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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a three-dimensional model that was
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.
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 receiving unit” in claim 1,
“a composite display generation unit” in claim 1,
“a correlation unit” in claims 2 and 3, and
“an adjustment unit” in claim 8.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the phrase “a receiving unit configured to…” and “a composite display generation unit configured to…”. The instant phrases each invoke 112(f) as set forth above under the heading Claim Interpretation. However, the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. Accordingly, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b). See MPEP 2181(III) for details. Claims 2-9 are rejected based on dependence. The claims containing the phrases “correlation unit” (claim 2) and “adjustment unit” (claim 8) are rejected according to the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a receiving unit configured to…” and “a composite display generation unit configured to…”. The instant phrases each invoke 112(f) as set forth above under the heading Claim Interpretation. However, the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. Accordingly, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b). See MPEP 2181(IV) for details. Claims 2-9 are rejected based on dependence. The claims containing the phrases “correlation unit” (claim 2) and “adjustment unit” (claim 8) are rejected according to the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TYUTYUNNIK et al. (hereafter “D1”)(US Pub # 20240366171, provisionally filed 05/01/2023).
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor configured to read out and execute instructions stored in at least one memory to thereby cause the apparatus to function as:
a receiving unit configured to receive X-ray image data that was generated from an X-ray scan of an oral area of an individual and a three-dimensional model that was that was generated from a three-dimensional scan of a jaw area a patient (software instructions [0062] include receiving preprocessed CBCT scan file of an intraoral scan and a 3D digital intraoral scan model (step 111) ; FIG 1B; [0078-0079]); and
a composite display generation unit configured to generate a composite display of the oral area that includes an X-ray image generated from the X-ray data and a rendering generated from the three-dimensional model (fusing the preprocessed and segmented CTCT scan with the segmented intraoral scan; [0079-0080]).
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to read out and execute instructions stored in the at least one memory to thereby cause the apparatus to further function as a correlation unit configured to correlate the X-ray image and the three-dimensional model (fusing the preprocessed and segmented CBCT scan with the segmented intraoral scan; [0079-0080]).
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses wherein the correlation unit is configured to determine edges of structures in the X-ray image and determine edges of structures in the rendering of the three-dimensional model, and the correlation unit is configured to match the determined edges in the X-ray image to the determined edges in the rendering of the three-dimensional model (matching surface of crown regions from intraoral scan to the crown regions of the CBCT scan; [0080]).
Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses wherein the correlation unit is configured to:
determine a subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image that can potentially be matched to edges in the rendering of the three-dimensional model from amongst the determined edges of the structures in the X-ray image,
determine a subset of edges of the structures in the rendering of a three-dimensional model that can potentially be matched to edges in the X-ray image from amongst the determined edges of the structures in the rendering of the three-dimensional model, and
match edges in the subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image to corresponding edges in the subset of edges of the structures in a rendering of the three-dimensional model (matching surface of crown regions from the intraoral scan to the crown regions of CBCT scan, where either/both the CBCT scan and intraoral scan may be scaled and/or rotated prior to matching and fusing; [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses wherein the correlation unit is configured to determine a rough correlation of structures in the X-ray image to structures in a rendering of the three-dimensional model, and the image correlation unit is configured to refine the rough correlation by matching edges in the subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image to corresponding edges in the subset of edges of the structures in the rendering of the 3D model (matching surface of crown regions from the intraoral scan to the crown regions of CBCT scan, where either/both the CBCT scan and intraoral scan may be scaled and/or rotated prior to matching and fusing; [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, D1 discloses wherein the composite display generation unit is configured to position the X-ray image relative to the 3D model in the composite display such that the X-ray image is positioned in front of the oral area in the model, within the oral area in the model, or behind the oral area in the model (FIG 2 shows a fused display of the CBCT scan as within the intraoral scan in items 204-205; [0085]).
Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to read out and execute instructions stored in the at least one memory to thereby cause the apparatus to further function as an adjustment unit configured to allow a user to adjust at least one aspect of the composite display (displayed allows for display of different components; [0088]).
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses wherein the at least one aspect is at least one of a transparency of the X-ray image in the composite display, a transparency of the model in the composite display, and positioning of the X-ray image relative to the model in the composite display (allowing the user to interactively display subsets of segmented regions may include receiving user commands to show one or more of: unerupted teeth, roots only, surrounding semitransparent bone, and crowns only, [0021, 0044, 0088, 0090]).
Regarding claim 10, D1 further comprising a display device configured to display the composite display (implicit from graphical user interface design; [0088-0090]; FIG 5-10).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, D1 discloses a method of generating a composite display of an oral area, the method comprising:
receiving X-ray image data generated from an X-ray scan of the oral area; receiving three-dimensional model generated from a three-dimensional scan of the oral area (software instructions [0062] include receiving preprocessed CBCT scan file of an intraoral scan and a 3D digital intraoral scan model (step 111) ; FIG 1B; [0078-0079]);
correlating an X-ray image generated from the X-ray data and a rendering from the three-dimensional model such that structures in the X-ray image are matched to corresponding structures in the rendering (matching the surface of the crown regions from the intraoral scan to the crown region of the CBCT scan; [0079-0080]);
generating a composite display of the oral area that includes the X-ray image and the model (fusing two images; [0079-0080]); and
displaying the composite display (FIG 5-10).
Regarding claim 13. The method according to claim 12, edges of structures in the X-ray image are determined and edges of structures in the rendering of the three-dimensional model are determined, the X-ray image is correlated to a rendering of the three-dimensional model by matching the determined edges in the X-ray image to the determined edges in rendering of the three-dimensional model (matching surface of crown regions from intraoral scan to the crown regions of the CBCT scan; [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, D1 discloses wherein a subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image that can potentially be matched to edges in the rendering of the three-dimensional model from amongst the determined edges of the structures in the X-ray image is determined, wherein a subset of edges of the structures in the rendering of the three-dimensional model that can potentially be matched to edges in the X-ray image from amongst the determined edges of the structures in the rendering of the three-dimensional model is determined, and wherein the subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image are matched to corresponding edges in the subset of edges of the structures in the rendering of the three- dimensional model ((matching surface of crown regions from the intraoral scan to the crown regions of CBCT scan, where either/both the CBCT scan and intraoral scan may be scaled and/or rotated prior to matching and fusing; [0080]).
Regarding claim 15, D1 discloses wherein the correlation of the X-ray image and the three-dimensional model includes (i) making a rough correlation of structures in the X-ray image to the structures in a rendering of the three-dimensional model and (ii) refining the rough correlation by matching edges in the subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image to the corresponding edges in the subset of edges of the structures in the rendering of the three- dimensional model (matching surface of crown regions from the intraoral scan to the crown regions of CBCT scan, where either/both the CBCT scan and intraoral scan may be scaled and/or rotated prior to matching and fusing; [0080]).
Regarding claim 17, D1 discloses wherein the X-ray image is positioned relative to the model in the composite display such that the X-ray image is in front of the oral area in the model, within the oral area in the model, or behind the oral area in the model (FIG 2 shows a fused display of the CBCT scan as within the intraoral scan in items 204-205; [0085]).
Regarding claim 18, D1 discloses comprising adjusting at least one aspect of the composite display (displayed allows for display of different components; [0088]).
Regarding claim 19, D1 discloses wherein the at least one aspect is at least one of a transparency of the X-ray image in the composite display, a transparency of the model in the composite display, and positioning of the X-ray image relative to the model in the composite display (allowing the user to interactively display subsets of segmented regions may include receiving user commands to show one or more of: unerupted teeth, roots only, surrounding semitransparent bone, and crowns only, [0021, 0044, 0088, 0090]).
Regarding claim 20, D1 discloses non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions that when executed cause a computer system to perform the method according to claim 11 ([0022]).
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) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of KIM et al. (US Patent # 11978203).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, D1 discloses a correlation unit refining rough correlation but does not specify wherein the unit refines the rough correlation by selecting points in the subset of edges of the structures in the rendering of a 3D model and matching the selected points to closest corresponding points in the subset of edges of the structures in the X-ray image. In the same field of endeavor, KIM discloses a system and method for fusing intraoral scans and CBCT images, wherein the invention comprising providing corresponding points on both the CBCT model and intraoral scan to increase the accuracy of the 3D image fusion (FIG 9-10; col. 11, lines 47-53). In light of the teachings of KIM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine with the teachings of D1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baan et al. (“Fusion of intra-oral scans in cone-beam computed tomography scans”, Clinical Oral Investigations (2021) 25:77–85) discloses a system and method for fusing intraoral scans and CBCT images, wherein the invention comprising providing at least 3 corresponding points on both the CBCT model and intraoral scan to increase the accuracy of the 3D image fusion (page 83, col. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884