DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 12, 17-18, and 22 were amended. Claims 4 and 15 were canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-22 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication module” in claim 12; “a rendering module” in claim 16; “a reconstruction module” in claim 18; and “a global optimization module” in claim 19. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 12-14, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 2023/0396751), Poulad et al. (US 2022/0392093), and Egan et al. (US 2013/0093780).
Regarding claim 1, Lipnik teaches/suggests: A method, comprising:
receiving input data representing a plurality of depth images (Lipnik [0040] “A user may use the mobile device 201 to initiate an intraoral scan” [0056] “the imaging device may comprise … a Red Green Blue Depth (RGB-D) camera”);
transmitting to a remote server for server model reconstruction (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy”).
Lipnik does not teach/suggest:
partially reconstructing a plurality of
transmitting the partially reconstructed composite image.
Hoppe, however, teaches/suggests:
partially reconstructing a plurality of
transmitting the partially reconstructed composite image (Hoppe [0021]-[0022] “The fused depth views may be compressed and sent across a network … merging (e.g., fusing) of data across particular depth views to improve compressibility of the data, thus reducing the network bandwidth”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Lipnik to be fused as taught/suggested by Hoppe to reduce the network bandwidth.
Hoppe does not teach/suggest overlapping depth images. Nor does Hoppe teach/suggest
wherein the single composite image is generated by aligning the plurality of overlapping depth images to merge them so as to produce the single composite image that is a composite representation of the overlapping depth images;
Poulad, however, teaches/suggests:
wherein the single composite image is generated by aligning the plurality of overlapping depth images to merge them so as to produce the single composite image that is a composite representation of the overlapping depth images (Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe to be overlapping as taught/suggested by Poulad for alignment.
Poulad is silent regarding performing associative operations on the plurality of overlapping depth images. Egan, in view of Poulad, teaches/suggests performing associative operations on the plurality of overlapping depth images (Poulad [0043] “an overlapping region in the depth images” Egan [0050] “If only layer C changes, re-blending of all of the layers when computing F should be avoided … many are associative. Therefore, it is safe to re-group operations without changing their order”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fusion of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe and Poulad to be associative as taught/suggested by Egan to avoid re-blending.
Regarding claim 2, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the input data is received from a dental scanner equipped with a processing unit (Lipnik [0040] “A user may use the mobile device 201 to initiate an intraoral scan”).
Regarding claim 5, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein selection of the plurality of overlapping depth images for partial reconstruction is based on temporally adjacent images (Lipnik [0040] “A user may use the mobile device 201 to initiate an intraoral scan” Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Lipnik, Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan are silent regarding acquired at a high frequency. However, official notice is taken that the concept and advantages of such acquiring are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for the depth images of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan to be acquired at a high frequency to acquire them faster.
Regarding claim 6, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein selection of the plurality of overlapping depth images for partial reconstruction is based on spatially adjacent images (Lipnik [0040] “A user may use the mobile device 201 to initiate an intraoral scan” Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Lipnik, Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan are silent regarding using spatial data structures or clustering methods. However, official notice is taken that the concept and advantages of such clustering are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for the fusion of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan to include such clustering for the overlapping depth images.
Claims 12-14 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 2 and 5-6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan further teaches/suggests a dental cloud system (Lipnik [0081] “The remote entity 1120 may be a data center, a cloud, a server, and the like that is in communication with one or more user devices”).
Regarding claim 21, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan teaches/suggests: The system of claim 12, wherein the dental scanner is equipped with sensors to capture additional information including color (Lipnik [0056] “the imaging device may comprise … a Red Green Blue Depth (RGB-D) camera”), and the computational device is configured to preserve and transmit the additional information along with the partially reconstructed composite image (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy” Hoppe [0021] “The fused depth views may be compressed and sent across a network”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim 22 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 12, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan further teaches/suggests a computer-readable medium storing instructions (Lipnik [0031] “these components can execute from various computer readable media having various data structures stored thereon”).
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 2023/0396751), Poulad et al. (US 2022/0392093), and Egan et al. (US 2013/0093780) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0077562).
Regarding claim 3, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the input data is received from an edge device connected to a dental scanner, the edge device having a processing unit for partial reconstruction of the plurality of overlapping depth images. Sharma, however, teaches/suggests the input data is received from an edge device connected to a dental scanner (Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the scanner of Sharma) for another (the scanner of Lipnik) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely, to acquire the depth images.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, Egan, and Sharma teaches/suggests the edge device having a processing unit for partial reconstruction of the plurality of overlapping depth images (Hoppe [0021] “a sender-side geometric fusion that is applied to a set of depth views captured at a sender system” Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps” Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”).
Regarding claim 20, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan teaches/suggests: The system of claim 12, wherein the communication module is configured to transmit the partially reconstructed composite image to the remote server via the internet (Lipnik [0031] “across a network, e.g., the Internet” Hoppe [0021] “The fused depth views may be compressed and sent across a network”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan does not teach/suggest the computational device is an edge device connected to the dental scanner. Sharma, however, teaches/suggests an edge device connected to the dental scanner (Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 2023/0396751), Poulad et al. (US 2022/0392093), and Egan et al. (US 2013/0093780) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US 2023/0123552).
Regarding claim 7, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising preserving weight sums during the partially reconstructing for proper combination in a final reconstruction step. Hamilton, however, teaches/suggests preserving weight sums (Hamilton [0236] “where the w.sub.i weights are incorporated with standard weighting procedures and re-normalized to maintain a total weight of 1”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fusion of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan to maintain the total weight of Hamilton for normalization.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, Egan, and Hamilton teaches/suggests preserving weight sums during the partially reconstructing for proper combination in a final reconstruction step (Hoppe [0021] “a sender-side geometric fusion that is applied to a set of depth views captured at a sender system” Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps” Hamilton [0236] “where the w.sub.i weights are incorporated with standard weighting procedures and re-normalized to maintain a total weight of 1”).
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 2023/0396751), Poulad et al. (US 2022/0392093), and Egan et al. (US 2013/0093780) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Cummings et al. (US 2011/0285757).
Regarding claim 10, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising rendering low-resolution versions of the plurality of overlapping depth images on the server for fast user feedback, discarding the low-resolution versions after receiving the partial reconstruction. Cummings, however, teaches/suggests rendering low-resolution versions (Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan to include their low-resolution versions as taught/suggested by Cummings for previewing.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, Egan, and Cummings teaches/suggests rendering low-resolution versions of the plurality of overlapping depth images on the server for fast user feedback, discarding the low-resolution versions after receiving the partial reconstruction (Hoppe [0021] “a sender-side geometric fusion that is applied to a set of depth views captured at a sender system” Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps” Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). In view of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, Egan, and Cummings, the replacing meets the discarding.
Claim 16 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Hoppe et al. (US 2023/0396751), Poulad et al. (US 2022/0392093), and Egan et al. (US 2013/0093780) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0126295).
Regarding claim 11, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising performing global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long-span accuracy before volume integration during a final reconstruction step. Zhang, however, teaches/suggests performing global optimization (Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fusion of Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, and Egan to cover a wide range (the global optimization) as taught/suggested by Zhang to improve accuracy.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Hoppe, Poulad, Egan, and Zhang teaches/suggests performing global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long-span accuracy before volume integration during a final reconstruction step (Hoppe [0021] “a sender-side geometric fusion that is applied to a set of depth views captured at a sender system” Poulad [0043] “first and second depth maps received from first and second HMD cases can be combined into a larger field depth map using an overlapping region in the depth images to align the first and second depth maps” Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”).
Claim 19 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 11, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations “the partially reconstructing includes volume integration on the plurality of overlapping depth images, extracting triangle meshes based on marching cubes, performing remeshing using the triangle meshes, applying active shape computation to retain information lost during volume integration, and generating a texture for the triangle meshes” in claims 8 and 17 and “a final reconstruction on the server involves volume integration on the partially reconstructed composite images with consideration for accumulated weights, extracting triangle meshes from the volume integration, performing remeshing using the triangle meshes, applying active shape computation to retain information lost during the volume integration, and generating a final texture atlas from texture information of the partial reconstructions” in claims 9 and 18, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0195900 – stitch depth maps
US 2023/0099605 – efficient 5G transmission
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights