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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/4/25 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18464014 in view of Fan et al. (US 11497402; hereinafter Fan).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the parent application differs in that it refers to the collection of sparse data frames. However, 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 the parent to collect sparse frames as taught by Fan, because as noted by Fan, a sparse data collection can improve the overall speed of the scan by reducing the data acquisition time. Furthermore, as noted by Fan, this allows representation and storage of sizable image data with a fraction of the storage required for more conventional image representation schemes (column 12, line 62-column 13, line 52). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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) 1-5 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babayoff (US 2019/0281272) in view of Lovely (US 2007/0134615) and Saphler et al. (US 2020/0404243; hereinafter Saphler).
Babayoff shows an intraoral dental tomography system ([0194], [0200], [0209]) comprising: a probe housing defining a window and configured to be translated along a path proximate an anatomical item in a live patient, the anatomical item having a surface ([0194], [0200], [0209]); an optical system comprising a sample arm and an optical detector, wherein a portion of the sample arm extends outside the probe housing, in free space, via the window ([0200], [0209]); a mirror system disposed within the probe housing and configured to redirect the sample arm ([0209]); a motor disposed within the probe housing ([0213]); and a controller configured to automatically: drive the motor to repeatedly alter the optical focusing components ([0213]) to thereby repeatedly scan the surface of the anatomic item with light of the sample arm along a trajectory according to a deterministic smooth two-dimensional scan pattern, wherein the scan pattern is smooth along at least 80% of the trajectory (scan is considered to be smooth over the entire trajectory, as the scan covers the entire area of the teeth and scans are executed in quick succession; [0247]), such that: each traversal of the scan pattern defines a respective two- dimensional scan area outer boundary on a respective portion of the surface of the anatomic item ([0264]-[0269]); each traversal of the scan pattern defines a plurality of gaps between respective line segments of the trajectory, wherein the gaps are unilluminated by the light during the traversal (gaps of unilluminated light correspond with sections which have not yet been scanned of the total teeth area; [0264]-[0269]); and successive traversals of the scan pattern, in which respective scans are performed from different locations along the path, and each such scan has a respective scan area outer boundary that partially overlaps a scan area outer boundary of at least one other such scan (overlap zones, [0264]-[0269]), illuminate respective portions of at least some of the gaps defined by at least one other such traversal of the scan pattern (when the scan is completed, the entire teeth area will be scanned; [0264]-[0269]); for each traversal, receive pixel image data from the optical detector, about the respective portion of the surface of the anatomic item, wherein the pixel image data of each traversal contains a first number of pixels (each zone contains a first number of pixels; [0264]-[0269]); and for a plurality of successive traversals, in which respective scans are performed from different locations along the path, and each such scan has a respective scan area outer boundary that partially overlaps a scan area outer boundary of at least one other such scan, stitch together the pixel image data of the plurality of successive traversals to thereby generate a stitched surface image having a number of pixels greater than the first number of pixels (stitch overlapping areas, all zones combined have a number of pixels greater than a single zone; [0264]-[0269]).
Additionally, Babayoff also shows wherein the controller is configured to analyze image features of the pixel image data of the plurality of successive traversals to thereby estimate respective displacements of ones of the respective scan area outer boundaries from other of the respective scan area outer boundaries (identify hard vs. soft tissues and account for motion; [0264]-[0269]); wherein the controller is configured to automatically: for each traversal, receive voxel subsurface data from the optical detector, about a respective subsurface portion of the anatomic item, wherein the voxel subsurface data of each traversal contains a second number of voxels (identify soft tissues such as gums vs. hard tissue such as teeth; [0266]); and for the plurality of successive traversals, stitch together the voxel subsurface data of the plurality of successive traversals to thereby generate a stitched subsurface three- dimensional volume image having a number of voxels greater than the second number of voxels ([0268]).
Babayoff fails to show an optical coherence tomography system.
Babayoff fails to show the processor is configured to cause the beam steering subsystem to repeatedly scan the surface with light of the sample arm along a trajectory according to a scan pattern, such that successive traversals of the scan pattern illuminate respective portions of at least some gaps defined by at least one other traversal of the scan pattern; generate a three-dimensional point cloud that represents the surface; for each traversal of the scan pattern: acquire respective scan volume data of the dental anatomy; determine, based on the scan volume data, a three-dimensional point cloud corresponding to a portion of the surface addressed by the traversal of the scan pattern; register the three-dimensional point cloud corresponding to the portion of the surface with an existing three-dimensional point cloud for the surface; and, based on such registering, stitch together the scan volume data with existing scan volume data, from which the existing three-dimensional point cloud was generated, so as to fill in at least some gaps in the existing three-dimensional point cloud.
Babayoff also fails to show wherein the processor is configured such that, after an initial traversal of the scan pattern, the point cloud contains a first set of points at a first density, and after a plurality of subsequent traversals of the scan pattern, the point cloud contains a second set of points at a second density, greater than the first density; wherein said stitching together of the plurality of said sets of OCT data comprises one or more iterations of stitching a current set of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, to previous sets of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, at least by: matching the surface topography determined using the current set of OCT data with at least part of a surface topography determined using the previous sets of OCT data; and thereby generating a surface topography using the current and the previous sets of OCT data; wherein said stitching together of the plurality of said sets of OCT data comprises one or more iterations of stitching a current set of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, to previous sets of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, at least by: matching the surface topography determined using the current set of OCT data with at least part of a surface topography determined using the previous sets of OCT data; and thereby generating a surface topography using the current and the previous sets of OCT data; wherein the matching of the respective surface topographies comprises applying a point cloud registration algorithm; wherein the point cloud registration algorithm comprises an Iterative Closest Points algorithm, a Coherent Point Drift algorithm, a Normal Distribution Transformation algorithm, or a combination thereof; wherein the scan pattern is self- intersecting; wherein the scan pattern comprises a plurality of points at which the scan pattern self-intersects.
Additionally, Babayoff also fails to show wherein the scan pattern comprises a Lissajous figure; wherein the scan pattern is anisotropic; wherein the scan pattern comprises a raster; wherein the scan pattern comprises a spiral; the mirror comprises a first mirror and a second mirror; and the motor is configured to continually alter orientation of the first mirror along a first axis and to continually alter orientation of the second mirror along a second axis, different from the first axis; wherein collectively the mirror and the motor comprise a dual-axis microelectro-mechanical system; wherein the controller is configured to drive the motor to alter the orientation of the mirror system along the two axes to thereby repeatedly scan the item along a first closed-loop two-dimensional scan trajectory and a second closed-loop two-dimensional scan trajectory, wherein the first closed-loop two- dimensional scan trajectory provides more sample points than the second closed-loop two- dimensional scan trajectory.
Lovely discloses a dental imaging system. Lovely teaches an optical coherence tomography system (a variety of different techniques may be utilized, including an optical coherence tomography system utilizing a moveable mirror that can be rotated around two axes as described by Jain incorporated by reference, [0059]), and a motor disposed within the probe housing and coupled to the mirror system ([0059]); and a controller configured to automatically drive the motor to repeatedly alter orientation of the mirror system about two different axes ([0059]). Lovely also teaches wherein the scan pattern comprises a Lissajous figure ([0038]); wherein the scan pattern is anisotropic (various listed patterns encompass anisotropic patterns; [0038]); wherein the scan pattern comprises a raster ([0038]); wherein the scan pattern comprises a spiral ([0038]); the mirror comprises a first mirror and a second mirror; and the motor is configured to continually alter orientation of the first mirror along a first axis and to continually alter orientation of the second mirror along a second axis, different from the first axis (first and second mirror embodiment, [0059]); wherein collectively the mirror and the motor comprise a dual-axis microelectro-mechanical system ([0059]); wherein the controller is configured to drive the motor to alter the orientation of the mirror system along the two axes to thereby repeatedly scan the item along a first closed-loop two-dimensional scan trajectory and a second closed-loop two-dimensional scan trajectory, wherein the first closed-loop two-dimensional scan trajectory provides more sample points than the second closed-loop two-dimensional scan trajectory (scanning of the optical components to cover the entire surface area of the teeth is considered to scan along first, second, or any number of closed-loop scan trajectories, until the entire area is scanned, where the tooth is not uniformly shaped such that some scan trajectories will provide more sample points than others depending on the portion of the tooth being scanned; [0038], [0059]).
Saphler discloses intraoral 3D scanning systems. Saphler teaches the processor is configured to cause the beam steering subsystem to repeatedly scan the surface with light of the sample arm along a trajectory according to a scan pattern, such that successive traversals of the scan pattern illuminate respective portions of at least some gaps defined by at least one other traversal of the scan pattern; generate a three-dimensional point cloud that represents the surface; for each traversal of the scan pattern: acquire respective scan volume data of the dental anatomy; determine, based on the scan volume data, a three-dimensional point cloud corresponding to a portion of the surface addressed by the traversal of the scan pattern; register the three-dimensional point cloud corresponding to the portion of the surface with an existing three-dimensional point cloud for the surface; and, based on such registering, stitch together the scan volume data with existing scan volume data, from which the existing three-dimensional point cloud was generated, so as to fill in at least some gaps in the existing three-dimensional point cloud (plurality of point clouds stitched together using registration algorithm; [0638]-[0645]). Saphler also teaches wherein the processor is configured such that, after an initial traversal of the scan pattern, the point cloud contains a first set of points at a first density, and after a plurality of subsequent traversals of the scan pattern, the point cloud contains a second set of points at a second density, greater than the first density ([0638]-[0645]); wherein said stitching together of the plurality of said sets of OCT data comprises one or more iterations of stitching a current set of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, to previous sets of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, at least by: matching the surface topography determined using the current set of OCT data with at least part of a surface topography determined using the previous sets of OCT data; and thereby generating a surface topography using the current and the previous sets of OCT data ([0638]-[0645]); wherein said stitching together of the plurality of said sets of OCT data comprises one or more iterations of stitching a current set of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, to previous sets of the plurality of said sets of OCT data, at least by: matching the surface topography determined using the current set of OCT data with at least part of a surface topography determined using the previous sets of OCT data ([0638]-[0645]); and thereby generating a surface topography using the current and the previous sets of OCT data; wherein the matching of the respective surface topographies comprises applying a point cloud registration algorithm ([0638]-[0645]); wherein the point cloud registration algorithm comprises an Iterative Closest Points algorithm, a Coherent Point Drift algorithm, a Normal Distribution Transformation algorithm, or a combination thereof ([0638]-[0645]); wherein the scan pattern is self- intersecting ([0016]); wherein the scan pattern comprises a plurality of points at which the scan pattern self-intersects ([0016]).
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 the invention of Babayoff to utilize a scanning system where a moveable mirror is rotated around two axes to accomplish optical coherence tomography type imaging as taught by Lovely, as Babayoff teaches that any suitable means for scanning can be used ([0247]) and as Lovely teaches that scanning may be accomplished in a number of ways, including by utilizing a moveable mirror rotated around two axes ([0059]), therefore the moveable mirror type system will provide a suitable alternative equivalent for accomplishing the desired scanning of the intra-oral cavity described by Babayoff. Furthermore, a variety of different types of optical imaging are known in the art and may be utilized as desired by one of ordinary skill in the art, such as optical coherence tomography as taught by Lovely (Jain incorporated by reference, [0059]), which will provide a suitable alternative equivalent for accomplishing the scanning of the oral cavity as taught by Lovely.
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 the combined invention of Babayoff and Lovely to stitch and register multiple point clouds to fill in information as taught by Saphler, in order to more accurately represent the region of interest by providing a denser point cloud as described by Saphler ([0638]).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babayoff (US 2019/0281272) in view of Lovely (US 2007/0134615) and Saphler et al. (US 2020/0404243; hereinafter Saphler) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Farkash et al. (US 2022/0189611; hereinafter Farkash).
Babayoff fails to show wherein the controller is configured to automatically: use the pixel image data to detect an enamel/air boundary of the anatomical item; estimate an amount of refraction of the light at the enamel/air boundary based on a difference between a refractive index of enamel and a refractive index of air; and alter coordinates of the voxel subsurface data to at least partially compensate for the refraction of the light at the enamel/air boundary; wherein the controller is configured to automatically: use the voxel subsurface data to detect an enamel surface of the anatomical item; use the voxel subsurface data to detect an enamel/dentin boundary within the anatomical item; estimate a thickness of the enamel between the enamel surface and the enamel/dentin boundary; estimate an amount of refraction of the light within the enamel based on (a) the thickness of the enamel and (b) a predetermined index of refraction of enamel; and alter coordinates of the voxel subsurface data to at least partially compensate for the refraction of the light within the enamel.
Farkash discloses a system for non-invasive multimodal oral assessment. Farkash teaches an optical coherence tomographic 3D reconstruction of the teeth, wherein the controller is configured to automatically: use the pixel image data to detect an enamel/air boundary of the anatomical item; estimate an amount of refraction of the light at the enamel/air boundary based on a difference between a refractive index of enamel and a refractive index of air; and alter coordinates of the voxel subsurface data to at least partially compensate for the refraction of the light at the enamel/air boundary (improve accuracy of the internal feature data by estimating refraction index related to enamel/air boundary, [0077]); wherein the controller is configured to automatically: use the voxel subsurface data to detect an enamel surface of the anatomical item; use the voxel subsurface data to detect an enamel/dentin boundary within the anatomical item (find boundary between enamel/dentin, [0077]); estimate a thickness of the enamel between the enamel surface and the enamel/dentin boundary (identification of boundaries necessarily identifies a thickness of each layer of material, [0077]); estimate an amount of refraction of the light within the enamel based on (a) the thickness of the enamel and (b) a predetermined index of refraction of enamel (multi-surface modeling used which assumes optical properties of set of materials including enamel, [0077]); and alter coordinates of the voxel subsurface data to at least partially compensate for the refraction of the light within the enamel (improve accuracy of internal feature data, [0077]).
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 the combined invention of Babayoff, Lovely, and Saphler to modify the scan data to account for different materials in the teeth such as enamel as taught by Farkash, as Farkash teaches that the accuracy of the optical imaging based internal feature data may be improved by accounting for the composition of the teeth ([0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CWERN whose telephone number is (571)270-1560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JONATHAN CWERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797