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 of papers submitted claiming the benefit of U.S. Non-Provisional Application No. 17/895,002, filed on August 24, 2022, now US Patent 11,928,832, which claims the benefit of U.S. Non-Provisional Application 16/837,960, filed on April 1, 2020, now US Patent 11,455,727, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/842,424, filed on May 2, 2019, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on May 28, 2024 has been considered by the examiner and made of the record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 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 a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, and 27 of U.S. Patent 11,455,727 in view of Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Consider claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 14. It is noted that claims 17 and 27 of 11,455,727 recite similar subject matter). 11,455,727 discloses:
receiving the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental site (claim 1; read as receiving a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan);
determining a region of the second intraoral scan comprising a plurality of points that satisfy one or more potential artifact criteria based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan with the first intraoral scan (claim 1; read as determining the following for each point in the second intraoral scan based on a first comparison of the first intraoral scan to the second intraoral scan: whether a surface normal at the point is co-directional with a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan, wherein points in the second intraoral scan that have a surface normal that is co-directional with the first viewing direction are back-face points; and whether the point is a back-face point that is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from the first viewing direction, wherein points in the second intraoral scan that are not behind corresponding points in the first intraoral scan are uncovered points. It is noted that 11,455,727 recites “one or more potential artifact criteria” by reciting the first comparison and then determining whether a surface normal… It is noted that the artifact is read as the one or more removal criteria since the criteria is designed to identify/determine artifacts);
identifying the region as an artifact based at least in part on determining that the region satisfies one or more removal criteria (claim 1; read as determining a region comprising a plurality of points in the second intraoral scan that are both back-face points and uncovered points; determining whether the region satisfies one or more removal criteria. It is noted that the artifact is read as the one or more removal criteria since the criteria is designed to identify/determine artifacts); and
removing the region from the second intraoral scan responsive to identifying the region as an artifact (claim 1; read as removing the region from the second intraoral scan responsive to determining that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria. It is noted that the artifact is read as the one or more removal criteria since the criteria is designed to identify/determine artifacts).
11,455,727 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach An intraoral scanning system, comprising: an intraoral scanner to generate a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan; and a computing device operatively connected to the intraoral scanner, However, Sabina discloses an intraoral scanning system (fig. 1, read as scanner 150, which is an intraoral scanner (paragraph 18), comprising: an intraoral scanner to generate a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan (paragraph 19, read as scanner 150 is used to perform an intraoral scan of a patient's oral cavity. A result of the intraoral scan is a sequence of intraoral images that have been discretely generated); and a computing device operatively connected to the intraoral scanner (fig. 1, paragraph 19, read as an intraoral scan application 108 running on computing device 105 may communicate with the scanner 150 to effectuate the intraoral scan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sabina into the invention of 11,455,727 in order for improving the efficiency and accuracy of intraoral scanning.
As a result, claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 14) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting.
For the dependent claims (It is noted that 11,455,727 actually anticipates each and every dependent claim, but since the independent claims were rejected based on obviousness (11,455,727 in view of Sabina), the dependent claims are rejected based on obviousness as well. As a result, after each explanation, one will see “obvious”),
Claim 2 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 4 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 3 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 3 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 4 (of the present application) is a broader version of part of claim 1 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 5 (of the present application) is a broader version of part of claims 1 and 2 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 6 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 5 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 7 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 6 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 8 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 8 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 9 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 9 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 10 (of the present application) is a broader version of part of claim 10 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 11 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 10 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 12 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 11 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 13 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 12 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 15 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 21 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 16 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 20 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 17 (of the present application) is a broader version of claims 17 and 18 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 18 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 23 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 19 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 23 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 20 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 9 of 11,455,727, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10-13, 18, 25, 26, and 28 of U.S. Patent 11,928,832 in view of Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Consider claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 14. It is noted that claim 18 of 11,928,832 recites similar subject matter). 11,928,832 discloses:
an intraoral scanning system (claim 1; read as an intraoral scanning system), comprising: an intraoral scanner (claim 1; read as an intraoral scanner) and a computing device operatively connected to the intraoral scanner (claim 1; read as a computing device operatively connected to the intraoral scanner), wherein the computing device is to:
receive the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental site (claim 1; read as receive a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site from the intraoral scanner, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan);
determine a region of the second intraoral scan comprising a plurality of points that satisfy one or more potential artifact criteria based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan with the first intraoral scan (claim 1; read as determine, for each point in the second intraoral scan based on a first comparison of the first intraoral scan to the second intraoral scan, whether the point is a back-face point that is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from a first viewing direction, wherein points in the second intraoral scan that are not behind corresponding points in the first intraoral scan are uncovered points. It is noted that 11,928,832 recites “one or more potential artifact criteria” by reciting the first comparison and then determining whether a surface normal… It is noted that the artifact is read as the one or more removal criteria since the criteria is designed to identify/determine artifacts);
identify the region as an artifact based at least in part on determining that the region satisfies one or more removal criteria (claim 1; read as determine a region comprising a plurality of points in the second intraoral scan that are uncovered points; determine whether the region satisfies one or more removal criteria. It is noted that the artifact is read as the one or more removal criteria since the criteria is designed to identify/determine artifacts); and
removing the region from the second intraoral scan responsive to identifying the region as an artifact (claim 1; read as remove the region from the second intraoral scan responsive to determining that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria. It is noted that the artifact is read as the one or more removal criteria since the criteria is designed to identify/determine artifacts).
11,928,832 substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to explicitly teach generating a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan.
However, Sabina discloses generating a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan (paragraph 19, read as scanner 150 is used to perform an intraoral scan of a patient's oral cavity. A result of the intraoral scan is a sequence of intraoral images that have been discretely generated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Sabina into the invention of 11,928,832 in order for improving the efficiency and accuracy of intraoral scanning.
As a result, claim 1 (and similarly applied to claim 14) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting.
For the dependent claims (It is noted that 11,928,832 actually anticipates each and every dependent claim, but since the independent claims were rejected based on obviousness (11,928,832 in view of Sabina), the dependent claims are rejected based on obviousness as well. As a result, after each explanation, one will see “obvious”).
Claim 2 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 5 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 3 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 4 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 4 (of the present application) is a broader version of part of claim 1 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 5 (of the present application) is a broader version of part of claims 1 and 2 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 6 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 6 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 7 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 7 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 8 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 9 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 9 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 10 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 10 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 11 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 11 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 11 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 12 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 12 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 13 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 13 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 15 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 26 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 16 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 25 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 17 (of the present application) is a broader version of part of claim 18 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 18 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 28 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 19 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 28 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
Claim 20 (of the present application) is a broader version of claim 9 of 11,928,832, obvious-type double patenting since it depends on claim 1, which is obvious.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina) in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0255765 A1, hereinafter Carlson).
Consider claim 1. Sabina discloses an intraoral scanning system (fig. 1, read as scanner 150, which is an intraoral scanner (paragraph 18), comprising:
an intraoral scanner to generate a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental site, the plurality of intraoral scans comprising at least a first intraoral scan and a second intraoral scan (paragraph 19, read as scanner 150 is used to perform an intraoral scan of a patient's oral cavity. A result of the intraoral scan is a sequence of intraoral images that have been discretely generated); and
a computing device operatively connected to the intraoral scanner (fig. 1, paragraph 19, read as an intraoral scan application 108 running on computing device 105 may communicate with the scanner 150 to effectuate the intraoral scan), wherein the computing device is to:
receive the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental site (fig. 1, paragraph 19, read as the scanner 150 transmits the discrete intraoral images to the computing device 105, where the computing device 105 receives and then saves the intraoral images);
identify the region as an artifact based at least in part on determining that the region satisfies one or more removal criteria (paragraph 53, read as identifying that a portion of the intraoral images represents soft tissue (e.g., gums) based at least in part on a difference between a previous depiction of the dental site as represented in the historical template and a current depiction of the dental site as represented in the intraoral images); and
remove the region from the second intraoral scan responsive to identifying the region as an artifact (paragraphs 50, 53, read as the portion of the intraoral images determined to represent the soft tissue is removed from the three dimensional virtual model of the dental site, where the three dimensional virtual model is based on the intraoral images).
Sabina substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining a region of the second intraoral scan comprising a plurality of points that satisfy one or more potential artifact criteria based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan with the first intraoral scan.
However, Carlson teaches Sabina substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining a region of the second intraoral scan comprising a plurality of points that satisfy one or more potential artifact criteria based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan with the first intraoral scan (paragraphs 29, 33, read as a surface model is overlaid onto the CT model to generate a combined data set and the silhouette data 503 from the surface model is overlaid onto the corresponding tooth in a slice of the CT model, the image processing system 105 identifies data points in the CT model that extend beyond the silhouette 503 (step 211). If data is detected outside of the silhouette shape 503, the system determines whether this data is artifact data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein to determine that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria the computing device is to: determine a size of a perimeter of the region; determine a length of a portion of the perimeter that bounds empty space; determine a ratio of the length to the size; and determine that the ratio exceeds a ratio threshold (Carlson; paragraphs 26, 30, 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein points in the second intraoral scan that are behind corresponding points in the first intraoral scan from a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan are covered points, and wherein the computing device is further to: determine, for each point in the second intraoral scan, whether the point is an uncovered point that is proximate to a covered point, wherein uncovered points that are proximate to covered points are identified as proximity area points, wherein the region comprises one or more proximity area points (Carlson; paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein the first intraoral scan is associated with a first scan capture direction, and wherein the computing device is further to: determine a first scan direction for the first intraoral scan, wherein the first scan direction represents a first viewing direction for the comparison between the first intraoral scan and the second intraoral scan; determine whether a first difference between the first scan direction and the first scan capture direction exceeds a difference threshold; and rasterize the first intraoral scan along the first scan direction responsive to determining that the first difference exceeds the difference threshold (Carlson; paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein the first intraoral scan comprises a first height map, wherein the first scan direction is represented by a first vector, and wherein rasterizing the first intraoral scan along the first scan direction comprises: converting the first height map into a three-dimensional surface; and projecting the three-dimensional surface onto a plane, wherein the first vector is normal to the plane (Sabina; paragraphs 33, 49, 50).
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein the computing device is further to: determine a first scan direction for the first intraoral scan, wherein the first scan direction represents a first viewing direction for the comparison of the second intraoral scan to the first intraoral scan that is used in determining points of the plurality of points that satisfy the one or more potential artifact criteria (Sabina; paragraphs 50, 53).
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein the first intraoral scan has a first boundary and the second intraoral scan has a second boundary, and wherein the computing device is further to: determine an additional region of the second boundary that does not overlap with the first boundary; and identify points in the second intraoral scan that are within the additional region as out-of-bounds points, wherein the region does not include the out-of-bounds points (Carlson; paragraphs 33, 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 14. Sabina and Carlson disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (paragraph 90, read as a machine-readable storage medium (or more specifically a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) on which is stored one or more sets of instructions, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental site (fig. 1, paragraph 19, read as the scanner 150 transmits the discrete intraoral images to the computing device 105, where the computing device 105 receives and then saves the intraoral images);
identifying the region as an artifact based at least in part on determining that the region satisfies one or more removal criteria (paragraph 53, read as identifying that a portion of the intraoral images represents soft tissue (e.g., gums) based at least in part on a difference between a previous depiction of the dental site as represented in the historical template and a current depiction of the dental site as represented in the intraoral images); and
removing the region from the second intraoral scan responsive to identifying the region as an artifact (paragraphs 50, 53, read as the portion of the intraoral images determined to represent the soft tissue is removed from the three dimensional virtual model of the dental site, where the three dimensional virtual model is based on the intraoral images).
Sabina substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining a region of the second intraoral scan comprising a plurality of points that satisfy one or more potential artifact criteria based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan with the first intraoral scan.
However, Carlson teaches Sabina substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining a region of the second intraoral scan comprising a plurality of points that satisfy one or more potential artifact criteria based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan with the first intraoral scan (paragraphs 29, 33, read as a surface model is overlaid onto the CT model to generate a combined data set and the silhouette data 503 from the surface model is overlaid onto the corresponding tooth in a slice of the CT model, the image processing system 105 identifies data points in the CT model that extend beyond the silhouette 503 (step 211). If data is detected outside of the silhouette shape 503, the system determines whether this data is artifact data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein determining that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria comprises: determining a size of a perimeter of the region; determining a length of a portion of the perimeter that bounds empty space; determining a ratio of the length to the size; and determining that the ratio exceeds a ratio threshold (Carlson; paragraphs 26, 30, 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses wherein points in the second intraoral scan that are behind corresponding points in the first intraoral scan from a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan are covered points, the operations further comprising: determining, for each point in the second intraoral scan, whether the point is an uncovered point that is proximate to a covered point, wherein uncovered points that are proximate to covered points are identified as proximity area points, wherein the region comprises one or more proximity area points (Carlson; paragraph 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Carlson into the invention of Sabina in order to provide an improved method and system of removing artifacts from x-ray data that did not remove significant portions of desired CT image data, substitute data from multiple x-rays, or require manual pre-positioning of the data sets.
Consider claim 20 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses determining a first scan direction for the first intraoral scan, wherein the first scan direction represents a first viewing direction for the comparison of the second intraoral scan to the first intraoral scan that is used in determining points of the plurality of points that satisfy the one or more potential artifact criteria (Sabina; paragraphs 50, 53).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina) in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0255765 A1, hereinafter Carlson) and as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, and further in view of Fu et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0130825 A1, hereinafter Fu).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein to determine that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria the computing device is to: determine that the region bounds moving tissue.
However, Fu teaches wherein to determine that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria the computing device is to: determine that the region bounds moving tissue (paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Fu into the invention of Sabina and Carlson in order to provide more accurate and enhanced imaging.
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein determining that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria comprises: determining that the region bounds moving tissue.
However, Fu teaches wherein determining that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria comprises: determining that the region bounds moving tissue (paragraph 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Fu into the invention of Sabina and Carlson in order to provide more accurate and enhanced imaging.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina) in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0255765 A1, hereinafter Carlson) and as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, and further in view of Lindner et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0025496 A1, hereinafter Lindner).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein to determine the region comprising the plurality of points that satisfy the one or more potential artifact criteria the computing device is to: determine a plurality of points of the second intraoral scan for which the following is true for each point of the plurality of points: a surface normal at the point is co-directional with a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan; and the point is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from the first viewing direction.
However, Lindner teaches wherein to determine the region comprising the plurality of points that satisfy the one or more potential artifact criteria the computing device is to: determine a plurality of points of the second intraoral scan for which the following is true for each point of the plurality of points: a surface normal at the point is co-directional with a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan; and the point is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from the first viewing direction (paragraphs 11, 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lindner into the invention of Sabina and Carlson in order to improve accuracy of surface normal estimates that are generated based on the misaligned surface points from different images.
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein determining the region comprising the plurality of points that satisfy the one or more potential artifact criteria comprises: determining a plurality of points of the second intraoral scan for which the following is true for each point of the plurality of points: a surface normal at the point is co-directional with a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan; and the point is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from the first viewing direction.
However, Lindner teaches wherein determining the region comprising the plurality of points that satisfy the one or more potential artifact criteria comprises: determining a plurality of points of the second intraoral scan for which the following is true for each point of the plurality of points: a surface normal at the point is co-directional with a first viewing direction associated with the first intraoral scan; and the point is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from the first viewing direction (paragraphs 11, 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lindner into the invention of Sabina and Carlson in order to improve accuracy of surface normal estimates that are generated based on the misaligned surface points from different images.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina) in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0255765 A1, hereinafter Carlson) and as applied to claim10, and further in view of Kaufmann et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0018901 A1, hereinafter Kaufmann).
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 10. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein determining the first scan direction comprises: determining a first plurality of surface normals for a first surface of the first intraoral scan, wherein each of the first plurality of surface normals is associated with a respective point on the first surface; determining a first average of the first plurality of surface normals; and determining a first vector based on the first average, wherein the first vector represents the first scan direction.
However, Kaufmann teaches wherein determining the first scan direction comprises: determining a first plurality of surface normals for a first surface of the first intraoral scan, wherein each of the first plurality of surface normals is associated with a respective point on the first surface; determining a first average of the first plurality of surface normals; and determining a first vector based on the first average, wherein the first vector represents the first scan direction (paragraph 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kaufmann into the invention of Sabina and Carlson in order to provide more accurate and enhanced imaging.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabina et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0005371 A1, hereinafter Sabina) in view of Carlson et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0255765 A1, hereinafter Carlson) and as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0242789 A1, hereinafter Cheng).
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Sabina and Carlson discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the first intraoral scan comprises a first height map, and wherein the computing device is further to: perform image in-painting on the first height map.
However, Cheng teaches wherein the first intraoral scan comprises a first height map, and wherein the computing device is further to: perform image in-painting on the first height map (paragraph 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Cheng into the invention of Sabina and Carlson in order to maximize data reduction while minimizing deviation of the initial points from the point cloud.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. More specifically, Sabina, Carlson, the other cited references, and a thorough search in the art fail to explicitly teach or suggest wherein a point for which the surface normal at the point is co-directional with the first viewing direction is a back-face point, wherein a point that is behind a corresponding point in the first intraoral scan when viewed from the first viewing direction is an uncovered point, and wherein to determine that the region satisfies the one or more removal criteria the computing device is further to: determine a number of points in the region that are both back-face points and uncovered points; and determine that the number of points in the region that are both back-face points and uncovered points exceeds a threshold number of points. In addition, Sabina, Carlson, the other cited references, and a thorough search in the art fail to explicitly teach or suggest wherein the computing device is further to: compute a surface normal for each proximity area point; determine proximity area points having a surface normal that is orthogonal to the first viewing direction; and identify proximity area points having a surface normal that is orthogonal to the first viewing direction as orthogonal proximity area points, wherein the orthogonal proximity area points are excluded from the region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 March 20, 2026