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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 6/10/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 7/29/2025 and 2/2/2024 that have been previously considered remain placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant states that the limitation “a three-dimensional scanner configured to scan a shape of an oral cavity” should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant asserts that, although the claim does not use the word “means”, the Office Action interpreted the limitation under 112(f), but a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claimed three-dimensional scanner in view of the specification and drawings, including the disclosure of the three-dimensional scanner in [33-54]. Applicant further states that the claimed three-dimensional scanner should not be limited to the specific embodiments shown in the specification and drawings (See Remarks, page 2 and 3 under “Regarding Claim Interpretation”).
In regards to Argument 2, Applicant states that Kim does not teach or suggest “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”, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 10 and 19-20. Applicant asserts that Kim merely uses point p in a point cloud or point set and does not determine the claimed first vectors or second vectors from a virtual focal point of a three-dimensional scanner to first or second scan data values (See Remarks, page 3-6 under “Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103”).
In regards to Argument 3, Applicant states that Kim does not teach or suggest “determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values”, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 10 and 19-20. Applicant asserts that Kim determines a distance or signed distance between point p and a range surface, which Applicant characterizes as different from determining whether the claimed first or second vectors intersect the opposite scan data values.
In regards to Argument 4, Applicant states that that Kim does not teach or suggest “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”, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 10 and 19-20. Applicant asserts that Kim’s filtering of point p based on geometric consistency is different from deleting the claimed first scan data value based on the claimed vector intersection.
Examiner’s Response
In response to Argument 1, with respect to Claim(s) 20, the Examiner has fully considered the Argument and has found it persuasive.
The limitation “a three-dimensional scanner configured to scan a shape of an oral cavity” is not being maintained as a limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). The term “three-dimensional scanner” connotes sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the specification in [41] describes the scanner as including structural components such as light source/projector and camera/image sensor, as well as associated processor, memory, communication circuit, input device, and sensor module. Accordingly, the limitations is interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
In response to Argument 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims recite “first scan data values” and “second scan data values” broadly as values “comprising three-dimensional coordinate values”. The claims do not require the scan data values to be raw scanner pixels, a particular data structure, or a particular representation.
This interpretation is consistent with the Applicant’s own specification. Paragraph [65] states that the first scan data values include three-dimensional coordinate values, that the three-dimensional coordinate values may be generated based on two-dimensional image data acquired by the scanner, and that the first scan data values may include three-dimensional volume data in the form of voxels. Paragraph [68] similarly states that the second scan data values include three-dimensional coordinate values, may be generated based on two-dimensional image data acquired by the scanner, and may include three-dimensional volume data in the form of voxels. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a three-dimensional coordinate value derived from scan/depth image data may correspond to a claimed scan data value.
Kim teaches such three-dimensional coordinate values derived from depth-map scan data. Kim in [30] discloses that “each pixel in each depth map … can be projected to a corresponding point in a 3D space” and that “all of the pixels in the depth maps are projected into the 3D space to obtain a point cloud or a point set”. Kim further in [32] teaches that, for “each point p originating from a depth map,” intersections with other depth maps are calculated. Thus, Kim is not being relied upon merely for an undifferentiated point cloud. Kim teaches a point p that originates from a particular depth map and that is evaluated relative to other depth maps/range surfaces. Such a depth-map-origin 3D point reasonably corresponds to a claimed scan data value comprising a three-dimensional coordinate value.
The claimed “virtual focal point” is also broad. Applicant’s specification in [59] states that the focal point may be “a position of the camera or a position proximate thereto, or any other positions determined by the geometric relation between these elements”. Kim in [32-33] discloses a corresponding “viewpoint Vi 506” and “camera center Vi 506”. Therefore, Kim’s camera center/viewpoint reasonably corresponds to the claimed virtual focal point of the three-dimensional scanner”.
Kim in [32-33] teaches the claimed vectors because Kim discloses “a ray connecting p 502 and a corresponding viewpoint Vi 506 associated with depth map Di”, and further teaches a “viewing ray from the camera center Vi 506 to point p 502”. The ray/viewing ray is a vector-like geometric line extending between Kim’s camera center/viewpoint and a depth-map-origin 3D point. Accordingly, Kim teaches determining first vectors connecting a virtual focal point to first scan data values under BRI.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach “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”.
In response to Argument 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues Kim merely calculates a distance.
Kim teaches determining whether the ray/viewing ray intersects scan data/range surfaces from other depth maps. Particularly, Kim in [32] discloses that, for each depth map Di other than the depth map where point p originates, “a ray connecting p 502 and a corresponding viewpoint Vi 506 associated with depth map Di can be intersected with a range surface indicated by Di”.
The Applicant’s specification treats the intersection broadly, stating in [72] that determining whether vectors intersect second scan data values includes determining whether the vectors intersect second surfaces or determining whether the distance between each vector and a second scan data value at the closest vertical distance is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value. For the second-vector embodiment, the specification in [82] states the same concept with respect to first scan data values and first surfaces. Thus, the Applicant’s own disclosure confirms that the claimed “intersect” determination encompasses a vector/ray-to-surface or vector/ray-to-data distance evaluation, not only a literal mathematical crossing of a single point.
Kim teaches this same type of intersection/distance evaluation. Kim in [32] teaches computing intersection points between the ray associated with point p and range surfaces of other depth maps. Kim in [33] then calculates a signed distance between point p and the intersection point/range surface along the viewing ray in camera space. Kim in [32] further explains that, based on these intersections, the geometric consistency of point p can be examined by computing a distance value measuring how far point p is from the range surfaces. Therefore, Kim’s ray/range-surface intersection and associated distance evaluation teach determining whether the claimed vector intersects the opposite scan data values under BRI.
To the extent Applicant argues that Kim does not teach the “second vectors” alternative, the Examiner notes that the independent claims recite the vector paths in the alternative by using “or”. Kim’s teaching of the first-vector path is sufficient under BRI. Additionally, Kim’s Fig. 5 geometry can be viewed from either depth-map perspective because Kim evaluates each point originating from a depth map against range surfaces from other depth maps. The same ray from Kim’s camera center/viewpoint to scan data of one depth map is evaluated against scan data/range surfaces of another depth map.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach “determining whether the first vectors intersect the second scan data values or whether the second vectors intersect the first scan data values”.
In response to Argument 4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed deleting limitation is not limited to physically erasing a raw depth-map pixel from original sensor memory. The claimed recites deleting “a data value, among the first scan data values”, and the specification describes this deletion in the context of updating or generating a three-dimensional model using scan data values excluding the deleted values.
Applicant specification supports this broader interpretation. Paragraph [72] states that, when a vector intersects second scan data values, “a first scan data value associated with the vector that intersects the second scan data value is considered to be noise and is deleted from first scan data”. Paragraph [74] states that the three-dimensional image models of the first scan data values are updated based on first scan data values “excluding” the data values considered to be noise and deleted. Paragraph [75] further explains that, after deletion, only the second surfaces remain in the updated three-dimensional image models. For the second-vector embodiment, [82] states that, when a vector intersects at least one first scan data value, “a first scan data value that intersects the at least one of the vectors is considered to be noise and is deleted from the first scan data”, and [83] states that the three-dimensional image models are generated based on the first scan data values excluding the deleted values.
Kim teaches the same type of filtering/exclusion from the working set used for reconstruction. Kim in [40] discloses determining “whether the point can be kept in the set” based on distance value, photometric consistency value, and/or visibility value. Kim in [41] further discloses that these values are used “to decide whether p 502 should be kept in the point set”. Kim in [43] then reconstructs the 3D model “based on the point set filtered at 214”. Accordingly, Kim teaches removing, excluding, or not keeping a depth-map-origin 3D point from the working point set used to reconstruct the 3D model. Under BRI, this teaches deleting a scan data value from the set of scan data values used for model generation/update.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach “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”.
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
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 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: 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights