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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/02/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1 (and its respective dependent claims) and claims 11-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12, and 14-16, are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, line 11, recites “the first correction method based on machine learning (ML)”, however should recite “the first correction method is based on machine learning (ML)”. Furthermore, a coordinator “and” should be inserted after step “S3” and before step “S4”. Claims 2-10 and 14-16, are objected based on their dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 11, line 9, recites “the first correction method based on machine learning (ML)”, however should recite “the first correction method is based on machine learning (ML)”. Furthermore, a coordinator “and” should be inserted after step “S3” and before step “S4”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 12, line 10, recites “the first correction method based on machine learning (ML)”, however should recite “the first correction method is based on machine learning (ML)”. Furthermore, a coordinator “and” should be inserted after step “S3” and before step “S4”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilja (US PGPUB 2018/0268574 A1) and further in view of Kearney (US PGPUB 2021/0358123 A1).
As per claim 1, Lilja discloses a method for geometric calibration of a digital volume tomography (DVT) imaging by updating geometric parameters used in a reconstruction method (Lilja, paragraphs 17-18), the method comprising:
(S1) providing measurement data of the DVT imaging and the geometric parameters (Lilja, paragraphs 19-23);
(S2) providing a first volume by applying a reconstruction method to the provided measurement data and the geometric parameters (Lilja, Fig. 2:200:201, and paragraphs 23 and 32);
(S3) providing a corrected volume by applying a first correction method to the first volume (Lilja, Fig. 2:201-204, and paragraph 33);
(S4) providing updated geometric parameters by applying a second correction method to the measurement data and the corrected volume (Lilja, Fig. 2:205, and paragraph 36), wherein the updating of the geometric parameters is supported by using the result of the first correction method (Lilja, paragraph 33) as a reference for the second correction method for parameter estimation, and wherein the second correction method for parameter estimation involves measurement data of the DVT imaging (Lilja, paragraphs 17-18, and 33)
Although Lilja discloses a first correction method as being explained above, however Lilja does not explicitly disclose (the first correction) method based on machine learning (ML),
Kearney discloses (the first correction) method based on machine learning (ML) (Kearney, paragraphs 722-724, discloses The patient data 6002 with the corrected image 6016 in place of the input image 6004 may then be processing using the machine learning model 6006 to obtain the corrected dental measurement 6008. The corrected dental measurement represents the true spatial distance between two or more anatomical points, area measurement, or volumetric measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lilja teachings by implementing a machine learning model to the system, as taught by Kearney.
The motivation would be to a system with improved accuracy of dental measurement (paragraph 723), as taught by Kearney.
As per claim 2, Lilja in view of Kearney further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second correction method for parameter estimation of (S4) comprises a registration method that registers the measurement data with the corrected volume of (S3) (Lilja, paragraphs 20 and 35).
As per claim 3, Lilja in view of Kearney further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second correction method for parameter estimation from (S4) comprises an iterative reconstruction method using the corrected volume from (S3) for regularization (Lilja, paragraph 35).
As per claim 11, Lilja discloses a computer-assisted digital volume tomography (DVT) system for geometric calibration of a digital volume tomography (DVT) imaging by updating geometric parameters used in a reconstruction method (Lija, paragraphs 17-18), the system comprising computer-readable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the computer-assisted DVT system to (Lilja, paragraph 29):
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 12, Lilja discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program, comprising instructions which when executed by a computer causes the computer to (Lilja, paragraphs 29 and 45-46):
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-6, and 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilja (US PGPUB 2018/0268574 A1) and further in view of Kearney (US PGPUB 2021/0358123 A1) and further in view of Fisker (US PGPUB 2021/0045859 A1).
As per claim 4, Lilja in view of Kearney further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Lilja in view of Kearney does not explicitly disclose (the second correction method for parameter estimation of (S4) is) performed only on a selected sub-region of the corrected volume and/or a selected sub-region of the measurement data, wherein the selection takes place by comparing the corrected volume and the first volume, or alternatively takes place directly by the first correction method.
Fisker discloses (the second correction method for parameter estimation of (S4) is performed) only on a selected sub-region of the corrected volume and/or a selected sub-region of the measurement data, wherein the selection takes place by comparing the corrected volume and the first volume, or alternatively takes place directly by the first correction method (Fisker, paragraphs 10, and 22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lilja in view of Kearney teachings by selecting region of interest, as taught by Fisker.
The motivation would be to obtain true anatomical correspondence between teeth of the digital 3D representations (paragraph 21), as taught by Fisker.
As per claim 5, Lilja in view of Kearney in view of Fisker further discloses the method according to claim 4, comprising: (S6) providing a final corrected volume by applying a final reconstruction method to the measurement data and the updated geometric parameters from (S4) (Lilja, paragraphs 35 and 36).
As per claim 6, Lilja in view of Kearney in view of Fisker further discloses the method according to claim 4, comprising, (S5) providing re-updated geometric parameters by applying a third correction method for parameter estimation to the measured data and the updated geometric parameters from (S4) (Lilja, paragraphs 10 and 36, discloses The correction process, including the computation of an intermediate reconstruction using the current estimate of the projection geometry and the subsequent optimization of the corrective transformations, may be iterated for a number of times, hence obvious variation in view of Lilja teachings);
(S6′) providing a final corrected volume by applying a final reconstruction method to the measured data and the re-updated geometric parameters from (S5) (Lilja, paragraphs 10 and 35-36).
As per claim 10, Lilja in view of Kearney in view of Fisker further discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein (S3), (S4) and (S6), or (S3) to (S6) are repeated one or more times or are also performed iteratively (Lilja, paragraphs 10, 20 and 35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, and 14-16, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also by overcoming the objections as being set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights