Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant claims that Spaas does not disclose a patient’s dentition and that a person
having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Pokotilov’s disclosure of 3D modeling with Spaas disclosure of an AR headset. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the 103 rejection being made, Spaas does not need to disclose a patient’s dentition, as Pokotilov already discloses that. Spaas discloses fitting a 3D camera model, which exemplifies that such technology would be obvious to include when mapping 2D images onto 3D models and vice-versa. Spaas is included to show that the state of the art of camera models such as pinhole projection models and the like are obvious in the art and would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when using or making the method disclosed by Applicant.
Second, regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Applicant claims that Lam does not disclose a patient’s dentition and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Pokotilov’s disclosure of 3D modeling with Lam’s disclosure of analyzing a biological specimen. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, in light of the 103 rejection, Lam does not need to disclose a patient’s dentition, as Pokotilov already discloses that. Lam is combined with Pokotilov to show that the technology of an “opacity slider”, is common knowledge and an “opacity slider” would have been obvious to add to the Applicant’s method for a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in the rejection, this would add more features to the user, among other improvements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokotilov et al. of US 2018/0263731 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Pokotilov”) in view of Spaas et al. of GB 2588774 A (hereinafter referred to as “Spaas”).
Regarding claim 1, Pokotilov discloses a computer implemented method (see Pokotilov par. 0011) of aligning at least two digital representations of at least a portion of a patient’s dentition, comprising: receiving a two dimensional (“2D”) image of at least a portion of a patient’s dentition (see Pokotilov abstract “an image of the patient’s face and dentition may be gathered” and par. 0011 “forming an image of the patient … including at least a portion of the patient’s dentition”); receiving a three dimensional (“3D”) digital surface model of the person’s dentition (see Pokotilov abstract “gathering a three-dimensional (3D) model modeling the patient’s dentition”); receiving one or more 3D digital surface model key points selected on the 3D digital surface model (see Pokotilov abstract “A first set of reference points modeled on the 3D model of the patient’s dentition … may be received”); receiving one or more corresponding 2D digital image key points selected on the 2D digital image (see Pokotilov abstract “a second set of reference points represented on the dentition of the image of the patient may be received”); and using the one or more 3D digital surface model key points and the one or more corresponding 2D digital image key points to align the 3D digital surface model with the 2D digital image (see Pokotilov par. 0011 “and aligning the first set of reference points on the three-dimensional model of the patient’s dentition with the second set of reference points on the image of the patient”).
Pokotilov does not explicitly disclose fitting a camera model.
However, Spaas discloses fitting a camera model (see Spaas pg. 25 lines 4-6, where it discusses using a pinhole camera model that maps 3D points onto a 2D image using a transformation matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the camera model of Spaas to the existing dental alignment techniques of Pokotilov, because it is a known technique in the art and predictable that doing so would allow Pokotilov’s alignment device to have a mathematical method of operation to allow fine tuning and efficient system programming.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 1 above (see Pokotilov par. 0011).
Regarding claim 2, Pokotilov discloses selecting the 3D digital surface model key points manually (see Pokotilov par. 0209 “In some implementations, the first set of reference points are provided by a technician or other clinical professional who has identified specific anatomical portions of the 3D representation of interest”) and the corresponding 2D digital image key points are selected manually (see Pokotilov par. 0210 “a second set of reference points modeled on the dentition of the image of the patient are received. The second set of reference points may correspond to the set of anatomical points on the patient’s dentition. The second set of reference may be provided by the technician or other clinical professional.”)
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Pokotilov discloses the 3D digital surface model key points are selected automatically (see Pokotilov par. 0200 “reference points are selected or otherwise identified on the 3D bite model…”, “In some embodiments, facial landmarks and contours, selected using neural networks, or otherwise, …may be used as reference points.”).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Pokotilov discloses key points on the 3D digital surface model and on the 2D digital image being on virtual teeth (see Pokotilov Fig. 8 for key points on teeth in a 2D image and Fig. 9 for key points on teeth in a 3D model. Both display key points being indicated on the teeth of the patient in the image or model.).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same analysis as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, Pokotilov discloses a 2D digital image with a cutout region (see Pokotilov Fig. 36).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokotilov in view of Spaas as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Lam et al. of WO 2023/212532 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lam”).
Regarding claim 5, Pokotilov discloses displaying the aligned 3D digital surface model overlaid with the aligned 2D digital image and multiple sliders (see Pokotilov par. 0312, where multiple sliders are disclosed to adjust 3D model characteristics when overlaid with the 2D image)
Pokotilov does not disclose an opacity slider.
However, Lam discloses an opacity slider used to adjust image opacity when overlaid with a second image (see Lam par. 00345 “in Figure 9A, an opacity slider provides for increasing or decreasing the transparency of the plurality of displayed entities”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the existing opacity slider of Lam to the existing dental alignment technique of Pokotilov because it is predictable that this would enhance the GUI with more customization options and allow better control over viewing the dental imaging and modeling data.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokotilov in view of Spaas as applied to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Kalla, Maria-Pavlina et al. “Deep learning-based registration of two-dimensional dental images with edge specific loss.” Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) vol. 10,3 (2023): 034002. (hereinafter referred to as “Kalla”).
Regarding claim 6, Pokotilov discloses mapping a composite image generated with a first 2D digital image (see Pokotilov par. 0318 and figure 36, where several composite images are mapped to a 2D digital image).
Pokotilov does not disclose receiving a second separate 2D digital image and mapping it with a first 2D digital image.
However, Kalla discloses receiving a pair of 2D digital images and aligning them using mapping techniques such as edge detection and alignment (see Kalla abstract “Our study presents an edge-enhanced unsupervised deep learning (DL)-based deformable registration framework for aligning two-dimensional (2D) pairs of dental x-ray images”. Also see Figure 8 with caption, which demonstrates edge detection on both images and aligning the matched edges).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the existing 2D digital image alignment technique of Kalla to the 3D to 2D alignment technique of Pokotilov because it is predictable that doing so would increase system accuracy and allow it to perform more features for the user.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under the same analysis as claim 6 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A. RODIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/MARIO ANTHONY RODIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights