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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. See Kearney teaches pixel masks that are used when the image in (pre-processing) in figure 1 and par. 70-74, 372 and 406. That is, the system uses a mask on region of interest step 110. Then in step 112 it detects features present in the area identified in step 110 and in step 114 metrics are applied. Kopelman is used to teach working on specific regions with specific characteristics. Paragraph 295 of Kearney teaches adhesion locations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearney (20210118099, from IDS) in view of Kopelman (20210093201).
Kearney teaches an apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured to obtain an image (par. 69),
apply a first model to the image (par. 72, 316-317),
apply a second model to the image, determine, based on the first model, preliminary locations of objects in the obtained image, determine, based on the second model, adhesion locations disposed between the objects in the obtained image (par. 295 and 319, open contacts are adhesion locations), and
determine, based on the preliminary locations and the adhesion locations, refined locations of the objects in the obtained image (pars. 73-74 and 295, adhesion of fillings or crown),
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to before applying the first model and the second model to the obtained image, determine, using a trained neural network, a region of interest within which the objects are disposed, and apply the first model and the second model to only the region of interest (pars. 70-74 and pars. 412-415).
Kopelman teaches using a model on only a selected portion in par. 216-217.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kearney the ability to work o only a portion of an image as taught by Kopelman. The reason is to improve region only operation.
Regarding claim 3, par. 191-193 and 227 of Kopelman teaches a model that has both jaws and spatially registering the model and the teeth.
Regarding claim 4, par. 70 of Kearney teaches neural network and pars. 113-115 of Kopelman teach multiple models.
Regarding claim 5, see par. 294 of Kearney (synthetic training dataset) and pars. 167 of Kopelman (overlapping boundaries reads on adhesion location).
Regarding claim 6, see pars 113-115 of Kopelman, 3D model would include voxels.
Regarding claim 7, see pars. 115, 167 and 191 of Kopelman, upper and lower jaw looking for boundary that are not clear.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-17, see the rejection of claims 1 and 3-7.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kearney (20210118099, from IDS) in view of Kopelman (20210093201) in further view of Hillen (20210353216, from IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Kearney and Kopelman do not teach masks and thresholding.
Hillen teaches the refined locations of the objects in the obtained image by applying a binary mask of the adhesion locations generated via the second model to a probability map of the objects generated via the first model to generate a probability map of predetermined possible locations of object adhesion (par. 34 and 14),
applying a predetermined threshold to the probability map of predetermined possible locations of object adhesion to decouple objects previously coupled as a single object due to the adhesion locations, and determining a minimum value of the threshold which decouples all of the objects and applying the determined minimum threshold value to the probability map of the predetermined possible locations of object adhesion (pars. 14 and 34, probability map, threshold and adjusting metrics).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Kearney and Kopelman the ability to use a mask and threshold as taught by Hillen in order to isolate specific regions.
Regarding claim 9, see pars. 34 and 14 of Hillen and pars. 204 and 430 of Kearney.
Regarding claim 10, see pars. 294 of Kearney.
Regarding claims 18-19, see the rejection of claims 8-9.
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 HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights