Da 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 Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended. Currently, claims 1-5 and 9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8 - .10, it has been argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
172
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Klemola discloses a sensor may be rotated to show different sides of oral cavity thereby providing different viewpoints, Para. [0022].
It is further argued:
PNG
media_image2.png
118
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes in Para. [00182-00185] of Saphier, scanner 150 may comprise inertial measurement unit for generating rotation of 2D/3D images of intraoral scans which can be viewed on a display [00200][00264].
One of ordinary skill in the art would combine the sensor of Klemola with the scanner of Saphier since they both generate image data based on how they are relatively positioned.
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.
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) 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemola (Pub 20060257816) in view of Saphier (WO 2023028339) in view of Graetzel (WO 2022112969 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klemola discloses dental vision system, comprising:
an intraoral camera component positionable within an oral cavity of a patient and
movable manually by a user to obtain patient image data from various viewpoints within the oral cavity, (image detector construed as intraoral camera component Para. [0020]);
and an inertial accelerometer configured to collect position and movement data relating
to the intraoral camera component, (see accelerometer Para. [0010]);
and a camera controller linked to the intraoral camera component, wherein the camera
controller receives the patient image data and the position and movement data relating to the intraoral camera component and is configured to determine a selected viewing orientation for the patient image data based at least in part on the position and movement data, (see image processing unit Par. [0020] and image processing software Para. [0023] for receiving image data and position information so that an image is automatically displayed in correct orientation, Para. [0023]).
However, the intraoral camera component having at least two camera modules is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Saphier discloses a plurality of mounting cameras 24 fig 2A). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Klemola by Saphier so that different images having different viewpoints can be captured thereby allowing oral cavity to be examined from different reference points and displaying 3D views of captured surfaces thereby enhancing a user’s experience.
The combination does not disclose wherein the camera controller is configured to automatically rotate the patient image data in substantially continuous incremental angular rotations to maintain alignment of the patient image data with the selected viewing orientation as the intraoral camera component is translated and/or rotated.
In a similar field of endeavor, Graetzel discloses wherein the camera controller is configured to automatically rotate the patient image data in substantially continuous incremental angular rotations to maintain alignment of the patient image data with the selected viewing orientation as the intraoral camera component is translated and/or rotated, (Note user interface for displaying rotated image data as an imaging device is rolled, Para. [0122]. A correlation is established between the imaging device and the user interface that maintains the image data according to a frame of reference such as “the user’s view”, Para. [0123]. It is further disclosed that the image data can be rotated incrementally and continuously to maintain the image with respect to the frame of reference, Para. [0133-0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Graetzel for the benefit of preventing viewer disorientation when the imaging device moves thereby allowing a viewer/operator to focus on captured images.
Regarding claim 2, Klemola discloses wherein the camera controller is programmed to apply an angular rotation to the patient image data such that each patient image is substantially aligned with the selected viewing orientation, (note image is oriented to be of the same across images corresponding to upper and lower teeth, which is construed as correcting angular rotation of captured images, Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Klemola discloses wherein the selected viewing orientation comprises a gravitational up orientation, (see gravitational vector arrow 5a fig 1b).
Regarding claim 4, Klemola discloses wherein the selected viewing orientation is determined with reference to a magnetic compass, (see compass Para. [0010] where the compass includes magnetic vectors, Para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, Klemola discloses claim 1. However, wherein the at least two camera modules are mounted to a common plane is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Saphier discloses wherein the at least two camera modules are mounted to a common plane, (see rigid structure 26 for mounting plurality of cameras 24 Fig 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Klemola by Saphier for the benefit of conserving space thereby allowing device miniaturization.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemola in view of Saphier in view of Graetzel in view of Pereira Penha (WO 2024/127303 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses claim 1. However, wherein the selected
viewing orientation is determined with reference to an absolute three-dimensional coordinate system is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Pereira Penha discloses wherein the selected viewing orientation is determined with reference to an absolute three-dimensional coordinate system., (see para [00112]] note absolute coordinate for tooth representation where tooth movements comprising tooth positions and orientations are used to generate 3D representations of teeth). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was filed to modify the combination by Pereira Penha for the common purpose of generating different perspectives of oral cavity which is reference to a common coordinate system thereby simplifying data preprocessing and improving processing related to captured images.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
HUMAM M. SATTI
Examiner
Art Unit 2422
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422