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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 5, “geometric properties of mapped” is unclear. It appears that “of” should be deleted, and will be treated as such for purposes of this action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11903793. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader than the claims of the above identified patent. Thus, the claims of the patent “anticipate” the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1,2,4,5,7,10,11,12,13,15,17,20,21,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chisti et al 6227850.
With regard to claims 1,10,11,13,20,21,22, Chisti et al discloses a method of segmenting a three-dimensional (3D) model of a patient’s dentition, the method comprising: receiving, in a computing device, the 3D model of the patient’s dentition (see col. 1, lines 54-55) via a scanning operation (col. 3, line 56); converting the 3D model of the patient’s dentition into a voxel representation comprising voxels having features geometric properties (all voxels of image data have inherent geometric properties, in this case of the 3D model they represent) mapped from the 3D model of the patient’s dentition (see col. 7, lines 18-37, wherein the voxels correspond to locations of the 3D model having a vertex (col. 12, lines 6-24); and transforming the voxel representation to segment the 3D model of the patient’s dentition to form a segmented 3D model of the patient’s dentition (col. 10, line 61 through col. 11, line 13).
With regard to claim 2, note that the transforming comprises convolving. See col. 6, lines 11-15 where the matched points are combined together to provide a single data step.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, note that geometric properties are computed for each voxel based on a mesh representation of the 3D model of the patient’s dentition. See col. 7, lines 9-24.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, note that geometric properties are computed for each voxel are based on one or more of: a sum of normals of mesh faces which map to the voxel, a count of faces mapped to the voxel, a sum of an area from the mesh representation, and an average of angles from the mesh representation. See col. 7, lines 58-65 which disclose an average of angles from the mesh representation.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, note that convolving the voxel representation to segment the 3D model comprises generating a predicted segmentation from the voxel representation and applying the predicted segmentation onto the 3D model of the patient’s dentition to form the segmented 3D model of the patient’s dentition. See col. 10, line 61 through col. 11, line 13).
With regard to claims 12 and 22, note that Chisti et al contemplates outputting one or more of: interproximal contact distances, teeth numbers and sizes based on the segmented 3D model of the patient’s dentition. Interproximal contact distances and tooth sizes are inherent in the final segmented 3D model.
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chisti et al 6227850 in view of Domracheva et al 20190148905.
Chisti et al do not disclose wherein transforming the voxel representation further comprises applying a trained machine learning model to recognize segmentation elements corresponding to segmentation of the patient’s dentition.
Domracheva et al discloses a method of dental segmentation where a trained machine learning model is applied to recognize segmentation elements corresponding to segmentation of a patient’s dentition. See paragraph 62.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the trained machine learning model step of Domracheva et al in the method of segmentation of Chisti et al, in view of the teaching of Domracheva et al that such a step may be used in a dental segmentation method.
Claims 8,9,18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chisti et al 6227850 in view of Xue et al 20180360567.
With regard to these claims, Chisti et al do not disclose assigning a tooth number, or postprocessing of the segmented 3D model to correct a tooth numbering.
Xue et al disclose a method of utilizing a machine learning method in order to assign a tooth number to teeth being evaluated. See paragraph 89.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the machine learning method of Xue et al to assign/correct a tooth numbering in the method of segmentation of Chisti et al, in view of the teaching of Xue et al that machine learning may be used to evaluate teeth and assign tooth numbers to them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are based on the assertion that Chisti et al do not disclose the voxels having geometric properties of the 3D model.
This is not found persuasive. Voxels that represent 3D image data have inherent geometric properties. In this case, since they represent the 3D model of the patient’s dentition, they inherently have geometric properties of the 3D model.
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 NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights