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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed February 26, 2026 and rendered the drawing objection moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9 of Remarks, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-14 under 35 USC 103, regarding Ciriello not teaching “generating a volume rendering (VR) image”, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Saito et al. (US 20070009078 A1).
Applicant's arguments, described below, filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, on Pages 8-9 of Remarks, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to substitute the OCT in Ciriello for the X-ray CT in Ciriello, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The applicant asserts that substituting the OCT for the X-ray CT would destroy the intended effects of the system of Ciriello. However, Ciriello discloses several possible embodiments for the method, one of which includes using X-ray CT as the scanner (Paragraph 0090-0091, 0121 – “the scanning head (OCT, or IOS, or a scanning laser confocal microscope, or micro CT, an intraoral x-ray CT, an x-ray emitter, an x-ray detector, a diffuse optical tomography scanner, a diffuse optical imaging scanner, a near-infrared optical tomography scanner, an intraoral or extraoral Infrared Laser CT or video camera, etc.)…In some embodiments, the stabilized scanner is an intraoral x-ray CT… In some embodiments the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally”). Additionally, the generation of the 3D image is not limited to be dependent on the OCT data, as it can be generated based on general 3D volume data (Paragraph 0123 – “In some embodiments, OCT data or 3D volume data is used to generate a 3D model of a part or all of a patient's dental anatomy (a whole tooth, a whole arch, the buccal bite registration region, etc.). This model may include 3D surface data (which may include occluded surfaces such as subgingival tooth surfaces), 3D volumetric data, or both”). Therefore, it would not have been contradictory or destructive to the method of Ciriello to use an X-ray CT scanner, instead of an OCT scanner, to generate a 3D image, since Ciriello does not limit the method to using only an OCT scanner to obtain volumetric data and provides other embodiments to do so. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to use X-ray CT in place of OCT because OCT imaging is not optimal for observing all organs or body parts, and there are cases where X-ray CT imaging would produce more useful images for experts when determining diagnosis or treatment. For example, X-ray CT better captures deep internal organs, as it can go through the entire body. Thus, changing the image acquisition based on the case would optimize Ciriello’s method.
The examiner also respectfully disagrees with Applicant's assertion, on Page 9 of Remarks, that Kopelman does not teach and/or disclose “generating 2D images without the use of 3D volume data” because the 2D image that is used in Kopelman is a cephalometric image obtained from x-ray, which is a 2D imaging technique that does not use 3D volume data (Col. 2 lines 31-35 and 57-59 – “This embodiment involves a registration of at least two images, one being a three-dimensional virtual image of a teeth model and the other being a two-dimensional image, e.g. a cephalometric image… The first image is preferably an x-ray image, typically a cephalometric image obtained by radiographic cephalometric technique”).
Finally, in response to applicant’s argument, on Page 10 of Remarks, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teachings of Ciriello and Kopelman, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The applicant argues that Ciriello and Kopelman disclose different alignment methods and as a result, there is no motivation to combine the two. However, there would be a reasonable motivation to combine Ciriello and Kopelman despite them having different alignment methods. Ciriello’s alignment method uses the position and orientation of each sensor to align the images captured by each sensor (Paragraph 0012, 0050 – “tracking a position of a first image sensor of an OCT system during capture of a first image of a target area by the first image sensor: tracking a position of a second image sensor during capture of a second image of the target area by the second image sensor, wherein the second image sensor is a color image sensor: finding the surface boundary in the OCT image: correlating positional data of the second image sensor with the first image sensor to align the OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimposing the color image onto the surface boundary extracted from the OCT image… tracking the position of the image sensor comprises tracking the image sensor relative to a clamp secured onto at least one tooth. In some embodiments, the first image sensor is provided on an end effector of a robotic system. In some embodiments, the robotic system comprises a controller and an encoder, wherein the controller and encoder track the position of the end effector. In some embodiments, the controller receives positional data of the clamp”). As expressed in the quote, the position and orientation tracking require the use of a device that is separate from the image sensor, which means there may be cases in which there are tracking errors as a result of the separate device or cases in which the separate device does not work. In such cases, having an alignment method independent from the position and orientation of the sensor would be beneficial for being able to still produce a desired output despite the tracking issues. Kopelman’s alignment method does not rely on any external device and instead, uses shared landmarks (Col. 7 lines 56-58, Col. 8 lines 1-7 – “basic landmarks are marked on discernable objects in the three-dimensional virtual teeth model as represented in image 111…a cephalometric image of the same patient is input and on this image, the same key points are then marked…the two images may be matched, which may be by way of super-position as shown above, which can be represented on a screen, or by any other way of mapping of each location in one image to that of the other image”). Therefore, incorporating Kopelman’s alignment method as a backup or as an addition to Ciriello’s alignment method would be beneficial in cases where tracking does not work or as a way to improve alignment accuracy.
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 1, 7, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello et al. (US 20240261068 A1), Saito et al. (US 20070009078 A1), and Kopelman et al. (US 6845175 B2), hereinafter Ciriello, Saito, and Kopelman respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Ciriello teaches a medical information processing device comprising: a memory and a processor (Paragraph 0024 – “a computing device comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program including instructions executable by the processor causing the processor to: align an OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimpose the color image onto a surface boundary extracted from the OCT image.”; Note: the computing device is equivalent to the medical information processing device, and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium is equivalent to the memory) configured to:
generate a 3D image from a tomographic medical image of a subject captured by a tomographic device (Paragraph 0075 – “a plurality of OCT scans, taken from different positions and orientations are transformed into the coordinate system of the mechanical positioning system's body and are thereby used to generate a single volumetric 3D model of an extended volume of dental tissue (such as a dental arch)”; Note: a single volumetric 3d model, which is equivalent to the 3D image, is generated of a person’s dental tissue, which is the subject. The 3D model is generated from an OCT scan medical image);
acquire a color image acquired by one or a plurality of optical imaging units (Paragraph 0092, 0094, 0099 – “the device uses a second scanner adjunct to an OCT scanner with a separate optical path (such as the embodiment in which the two scanners are spatially adjacent to each other but have separate optical paths)…In some embodiments, a first scanner comprises an OCT scanner and a second scanner comprises a color camera…a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue”; Note: the color camera is equivalent to the optical imaging unit), the color image sharing at least a part of an imaging region with the 3D image (Paragraph 0094-0095 – “a known relative position and orientation between the color camera and OCT scanner are used to map the color image onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT… the color images mapped onto the surface of the OCT data is utilized to highlight tooth defects, such as cavities, chips, and tooth decay”; Note: the color image and the OCT data cover the same imagining region since they are mapped to highlight the same landmarks);
and superimpose at least a part of the color image on the 3D image (Paragraph 0099 – “the captured color image is mapped onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT”),
wherein each of the imaging units is an imaging device that captures a 2D image in a visible light band (Paragraph 0094, 0099 – “the mapping of color image onto the 3D surface of OCT data is done by registration of the color image with a 2D projection image generated from 3D OCT data…a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue”; Note: the color camera captures images in a visible light band. It is obvious that that color camera captures 2D images, because the images are registered to a 2D projection of the OCT data. If the images were not 2D, there would be no need to create a 2D projection for registration).
Ciriello does not directly teach the limitation: “generate a volume rendering (VR) image from an X-ray computed tomographic medical image of a subject captured by an X-ray computed tomographic device”. However, Ciriello separately teaches the X-ray computed tomographic medical image of a subject captured by an X-ray computed tomographic device (Paragraph 0093, 0121 – “at least one scanner comprises…an intraoral x-ray CT… the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally. In some embodiments, the sensor may be held stationary, and emitter may be moved relative to the target anatomy (for example the tooth)”; Note: the x-ray CT captures an image of an object in the mouth, such as a tooth). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the OCT of Ciriello could have been substituted for the X-ray CT of Ciriello because both the OCT and X-ray CT serve the purpose of producing medical tomographic images of a subject and both can be used to generate a volume rendering. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of forming a volume rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the OCT for the X-ray CT according to known methods to yield the predictable result of representing a subject in a volume rendering. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to use X-ray CT in place of OCT because OCT imaging is not optimal for observing all organs or body parts, and there are cases where X-ray CT imaging would produce more useful images for experts when determining diagnosis or treatment. For example, X-ray CT better captures deep internal organs, as it can go through the entire body. Thus, changing the image acquisition based on the case would optimize Ciriello’s method.
Ciriello does not teach generating a volume rendering (VR) image. However, Saito teaches generating a volume rendering (VR) image from an X-ray computed tomographic medical image (Paragraph 0031 – “Reference numeral 201 designates a three-dimensional image display device, 211 is an image data storage device which stores image data transmitted from the X-ray CT device, and 212 is a three-dimensional image processing device. The three-dimensional image processing device is used so that when an operator specifies image data 222, signal is received from the image data storage device 211 and three-dimensional image reconstruction operations involving volume rendering and the like are applied to this signal, and the created three-dimensional image 223 is displayed on a console 213”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Saito to generate a VR image because “A three-dimensional image is then obtained with sequential integration (recasting) of this data in the direction of the line of sight. Because natural and smooth variations can thus be obtained with the volume rendering method even in edges created by rapid fluctuations of the CT value, this makes it possible to improve dramatically the drawing function which is used to draw fine and detailed tissues, such as the peripheral tissues of blood vessels” (Saito: Paragraph 0018). Ciriello already teaches generating a 3D image/model from the volumetric data (Paragraph 0075 – “a plurality of OCT scans, taken from different positions and orientations are transformed into the coordinate system of the mechanical positioning system's body and are thereby used to generate a single volumetric 3D model of an extended volume of dental tissue (such as a dental arch)”), but performing volume rendering would improve the output image to show more details.
Finally, Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to extract a common feature from each of the VR image and the color image, and align the VR image and the color image based on the common feature. However, Kopelman teaches extracting a common feature from each of the VR image and the color image (Col. 7 lines 56-58, Col. 8 lines 1-3 – “basic landmarks are marked on discernable objects in the three-dimensional virtual teeth model as represented in image 111…a cephalometric image of the same patient is input and on this image, the same key points are then marked”; Note: the landmarks are a common feature. Additionally, the VR image and color image were previously taught from the rejection of claim 1), and aligning the VR image and the color image based on the feature (Col. 8 lines 3-7 – “the two images may be matched, which may be by way of super-position as shown above, which can be represented on a screen, or by any other way of mapping of each location in one image to that of the other image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Kopelman to extract a common feature and align images based on that feature for the benefit of having images that are accurately positioned. If the features were not common to both images, they would not be lined up properly, making the final image difficult to view. While Ciriello’s alignment method uses the position and orientation of each sensor to align the images captured by each sensor (Paragraph 0012, 0050 – “tracking a position of a first image sensor of an OCT system during capture of a first image of a target area by the first image sensor: tracking a position of a second image sensor during capture of a second image of the target area by the second image sensor, wherein the second image sensor is a color image sensor: finding the surface boundary in the OCT image: correlating positional data of the second image sensor with the first image sensor to align the OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimposing the color image onto the surface boundary extracted from the OCT image… tracking the position of the image sensor comprises tracking the image sensor relative to a clamp secured onto at least one tooth. In some embodiments, the first image sensor is provided on an end effector of a robotic system. In some embodiments, the robotic system comprises a controller and an encoder, wherein the controller and encoder track the position of the end effector. In some embodiments, the controller receives positional data of the clamp”), there may be tracking errors as a result of the use of a device that is separate from the image sensor or cases in which the separate device does not work. In such cases, having an alignment method independent from the position and orientation of the sensor would be beneficial for being able to still produce a desired output despite the tracking issues. Kopelman’s alignment method does not rely on any external device and instead, uses shared landmarks. Therefore, incorporating Kopelman’s alignment method as a backup or as an addition to Ciriello’s alignment method would be beneficial in cases where tracking does not work or as a way to improve alignment accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to perform alignment by using shapes of treated teeth or features in the treated teeth. However, Kopelman teaches performing alignment by using features in the treated teeth (Col. 4 lines 35-44 – “teeth may be displaced on the virtual three-dimensional image of teeth model in a manner they are expected to be shifted during the course of the orthodontic treatment. Thus, for example, by marking various landmarks on a displaced teeth and marking and then displacing the same landmarks in the cephalometric model, it may be possible to check on both images whether the orthodontic treatment achieves a result which matches a certain acceptable norm or how changes should be made to achieve such a norm”; Note: the displaced teeth are the treated teeth, and the cephalometric image is aligned to the displacement in the 3D image by using teeth landmarks, which are features). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Kopelman to perform alignment by using features in treated teeth for the benefit of using the image to “determine whether shifts in various elements such as the jaw, are within permitted physiological or aesthetical limits” (Kopelman: Col. 4 lines 62-64) or “whether desired proportional measurements have been reached in such teeth displacement or whether any medication should be made” (Kopelman: Col. 8 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 9, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to set a transparency of the color image to be superimposed on the VR image (Paragraph 0099, 0122 – “a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue. In some embodiments, the captured color image is mapped onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT…a 3D model of a tooth is displayed in a shaded view, a cross sectional view, a partially transparent view, a shadow view; or any combination thereof…color tooth surface data can be toggled on or off or made to have varying opacity by the user”; Note: the color tooth surface data comes from the color image, and its transparency can be set by the user. It is implied that the processor must be configured to change the transparency in response to the user settings in order for the changes to appear).
Regarding claim 13, Ciriello teaches a medical information processing method (Paragraph 0012 – “method of overlaying color onto an image captured by an optical coherence tomography (OCT) system”) comprising:
generating, by a processor (Paragraph 0024 – “a processor”), a 3D image from a tomographic medical image of a subject captured by a tomographic device (Paragraph 0075 – “a plurality of OCT scans, taken from different positions and orientations are transformed into the coordinate system of the mechanical positioning system's body and are thereby used to generate a single volumetric 3D model of an extended volume of dental tissue (such as a dental arch)”; Note: a single volumetric 3d model, which is equivalent to the 3D image, is generated of a person’s dental tissue, which is the subject. The 3D model is generated from an OCT scan medical image);
acquiring, by a processor (Paragraph 0024 – “causing the processor to: align an OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimpose the color image onto a surface boundary extracted from the OCT image”; Note: it is implied that the processor has to acquire the color image before performing any processes on it), a color image acquired by one or a plurality of optical imaging units (Paragraph 0092, 0094, 0099 – “the device uses a second scanner adjunct to an OCT scanner with a separate optical path (such as the embodiment in which the two scanners are spatially adjacent to each other but have separate optical paths)…In some embodiments, a first scanner comprises an OCT scanner and a second scanner comprises a color camera…a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue”; Note: the color camera is equivalent to the optical imaging unit), the color image sharing at least a part of an imaging region with the 3D image (Paragraph 0094-0095 – “a known relative position and orientation between the color camera and OCT scanner are used to map the color image onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT… the color images mapped onto the surface of the OCT data is utilized to highlight tooth defects, such as cavities, chips, and tooth decay”; Note: the color image and the OCT data cover the same imagining region since they are mapped to highlight the same landmarks);
and superimposing, by a processor (Paragraph 0024 – “causing the processor to: align an OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimpose the color image onto a surface boundary extracted from the OCT image”), at least a part of the color image on the 3D image (Paragraph 0099 – “the captured color image is mapped onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT”),
wherein each of the imaging units is an imaging device that captures a 2D image in a visible light band (Paragraph 0094, 0099 – “the mapping of color image onto the 3D surface of OCT data is done by registration of the color image with a 2D projection image generated from 3D OCT data…a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue”; Note: the color camera captures images in a visible light band. It is obvious that that color camera captures 2D images, because the images are registered to a 2D projection of the OCT data. If the images were not 2D, there would be no need to create a 2D projection for registration).
Ciriello does not directly teach the limitation: “generating, by a processor, a VR image from an X-ray computed tomographic medical image of a subject captured by an X-ray computed tomographic device”. However, Ciriello separately teaches the X-ray computed tomographic medical image of a subject captured by an X-ray computed tomographic device (Paragraph 0093, 0121 – “at least one scanner comprises…an intraoral x-ray CT… the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally. In some embodiments, the sensor may be held stationary, and emitter may be moved relative to the target anatomy (for example the tooth)”; Note: the x-ray CT captures an image of an object in the mouth, such as a tooth). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the OCT of Ciriello could have been substituted for the X-ray CT of Ciriello because both the OCT and X-ray CT serve the purpose of producing medical tomographic images of a subject and both can be used to generate a volume rendering. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of forming a volume rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the OCT for the X-ray CT according to known methods to yield the predictable result of representing a subject in a volume rendering. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to use X-ray CT in place of OCT because OCT imaging is not optimal for observing all organs or body parts, and there are cases where X-ray CT imaging would produce more useful images for experts when determining diagnosis or treatment. For example, X-ray CT better captures deep internal organs, as it can go through the entire body. Thus, changing the image acquisition based on the case would optimize Ciriello’s method.
Ciriello does not teach generating, by a processor, a VR image. However, Saito teaches generating, by a processor, a VR image from an X-ray computed tomographic medical image (Paragraph 0031 – “Reference numeral 201 designates a three-dimensional image display device, 211 is an image data storage device which stores image data transmitted from the X-ray CT device, and 212 is a three-dimensional image processing device. The three-dimensional image processing device is used so that when an operator specifies image data 222, signal is received from the image data storage device 211 and three-dimensional image reconstruction operations involving volume rendering and the like are applied to this signal, and the created three-dimensional image 223 is displayed on a console 213”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Saito to generate a VR image because “A three-dimensional image is then obtained with sequential integration (recasting) of this data in the direction of the line of sight. Because natural and smooth variations can thus be obtained with the volume rendering method even in edges created by rapid fluctuations of the CT value, this makes it possible to improve dramatically the drawing function which is used to draw fine and detailed tissues, such as the peripheral tissues of blood vessels” (Saito: Paragraph 0018). Ciriello already teaches generating a 3D image/model from the volumetric data (Paragraph 0075 – “a plurality of OCT scans, taken from different positions and orientations are transformed into the coordinate system of the mechanical positioning system's body and are thereby used to generate a single volumetric 3D model of an extended volume of dental tissue (such as a dental arch)”), but performing volume rendering would improve the output image to show more details.
Finally, Ciriello does not teach extracting, by the processor, a common feature from each of the VR image and the color image, and aligning, by the processor, the VR image and the color image based on the common feature. However, Kopelman teaches extracting, by the processor, a common feature from each of the VR image and the color image (Col. 3 lines 48-53, Col. 7 lines 56-58, Col. 8 lines 1-3 – “Such basic landmarks…may be automatically selected by the system's processor, e.g. based on established norms. After selecting the basic landmarks and marking them in one of the images, then the landmarks may be marked in the other images to allow to register both images…basic landmarks are marked on discernable objects in the three-dimensional virtual teeth model as represented in image 111…a cephalometric image of the same patient is input and on this image, the same key points are then marked”; Note: the landmarks are a common feature. Additionally, the VR image and color image were previously taught from the rejection of claim 1), and aligning, by the processor, the VR image and the color image based on the feature (Col. 3 lines 48-53, Col. 8 lines 3-7 – “Such basic landmarks…may be automatically selected by the system's processor, e.g. based on established norms. After selecting the basic landmarks and marking them in one of the images, then the landmarks may be marked in the other images to allow to register both images…the two images may be matched, which may be by way of super-position as shown above, which can be represented on a screen, or by any other way of mapping of each location in one image to that of the other image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Kopelman to extract a common feature and align images based on that feature for the benefit of having images that are accurately positioned. If the features were not common to both images, they would not be lined up properly, making the final image difficult to view. While Ciriello’s alignment method uses the position and orientation of each sensor to align the images captured by each sensor (Paragraph 0012, 0050 – “tracking a position of a first image sensor of an OCT system during capture of a first image of a target area by the first image sensor: tracking a position of a second image sensor during capture of a second image of the target area by the second image sensor, wherein the second image sensor is a color image sensor: finding the surface boundary in the OCT image: correlating positional data of the second image sensor with the first image sensor to align the OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimposing the color image onto the surface boundary extracted from the OCT image… tracking the position of the image sensor comprises tracking the image sensor relative to a clamp secured onto at least one tooth. In some embodiments, the first image sensor is provided on an end effector of a robotic system. In some embodiments, the robotic system comprises a controller and an encoder, wherein the controller and encoder track the position of the end effector. In some embodiments, the controller receives positional data of the clamp”), there may be tracking errors as a result of the use of a device that is separate from the image sensor or cases in which the separate device does not work. In such cases, having an alignment method independent from the position and orientation of the sensor would be beneficial for being able to still produce a desired output despite the tracking issues. Kopelman’s alignment method does not rely on any external device and instead, uses shared landmarks. Therefore, incorporating Kopelman’s alignment method as a backup or as an addition to Ciriello’s alignment method would be beneficial in cases where tracking does not work or as a way to improve alignment accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, Ciriello teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a program stored therein and configured to cause a processor to execute (Paragraph 0024 – “a computing device comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program including instructions executable by the processor causing the processor to: align an OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimpose the color image onto a surface boundary extracted from the OCT image”):
generating a 3D image from a tomographic medical image of a subject captured by a tomographic device (Paragraph 0075 – “a plurality of OCT scans, taken from different positions and orientations are transformed into the coordinate system of the mechanical positioning system's body and are thereby used to generate a single volumetric 3D model of an extended volume of dental tissue (such as a dental arch)”; Note: a single volumetric 3d model, which is equivalent to the 3D image, is generated of a person’s dental tissue, which is the subject. The 3D model is generated from an OCT scan medical image);
acquiring a color image acquired by one or a plurality of optical imaging units (Paragraph 0092, 0094, 0099 – “the device uses a second scanner adjunct to an OCT scanner with a separate optical path (such as the embodiment in which the two scanners are spatially adjacent to each other but have separate optical paths)…In some embodiments, a first scanner comprises an OCT scanner and a second scanner comprises a color camera…a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue”; Note: the color camera is equivalent to the optical imaging unit), the color image sharing at least a part of an imaging region with the 3D image (Paragraph 0094-0095 – “a known relative position and orientation between the color camera and OCT scanner are used to map the color image onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT… the color images mapped onto the surface of the OCT data is utilized to highlight tooth defects, such as cavities, chips, and tooth decay”; Note: the color image and the OCT data cover the same imagining region since they are mapped to highlight the same landmarks);
and superimposing at least a part of the color image on the 3D image (Paragraph 0099 – “the captured color image is mapped onto a 3D surface imaged by OCT”),
wherein each of the imaging units is an imaging device that captures a 2D image in a visible light band (Paragraph 0094, 0099 – “the mapping of color image onto the 3D surface of OCT data is done by registration of the color image with a 2D projection image generated from 3D OCT data…a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue”; Note: the color camera captures images in a visible light band. It is obvious that that color camera captures 2D images, because the images are registered to a 2D projection of the OCT data. If the images were not 2D, there would be no need to create a 2D projection for registration).
Ciriello does not directly teach the limitation: “generating a VR image from an X-ray computed tomographic medical image of a subject captured by an X-ray computed tomographic device”. However, Ciriello separately teaches the X-ray computed tomographic medical image of a subject captured by an X-ray computed tomographic device (Paragraph 0093, 0121 – “at least one scanner comprises…an intraoral x-ray CT… the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally. In some embodiments, the sensor may be held stationary, and emitter may be moved relative to the target anatomy (for example the tooth)”; Note: the x-ray CT captures an image of an object in the mouth, such as a tooth). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the OCT of Ciriello could have been substituted for the X-ray CT of Ciriello because both the OCT and X-ray CT serve the purpose of producing medical tomographic images of a subject and both can be used to generate a volume rendering. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of forming a volume rendering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the OCT for the X-ray CT according to known methods to yield the predictable result of representing a subject in a volume rendering. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to use X-ray CT in place of OCT because OCT imaging is not optimal for observing all organs or body parts, and there are cases where X-ray CT imaging would produce more useful images for experts when determining diagnosis or treatment. For example, X-ray CT better captures deep internal organs, as it can go through the entire body. Thus, changing the image acquisition based on the case would optimize Ciriello’s method.
Ciriello does not teach generating a VR image. However, Saito teaches generating a VR image from an X-ray computed tomographic medical image (Paragraph 0031 – “Reference numeral 201 designates a three-dimensional image display device, 211 is an image data storage device which stores image data transmitted from the X-ray CT device, and 212 is a three-dimensional image processing device. The three-dimensional image processing device is used so that when an operator specifies image data 222, signal is received from the image data storage device 211 and three-dimensional image reconstruction operations involving volume rendering and the like are applied to this signal, and the created three-dimensional image 223 is displayed on a console 213”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Saito to generate a VR image because “A three-dimensional image is then obtained with sequential integration (recasting) of this data in the direction of the line of sight. Because natural and smooth variations can thus be obtained with the volume rendering method even in edges created by rapid fluctuations of the CT value, this makes it possible to improve dramatically the drawing function which is used to draw fine and detailed tissues, such as the peripheral tissues of blood vessels” (Saito: Paragraph 0018). Ciriello already teaches generating a 3D image/model from the volumetric data (Paragraph 0075 – “a plurality of OCT scans, taken from different positions and orientations are transformed into the coordinate system of the mechanical positioning system's body and are thereby used to generate a single volumetric 3D model of an extended volume of dental tissue (such as a dental arch)”), but performing volume rendering would improve the output image to show more details.
Finally, Ciriello does not teach extracting a common feature from each of the VR image and the color image, and aligning the VR image and the color image based on the common feature. However, Kopelman teaches extracting a common feature from each of the VR image and the color image (Col. 7 lines 56-58, Col. 8 lines 1-3 – “basic landmarks are marked on discernable objects in the three-dimensional virtual teeth model as represented in image 111…a cephalometric image of the same patient is input and on this image, the same key points are then marked”; Note: the landmarks are a common feature. Additionally, the VR image and color image were previously taught from the rejection of claim 1), and aligning the VR image and the color image based on the feature (Col. 8 lines 3-7 – “the two images may be matched, which may be by way of super-position as shown above, which can be represented on a screen, or by any other way of mapping of each location in one image to that of the other image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Kopelman to extract a common feature and align images based on that feature for the benefit of having images that are accurately positioned. If the features were not common to both images, they would not be lined up properly, making the final image difficult to view. While Ciriello’s alignment method uses the position and orientation of each sensor to align the images captured by each sensor (Paragraph 0012, 0050 – “tracking a position of a first image sensor of an OCT system during capture of a first image of a target area by the first image sensor: tracking a position of a second image sensor during capture of a second image of the target area by the second image sensor, wherein the second image sensor is a color image sensor: finding the surface boundary in the OCT image: correlating positional data of the second image sensor with the first image sensor to align the OCT image captured by the first image sensor with a color image captured by the second image sensor; and superimposing the color image onto the surface boundary extracted from the OCT image… tracking the position of the image sensor comprises tracking the image sensor relative to a clamp secured onto at least one tooth. In some embodiments, the first image sensor is provided on an end effector of a robotic system. In some embodiments, the robotic system comprises a controller and an encoder, wherein the controller and encoder track the position of the end effector. In some embodiments, the controller receives positional data of the clamp”), there may be tracking errors as a result of the use of a device that is separate from the image sensor or cases in which the separate device does not work. In such cases, having an alignment method independent from the position and orientation of the sensor would be beneficial for being able to still produce a desired output despite the tracking issues. Kopelman’s alignment method does not rely on any external device and instead, uses shared landmarks. Therefore, incorporating Kopelman’s alignment method as a backup or as an addition to Ciriello’s alignment method would be beneficial in cases where tracking does not work or as a way to improve alignment accuracy.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello in view of Saito, Kopelman, and Sachdeva et al. (US 20040029068 A1), hereinafter Sachdeva.
Regarding claim 3, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello further teaches wherein the medical image is a computed tomography (CT) image in an oral cavity (Paragraph 0093, 0121 – “at least one scanner comprises…an intraoral x-ray CT… the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally. In some embodiments, the sensor may be held stationary, and emitter may be moved relative to the target anatomy (for example the tooth)”; Note: the x-ray CT captures an image of an object in the mouth, such as a tooth). Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to align the VR image and the color image based on an area of front teeth. However, Sachdeva teaches wherein the processor is further configured to align the VR image and the color image based on an area of front teeth (Fig. 4C, Paragraph 0090 – “FIG. 4C shows the 2D picture 71 transformed by scaling and translation such that it is superimposed on the 3D model 75. This superposition could be performed manually or automatically…The color information in the 2D photograph 71 is projected and mapped to the individual triangle surfaces forming the lower jaw and upper jaw of the 3D model 75 using, for example, a projection algorithm”; Note: Fig. 4C shows that the 3D model and color image are aligned based on an area of front teeth; see screenshot of Fig. 4C below).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 4C (taken from Sachdeva)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Sachdeva to align the images based on an area of the front teeth because in Ciriello, the image and 3D model are of teeth (Paragraph 0099, 0102 – “a broadband visible-range LED illuminates the dental tissue and a color camera is used to capture a color image of the outer surface of the dental tissue…a 3D IOS scan of a tooth/teeth is used to generate 3D models of tooth surfaces”), and logically, there are a limited amount of options for which areas to use for alignment, such as front area or back area. If the image is mainly of the front teeth, like in the image in Sachdeva, then the alignment would be most accurate when based on an area of the front teeth.
Regarding claim 4, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello further teaches wherein the medical image is a computed tomography (CT) image in an oral cavity (Paragraph 0093, 0121 – “at least one scanner comprises…an intraoral x-ray CT… the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally. In some embodiments, the sensor may be held stationary, and emitter may be moved relative to the target anatomy (for example the tooth)”; Note: the x-ray CT captures an image of an object in the mouth, such as a tooth). Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to perform alignment in consideration of a height component of the CT image and an image on which three-dimensional mapping has been executed. However, Sachdeva teaches performing alignment in consideration of a height component of the CT image (Paragraph 0103 – “the radiographic image can be a computed tomographic image volume. As previously mentioned, the orthodontic data contains three-dimensional images of the surface of the orthodontic structure”) and an image on which three-dimensional mapping has been executed (Paragraph 0100, 0105 – “the scaling factor 212 determination is based on an assumption that the scan data will have a linear error term in each of the x, y and z axis, such that a single scaling factor is determined and used to scale each of the teeth as well as the other aspects of the orthodontic structure of the patient…To more accurately map the two-dimensional images of a tooth onto the three-dimensional model, multiple angles of the tooth should be used. Accordingly, a side, a front, and a bottom view of the tooth should be taken and mapped to the scaled digital model of the tooth. Note that the bone and other portions of the orthodontic structure are scaled in a similar manner. Further note that MRI images, and any other images obtained of the orthodontic patient, may also be scaled in a similar manner”; Note: the images/models are scaled, which takes into consideration the x, y, and z axes of the data. The y axis represents height. Additionally, 3D mapping is performed to map the 2D image onto the 3D model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Sachdeva to perform alignment while considering height of the CT image and 3D mapped image for the benefit of ensuring that the images are of the same or similar size, which would make the aligned result more accurate and visually appealing. Additionally, “When digital image data from multiple sources are combined or superimposed relative to each other to create a composite model, it may be necessary to scale data from one set to the other in order to create a single composite model in a single coordinate system in which the anatomical data from both sets have the same dimensions in three-dimensional space. Hence, some scaling may be required” (Sachdeva: Paragraph 0099).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello in view of Saito, Kopelman, and National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (Computed Tomography (CT)), hereinafter NIBIB.
Regarding claim 5, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello further teaches wherein the medical image is a computed tomography (CT) image in an oral cavity (Paragraph 0093, 0121 – “at least one scanner comprises…an intraoral x-ray CT… the scanning method employs X-ray computed tomography where the illumination is handled using a single or array of source and detection is handled using a single or an array of detectors surrounding the imaged object, where the source(s) and detector(s) are both located intraorally. In some embodiments, the sensor may be held stationary, and emitter may be moved relative to the target anatomy (for example the tooth)”; Note: the x-ray CT captures an image of an object in the mouth, such as a tooth). Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to reconstruct, in three dimensions, an image obtained by performing alignment using an image obtained by converting the CT image into two dimensions. However, NIBIB teaches reconstructing, in three dimensions, an image obtained by performing alignment using an image obtained by converting the CT image into two dimensions (Paragraph 3 on Page 2 and Paragraph 1 on Page 3 – “Each time the x-ray source completes one full rotation, the CT computer uses sophisticated mathematical techniques to construct a two-dimensional image slice of the patient… When a full slice is completed, the image is stored and the motorized bed is moved forward incrementally into the gantry. The x-ray scanning process is then repeated to produce another image slice. This process continues until the desired number of slices is collected. Image slices can either be displayed individually or stacked together by the computer to generate a 3D image of the patient”; Note: a 3D image is reconstructed by aligning 2D image slices, which were converted from the original CT x-ray source). NIBIB is used to support Ciriello to show the process of how CT works. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of NIBIB to reconstruct a 3D image aligning 2D images from CT images because the process is common to CT scans, where a 3D image is reconstructed from slices for medical experts to view.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello in view of Saito, Kopelman, and Cofar et al. (US 20230048898 A1), hereinafter Cofar.
Regarding claim 6, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to estimate shapes of teeth exposed from gums and to perform alignment. However, Cofar teaches estimating shapes of teeth exposed from gums (Paragraph 0236, 0242 – “determining 1003 a limited set of parameters, for example less than 20 or less than 15 parameters, indicative of: a size of the tooth; and a shape of said tooth…The at least one parameter for describing a shape of the tooth may comprise exactly two parameters (e.g. a3 and a4, or a3 and a5, see FIGS. 5A through 5F) for describing a first transition line, and exactly two parameters (e.g. a6 and a7, or a6 and a8) for describing a second transition line”; Note: Fig.5A-5F show that the shapes of teeth exposed from gums being estimated; see modified screenshot of Fig. 5A-5F below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Cofar to estimate shapes of teeth exposed from gums because the shape of the teeth is a “highly compact manner” of representing and identifying each tooth (Cofar: Paragraph 0239).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified screenshot of Fig. 5A-5F (taken from Cofar)
Ciriello modified by Cofar still does not teach performing alignment. However, Kopelman teaches performing alignment (Col. 8 lines 3-7 – “the two images may be matched, which may be by way of super-position as shown above, which can be represented on a screen, or by any other way of mapping of each location in one image to that of the other image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Kopelman to perform alignment because “For the purpose of proper design of orthodontic treatment it would have been high advantageous to have a method and system whereby information which can be acquired from one type of image can be transferred or superpositioned to information available from another type of image”. Alignment of different images “allows better appreciation of the three-dimensional structure of the teeth and the relative position of different teeth” (Kopelman: Col. 1 lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 8, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to perform alignment without using a feature of a change in shapes of teeth, the shapes of the teeth having been changed by treatment. However, Kopelman teaches performing alignment without using a feature of a change in shapes of teeth (Col. 3 lines 45-53 – “The basic landmarks which are used for registering the two sets of images, are typically defined points at either the base or the apex of certain selected teeth e.g. the incisors and the first molars. Such basic landmarks may be selected by the user or may be automatically selected by the system's processor, e.g. based on established norms. After selecting the basic landmarks and marking them in one of the images, then the landmarks may be marked in the other images to allow to register both images”; Note: alignment is performed using basic landmarks, which is not a feature of a change in the shape of the teeth). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Kopelman to perform alignment without using a feature of a change in the shape of the teeth because the alignment would not be affected even after the shape of the teeth changes. Additionally, using landmarks instead of shape is a consistent and easy way to identify positions of the teeth for alignment. Furthermore, Ciriello modified by Kopelman still does not teach the shapes of the teeth having been changed by treatment. However, Cofar teaches the shapes of the teeth having been changed by treatment (Paragraph 0223-0224 – “the computer program may also show a photo-realistic image of the patient with the newly envisioned teeth. In this way, the patient gets an impression of what he or she will look like after dental treatment… reference is made to the example of FIGS. 15A and 15B, where the patient can clearly see the current clinical situation before dental treatment (in FIG. 15A) and the future look after dental treatment (in FIG. 15B)”; Note: the shape of the teeth is changed after treatment; see screenshot of Fig. 15A and 15B below).
PNG
media_image3.png
313
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 15A and 15B (taken from Cofar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Cofar wherein the shape of the teeth has changed after treatment because there are many common dental procedures that result in teeth shape to change, including contouring and installing crowns.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello in view of Saito, Kopelman, and L&V Tutorials (How to Change the Color of an Overlay in Adobe Photoshop), hereinafter L&V.
Regarding claim 10, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to set a hue of the color image to be superimposed on the VR image. However, L&V teaches setting a hue of the color image to be superimposed on another image (Screenshots – The hue of a superimposed color image is set; see modified screenshots below).
PNG
media_image4.png
1191
1908
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1196
1936
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified screenshots (taken from L&V)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of L&V to set the hue of the color image for the benefit of making the color image easier to see, appear more accurate to the real-life subject, or appear more visually appealing.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello in view of Saito, Kopelman, and Curt et al. (Optimal digital color image correlation), hereinafter Curt.
Regarding claim 11, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to interpolate, when color information in at least a partial region of the color image to be overlaid on the VR image is not acquirable, the color information on the region from surrounding color information. However, Curt teaches interpolating, when color information in at least a partial region of the color image is not acquirable, the color information on the region from surrounding color information (Paragraph 2 in 2nd Col. of Page 1 – “Many standard color cameras are equipped with the so-called Color Filter Array (CFA) technology. It is assumed that the color fields are continuous and mostly smooth. Thus, the color components are not acquired at every pixel location; they are sampled on a regular array. At each pixel location, a single color component is stored, whereas other ones are calculated thanks to interpolation schemes from neighboring pixels”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Curt to use color interpolation for the benefit of having a smooth color image. Furthermore, it is common that cameras have CFA technology to capture color and interpolate color, as stated by Curt (Paragraph 2 in 2nd Col. of Page 1 – “Many standard color cameras are equipped with the so-called Color Filter Array (CFA) technology”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciriello in view of Saito, Kopelman, and Boudet (An Introduction to Dental Photography), hereinafter Boudet.
Regarding claim 12, Ciriello in view of Saito and Kopelman teaches the medical information processing device according to claim 1. Ciriello does not teach wherein the color image is an image in an oral cavity, the image being acquired by a five-image method. However, Boudet teaches wherein the color image is an image in an oral cavity (Fig. 6a, 6b – The figures show color images of an oral cavity; see screenshot of Fig. 6a and 6b below), the image being acquired by a five-image method (Paragraph 3 on Page 3 – “Five intraoral photos: Five retracted views, including an anterior view, a right view and a left view, and two mirror occlusal shots (one of the mandible and one of the maxilla)”).
PNG
media_image6.png
283
812
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of Fig. 6a and 6b (taken from Boudet)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ciriello to incorporate the teachings of Boudet to acquire an oral cavity image by a five-image method because the five-image method captures images of the oral cavity from different views, which helps create an accurate representation of the oral cavity. The images could then be used by dentists to examine the health of the patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luo et al. (US 20230054394 A1) teaches a system for visualizing medical scans, where 3D images are superimposed onto the real world. Davey (US 20160155236 A1) teaches a method of registering medical images with virtual anatomy models based on anatomical landmarks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE HAU MA whose telephone number is (571)272-2187. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5:30.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/MICHELLE HAU MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights