distance from the virtual focal point within a predetermined value, among the first scan data values, or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to data values, each of which has a distance from the virtual focal point within a predetermined value, among the second scan data values (Blassnig in ¶127-128 discloses eraser volume limited to data within predetermined distance from scanner focal/head).
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19, Blassnig teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to:
acquire first scan data values regarding a surface of a subject by a first scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the first scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners);
acquire second scan data values regarding the surface of the subject by a second scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the second scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners)
Blassnig does not explicitly teach all of determine first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values; determine whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values; and in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector.
However, Kim teaches determine first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values (Kim in ¶19-24, 32-35 discloses for each point p from one depth map, a ray is computed from its camera center Vi through p. See FIG. 5);
determine whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values (Kim in ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses ray from Vi through p is intersected with the triangulated range surface of every other depth map. See FIG. 5); and
in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector (Kim in Abstract, ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses if intersection distance/signed distance indicates inconsistency, the point p is deleted from its depth map/point cloud. See FIG. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blassnig by incorporating ray-based consistency filtering technique that is taught by Kim, since both reference are analogous art in the field of multi-view 3D surface reconstruction and noise/outlier removal; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Blassnig’s intraoral scanner with Kim’s intersection test that deletes inconsistent originating data points yields the predictable result of automatically removing only noise data while preserving valid surface overlap, thereby improving the accuracy of the resulting 3D oral models by reducing computational artifacts.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Blassnig teaches A system for three-dimensional scanning, the system comprising:
a three-dimensional scanner configured to scan a shape of an oral cavity (Blassnig in ¶1 discloses a specialized application and implementation of structured light computer vision and stereometric computer vision via suitable scanners is presented. The system is especially fit to capture three-dimensional information on natural as well as artificial intra-oral structures, such as teeth, jaw, gum, dental prosthesis, crowns, retainers and so on); and
an electronic device communicably coupled to the three-dimensional scanner (Blassnig in ¶1 discloses a specialized application and implementation of structured light computer vision and stereometric computer vision via suitable scanners is presented. The system is especially fit to capture three-dimensional information on natural as well as artificial intra-oral structures, such as teeth, jaw, gum, dental prosthesis, crowns, retainers and so on), wherein the electronic device comprises:
a communication circuit communicatively connected to the three-dimensional scanner (Blassnig in ¶1 discloses a specialized application and implementation of structured light computer vision and stereometric computer vision via suitable scanners is presented. The system is especially fit to capture three-dimensional information on natural as well as artificial intra-oral structures, such as teeth, jaw, gum, dental prosthesis, crowns, retainers and so on); and
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire first scan data values regarding a surface of a subject by a first scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the first scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners);
acquire second scan data values regarding the surface of the subject by a second scan of the three-dimensional scanner, the second scan data values comprising three-dimensional coordinate values (Blassnig in Abstract, ¶1, 33-35, 60-61 discloses chronologically synchronous depth maps from scanners)
Blassnig does not explicitly teach all of determine first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values; determine whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values; and in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector.
However, Kim teaches determine first vectors connecting a virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner to the first scan data values or second vectors connecting the virtual focal point to the second scan data values (Kim in ¶19-24, 32-35 discloses for each point p from one depth map, a ray is computed from its camera center Vi through p. See FIG. 5);
determine whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values (Kim in ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses ray from Vi through p is intersected with the triangulated range surface of every other depth map. See FIG. 5); and
in case that at least one of the first vectors intersects at least one of the second scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which is associated with the at least one first vector intersecting the at least one second scan data value, and in case that at least one of the second vectors intersects at least one of the first scan data values, deleting a data value, among the first scan data values, which intersects the at least one second vector (Kim in Abstract, ¶19-22, 32-38, 41 discloses if intersection distance/signed distance indicates inconsistency, the point p is deleted from its depth map/point cloud. See FIG. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Blassnig by incorporating ray-based consistency filtering technique that is taught by Kim, since both reference are analogous art in the field of multi-view 3D surface reconstruction and noise/outlier removal; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Blassnig’s intraoral scanner with Kim’s intersection test that deletes inconsistent originating data points yields the predictable result of automatically removing only noise data while preserving valid surface overlap, thereby improving the accuracy of the resulting 3D oral models by reducing computational artifacts.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703) 756-5576. 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, Mr. O'Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 2/26/2026