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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0404243 A1, and further in view of Slabaugh et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,930,683 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Saphier discloses “A computer-implemented method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a surface of an object (see para [0015] – “a method is provided for generating a digital three-dimensional image of an intraoral surface. It is noted that a “three-dimensional image,” as the phrase is used in the present application, is based on a three-dimensional model, e.g., a point cloud, from which an image of the three-dimensional intraoral surface is constructed”, the method comprising the steps of:
- obtaining or acquiring a set of images comprising two or more images, wherein each image comprises a plurality of image features, wherein each image is composed of an array of pixels, wherein each pixel comprises a pixel color defined by one or more color channels (para [0017] – “Each camera includes a camera sensor that has an array of pixels”; para [0042] – “driving each one of one or more cameras to capture a plurality of images, each image including at least a portion of the projected pattern”; para [0059] – “generating a digital three-dimensional image, the method includes, driving each one of one or more structured light projectors to project a pattern of light on an intraoral three-dimensional surface along a plurality of projector rays, and driving each one of one or more cameras to capture a plurality of images, each image including at least a portion of the projected pattern, each one of the one or more cameras comprising a camera sensor comprising an array of pixels. The second method further includes using a processor to: run a correspondence algorithm to compute respective three-dimensional positions on the intraoral three-dimensional surface of a plurality of detected features of the projected pattern for each of the plurality of images”; para [0141] – “the plurality of two-dimensional images comprise a plurality of two-dimensional color images” – where color images comprising color pixels defined by at least one color channel);
Claim 1 further recites “determining points in three-dimensional (3D) space that form a solution to a correspondence problem associated with the set of images, wherein the points are determined by comparing pixel colors with computed colors associated with camera rays corresponding to each pixel, and, generating the three-dimensional (3D) representation based on the determined 3D points”. Saphier as cited before teaches determining points in 3D space to generate a 3D representation based on the plurality of color images; and further teaches determining points in 3D space that form a solution to a correspondence problem associated with the set of images (para [0005] – “The use of structured light three-dimensional imaging may lead to a “correspondence problem,” where a correspondence between points in the structured light pattern and points seen by a camera viewing the pattern needs to be determined. One technique to address this issue is based on projecting a “coded” light pattern and imaging the illuminated scene from one or more points of view. Encoding the emitted light pattern makes portions of the light pattern unique and distinguishable when captured by a camera system. Since the pattern is coded, correspondences between image points and points of the projected pattern may be more easily found. The decoded points can be triangulated and 3D information recovered.”); but does not teach using the pixel colors to determine the points that form a solution to correspondence problem associated with the set of image, including wherein comparing pixel colors with computed colors associated with camera rays corresponding to each pixel. However, Slabaugh teaches “The present invention is a method of operating a data processing system to generate a three-dimensional model of a space from a plurality of measured images of the space. Each measured image includes a view of the space from a corresponding viewpoint. The method divides the space into a plurality of voxels, each voxel being characterized by a location and a color or an indication that the voxel is clear. The method defines a reconstruction of the space by assigning colors and clear values to a set of the voxels. The set of voxels is based on at least one linked list in which voxels are intersected by a ray aligned to project upon a specific pixel of a measured image associated with the linked list. Within this set of voxels, at least one indication of color or clarity is changed in the defining of the reconstruction. The reconstruction is characterized by an error value related to the difference between each of the measured images and the images that would be produced by projecting the set of voxels to the corresponding viewpoints of the measured images. The colors and clear values are set so as to cause the error value to be less than a predetermined value” (col. 1, line 53- col. 2, line 5); and further teaches “The rays defined by the pixels in the image plane of each camera are used to define linked lists. Each linked list is an ordered list of the voxels on the surface of the objects in the current model of the scene that the ray passes through. The entries in the list specify the voxel and the next entry in the list. The location and color of the voxel are preferably stored with the voxel to reduce the storage. A voxel generally will be visible from multiple pixels; hence, the location and color would be stored multiple times if this information were in the linked lists. Given these linked lists, the error function E(V) for a reconstruction V can be easily computed by using the color assigned to the voxel specified by the first entry in each list” (col. 5, lines 53-65); and further teaches “to compute the contribution to the error function from pixel 55, the color of pixel 55 is subtracted from the color of the voxel specified by the first entry in the linked list associated with this pixel, i.e., voxel A” (col. 6, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Slabaugh as cited in the invention of Saphier. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Slabaugh as cited in the invention of Saphier, in order determine points in 3D space that form a solution to a correspondence problem associated with the set of images ensuring that the 3D point (or ray) being evaluated produces the same color across different images, thereby validating both the geometry and the surface appearance of the object providing highly accurate, photo-consistent information.
Regarding claim 2, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein images within the set of images are acquired by different camera units” (see Saphier – para 0006 – plurality of cameras; para 0012 - stray light that reflects off the somewhat glossy surface of the teeth and may be picked up by the cameras; para 0016 – “one or more cameras may be driven to capture an image of the projection. The image captured by each camera may include a portion of the projected pattern (e.g., at least one of the spots)”; see Slabaugh – figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 3, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein images within a set of images are acquired simultaneously” (see Saphier – para 0012 - stray light that reflects off the somewhat glossy surface of the teeth and may be picked up by the cameras; para 0127 – “driving each one of the two or more cameras to simultaneously capture a respective two-dimensional image of a respective portion of the intraoral three-dimensional surface”).
Regarding claim 4, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the step of determining points in 3D space include a step of determining potential points in three- dimensional (3D) space that form one or more candidate solutions to the correspondence problem” (see Saphier – para 0032 - the processor computes respective three-dimensional positions of a plurality of points on the intraoral three-dimensional surface, e.g., using the correspondence algorithm described herein, and computes a three-dimensional structure of the intraoral three-dimensional surface, based on a plurality of two-dimensional images (e.g., two-dimensional color images, and/or two-dimensional monochromatic NIR images) and the computed three-dimensional positions on the intraoral surface”; para 0567 – “Reference is now made to FIGS. 37A-B, which are schematic illustrations showing points used for three-dimensional reconstruction before and after processor 96 has implemented spot tracking, in accordance with some applications of the present invention. The size of each data point represents how many cameras were used to solve the point, i.e., the larger the point the higher the number of cameras that saw that spot. It is noted that size of the data points is used in the figure to differentiate only between how many cameras saw any given point, and is not indicative of the size of the projected spots on the surface. In FIG. 37A there are many smaller points that seem to be located in the periphery and do not appear to be points on the intraoral surface. These smaller points refer to detected spots that were seen by very few cameras, e.g., only one, and yet were assigned a three-dimensional position in space based on the correspondence algorithm. After running the correspondence algorithm, processor 96 may perform spot tracking and thus determine that these lighter points in the periphery are actually false positive points (by determining that they are not tracked spots). Thus, as shown in FIG. 37B, after spot tracking, most of the spots that spot tracking determined to be false positive spots have been removed from being considered as points on the intraoral surface”; para 0589 – “Furthermore, after the three-dimensional surface is estimated, the estimation may be refined by adding in data points from subsequent images, i.e., using data corresponding to the three-dimensional position of at least one additional spot whose three-dimensional position was computed based on another one of the plurality of images, such that all the spots (the three used for the original estimation and the at least one additional spot) lie on the refined estimated three-dimensional surface”; para 0639 – “the points that are used to constrain the computed three-dimensional structured of the intraoral three-dimensional surface are points in a particular region of interest for any given two-dimensional images.”.).
Regarding claim 5, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises the step of determining one or more image features within the set of images, wherein each potential point is determined by triangulation based on the determined image features” (para 0531 - the three-dimensional spot location of each spot (or other feature) is computed by triangulation based on images of the spot (or other feature) in multiple different cameras).
Regarding claim 6, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises the step of assigning one or more parameters to each potential point, wherein said parameters include a color and a likelihood that the potential point is part of the solution to the correspondence problem.” (see Slabaugh - (col. 1, line 53- col. 2, line 5) – “The present invention is a method of operating a data processing system to generate a three-dimensional model of a space from a plurality of measured images of the space. Each measured image includes a view of the space from a corresponding viewpoint. The method divides the space into a plurality of voxels, each voxel being characterized by a location and a color or an indication that the voxel is clear. The method defines a reconstruction of the space by assigning colors and clear values to a set of the voxels. The set of voxels is based on at least one linked list in which voxels are intersected by a ray aligned to project upon a specific pixel of a measured image associated with the linked list. Within this set of voxels, at least one indication of color or clarity is changed in the defining of the reconstruction. The reconstruction is characterized by an error value related to the difference between each of the measured images and the images that would be produced by projecting the set of voxels to the corresponding viewpoints of the measured images. The colors and clear values are set so as to cause the error value to be less than a predetermined value; further teaches “The rays defined by the pixels in the image plane of each camera are used to define linked lists. Each linked list is an ordered list of the voxels on the surface of the objects in the current model of the scene that the ray passes through. The entries in the list specify the voxel and the next entry in the list. The location and color of the voxel are preferably stored with the voxel to reduce the storage. A voxel generally will be visible from multiple pixels; hence, the location and color would be stored multiple times if this information were in the linked lists. Given these linked lists, the error function E(V) for a reconstruction V can be easily computed by using the color assigned to the voxel specified by the first entry in each list” (col. 5, lines 53-65); and further teaches “to compute the contribution to the error function from pixel 55, the color of pixel 55 is subtracted from the color of the voxel specified by the first entry in the linked list associated with this pixel, i.e., voxel A” (col. 6, lines 1-6)” – where the linked list structure described is the method used to assign colors and determine the likelihood (via an error function) of a voxel being on the surface of an object).
Regarding claim 7, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of generating a computed color for each pixel based on the assigned colors and likelihoods” (see Slabaugh - (col. 1, line 53- col. 2, line 5) – “The present invention is a method of operating a data processing system to generate a three-dimensional model of a space from a plurality of measured images of the space. Each measured image includes a view of the space from a corresponding viewpoint. The method divides the space into a plurality of voxels, each voxel being characterized by a location and a color or an indication that the voxel is clear. The method defines a reconstruction of the space by assigning colors and clear values to a set of the voxels. The set of voxels is based on at least one linked list in which voxels are intersected by a ray aligned to project upon a specific pixel of a measured image associated with the linked list. Within this set of voxels, at least one indication of color or clarity is changed in the defining of the reconstruction. The reconstruction is characterized by an error value related to the difference between each of the measured images and the images that would be produced by projecting the set of voxels to the corresponding viewpoints of the measured images. The colors and clear values are set so as to cause the error value to be less than a predetermined value” – where the linked list structure described is the method used to assign colors and determine the likelihood (via an error function) of a voxel being on the surface of an object).
Regarding claim 8, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the method further comprises the step of determining the color and likelihood of the potential points by minimizing a cost function based on the difference between the computed colors and the pixel colors” (see the citations made in the rejection of claims 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The computer-implemented method according to claim 4, wherein the solution to the correspondence problem is found among the potential points based on their likelihood.” (see the citations made in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 – see Slabaugh - determine the likelihood (via an error function) of a voxel being on the surface of an object).
Regarding claim 10, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “A scanning system comprising:- an intraoral scanning device comprising one or more projector units configured to project a pattern on a surface of the object; and two or more camera units configured to acquire the set of images; - one or more processors configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1” (see Saphier – paras 0006, 0016, 0020, 0024-0025, 0042-0043; and see the citations made in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The scanning system according to claim 10, wherein the set of images comprises at least one image from each camera unit” (see Saphier – Abstract – “A processor compares a series of images captured by each camera and determines which of the portions of the projected pattern can be tracked across the images”; para 0023 – “a processor may be used to compare a series of images (e.g., a plurality of consecutive images) captured by each camera to determine which features of the projected pattern (e.g., which of the projected spots) can be tracked across the series of images (e.g., across the plurality of consecutive images”).
Regarding claim 12, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The scanning system according to claim 10, wherein the projected pattern is static” (see Saphier - para 0024 - parallel lines, grids, checkerboard, unconnected and/or uniform spots, random spot patterns – are static patterns).
Regarding claim 13, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The scanning system according to claim 10, wherein the projected pattern is a polygonal pattern comprising at least 3000 pattern features” (see Saphier - para 0024 - grids, checkerboard are polygonal patterns. No criticality has been found of pattern comprising at least 3000 pattern features in the specification, therefore it will be considered as mere design choice. However, Saphier in para [0537] does teach using light projector 22 that projects 400-3000 spots 33.).
Regarding claim 14, the combined invention of Saphier and Slabaugh discloses “The scanning system according to claim 10, wherein the intraoral scanning device is based on stereo vision or triangulation.” (see Saphier - para 0025 – “It should be understood that the scanner location estimation concepts described herein may be used with intraoral scanners, no matter the scanning technology employed (e.g., parallel confocal scanning, focus scanning, wavefront scanning, stereovision, structured light, triangulation, light field, and/or combinations thereof); para 0531 – “ the three-dimensional spot location of each spot (or other feature) is computed by triangulation based on images of the spot (or other feature) in multiple different cameras”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manav Seth whose telephone number is (571) 272-7456. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz, can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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:/Awww.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
/Manav Seth/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
March 5, 2026