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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II, claims 5-16, in the reply filed on 7/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 5-16 and 17-21 are in Species II and Species III. This is not found persuasive because the limitation of “determine a conflicting surface between a region of the first 3D surface and a corresponding region of the second 3D surface based on a comparison of the first 3D surface to the second 3D surface; and update the second 3D surface by replacing data for the region of the second 3D surface with data for the region of the first 3D surface ” in claim 5 is different from the limitation of “determine a conflicting surface between the portion of the dental site from the first intraoral scan and the portion of the dental site from the second intraoral scan based on a comparison of the second intraoral scan to the first intraoral scan; and generate a three-dimensional (3D) surface based at least in part on the first intraoral scan and the second intraoral scan, wherein data for the portion of the dental site from the second intraoral scan is used to generate the 3D surface, and wherein data for the portion of the dental site from the first intraoral scan is not used to generate the 3D surface ” in claim 17. Especially, the limitation of “update the second 3D surface by replacing data for the region of the second 3D surface with data for the region of the first 3D surface” in claim 5 is obvious different and distinct from limitation of “generate a three-dimensional (3D) surface based at least in part on the first intraoral scan and the second intraoral scan, wherein data for the portion of the dental site from the second intraoral scan is used to generate the 3D surface, and wherein data for the portion of the dental site from the first intraoral scan is not used to generate the 3D surface” in claim 17.
The three species are not dependent on each other and one of the limitations does not require the other limitation to operate. Therefore, the species are mutually exclusive. Different species are considered as different inventions. Due to the time given to the examiner for examining the application, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozerov (WO 2018152374 A1) in view of Kopelman (US-PAT-NO: 20130110469).
Regarding claim 5. A system comprising: a memory; and a processing device operatively connected to the memory, the processing device to:
receive one or more intraoral scans of a portion of a dental site generated at a first time (see page 4, lines 17-19, the first image data may be generated based on a first intraoral scan of the dental arch performed at a first time by a first intraoral scanner);
determine a first three-dimensional (3D) surface of the portion of the dental site based on the one or more intraoral scans (see page 4, lines 19-24, the second image data may be generated based on a second intraoral scan of the dental arch performed at a second time by the first intraoral scanner or a second intraoral scanner);
receive a second three-dimensional (3D) surface of the dental site determined from second intraoral scan data generated at a second time that is earlier than the first time (see page 4, lines 21-25, determining a plurality of spatial differences between a first representation of the dental arch in the first image data and a second representation of the dental arch in the second image data. The method further includes determining that a first spatial difference of the plurality of spatial differences is attributable to scanner inaccuracy of at least one of the first intraoral scanner or the second intraoral scanner and that a second spatial difference of the plurality of spatial differences is attributable to a clinical change to the dental arch);
determine a conflicting surface between a region of the first 3D surface and a corresponding region of the second 3D surface based on a comparison of the first 3D surface to the second 3D surface (see page 4 and 5, lines 32-35 and , identifying clinical dental issues may include making an additional comparison between the first image data and either the second image data and/or the third representation. The additional comparison may be performed to identify appearance differences (e.g., visual differences in color, hue, intensity, and so on) between the first image data and the second image data and/or third representation) (see page 6-7, lines 34-35 and 1-4, the current image data 135 and past image data 132 may each be used to generate a virtual model (e.g., a virtual 2D model or virtual 3D model) of the patient's dental arch in some embodiments. Each virtual model may reflect the condition of the dental arch at a particular point in time. Each virtual model may include a 3D surface and appearance properties mapped to each point of the 3D surface (e.g., a color of the surface at each point). To generate a virtual model, intraoral scan application 108 may register (i.e., "stitch" together) the intraoral images generated from an intraoral scan session).
However, Ozerov does not expressly teach update the second 3D surface by replacing data for the region of the second 3D surface with data for the region of the first 3D surface.
Kopelman teaches that a feature of at least this embodiment is that it allows the dental practitioner to modify a dental structure (such as for example a dental preparation or a missing or modified tooth) in a quick and easy manner with a minimum of scanning after the initial virtual scan (see paragraph 178). According to at least one aspect of the invention there is provided a system and method are provided for modifying a virtual model of a physical structure by displaying an image of the virtual model, deleting 3D data of parts of the virtual model by interacting with the displayed image, and replacing at least a portion of the deleted 3D data with new 3D data obtained from the physical structure to provide a modified virtual model (see paragraph 179)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ozerov by Kopelman to obtain for modifying a virtual model of a physical structure by displaying an image of the virtual model, deleting 3D data of parts of the virtual model by interacting with the displayed image, and replacing at least a portion of the deleted 3D data with new 3D data obtained from the physical structure to provide a modified virtual model, in order to provide update the second 3D surface by replacing data for the region of the second 3D surface with data for the region of the first 3D surface. Therefore, combining the elements from prior arts according to known methods and technique would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the second 3D surface comprises a virtual 3D model generated based on stitching together the second intraoral scan data (see Ozerov, page 3, lines 10-13, intraoral scanners have a limited field of view (FOV), and intraoral images from intraoral scanners are stitched together to form a three dimensional (3D) image or virtual model of a dental arch (or portion of a dental arch) that is much larger than the FOV).
Regarding claim 7. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the dental site comprises a preparation tooth (see Ozerov, page 9, lines 2-4, detected differences include both differences caused by scanner inaccuracy as well as differences caused by clinical changes such as tooth wear (also referred to as tooth erosion), gum recession, gum swelling, occlusion (e.g., bite surfaces) and so on).
Regarding claim 10. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein to determine the conflicting surface the processing device is to:
determine a distance measure representative of a distance between one or more points on the first 3D surface and one or more corresponding points on the second 3D surface (see Ozerov, page 31, lines 27-29, each of points p1 , p2, p3 and p4 have a first position at time to and a second position at a time t1. Extrapolation may be performed to determine a third position of the points p1 , p2, p3 and p4 at an extrapolated time in the future; see page 22 , lines 13-26, coordinates of point); and
determine that the distance measure exceeds a distance threshold (see Ozerov, page 26, lines 22-24, surface patches for which the alignment of the test surface to the reference surface has an alignment value that differs from the mean or median by more than a threshold may be too different).
Regarding claim 11. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the processing device is further to:
determine a difference measure for the conflicting surface representative of a difference between the first 3D surface and the second 3D surface (see Ozerov, Fig. 9); and
determine that the difference measure exceeds a difference threshold, wherein the second 3D surface is updated by replacing the data for the region of the second 3D surface with the data for the region of the first 3D surface responsive to determining that the difference measure exceeds the difference threshold (see Ozerov, page , lines , the severity of detected spatial and appearance differences caused by clinical changes may be determined based on comparison to one or more thresholds. Such thresholds may be default values or selected by a dental practitioner. Such clinical changes may then be visualized based on the determined severity).
Regarding claim 14. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the processing device is further to:
determine that the conflicting surface satisfies one or more criteria; and update the second 3D surface responsive to determining that the conflicting surface satisfies the one or more criteria (see Ozerov, page 19 and 20, lines 34-35 and 1-2, image difference extrapolator 184 may compare a clinical change to a severity threshold. If the clinical change is below the severity threshold, then it may represent a sub-clinical issue and may not be significant enough to treat presently).
Regarding claim 15. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the processing device is further to:
align the first 3D surface with the second 3D surface (see Ozerov, page 23 and 24, lines 30-34, techniques such as surface overlay and coloring of a test surface according to distance from points on the test surface to nearest points on the reference surface may be used. Both approaches depend on a fine alignment of the test surface to the reference surface that is typically achieved by semi-automatic algorithms because for significantly mismatching surfaces different alignment options are possible and it is difficult to fully automate the alignment process).
Regarding claim 16. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising:
an intraoral scanner configured to generate the one or more intraoral scans (see Ozerov, page 3, lines 17-18, individual 3D scans and/or individual images may be taken during a scan and used to create the virtual 3D model).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozerov (WO 2018152374 A1) in view of Kopelman (US-PAT-NO: 20130110469), and further in view of Sabina (PGPUB: 20180005371 A1).
Regarding claim 8. The combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the processing device is further to:
process the one or more intraoral scans to identify soft tissue in the one or more intraoral scans (see Ozerov, page 10, lines 5-9, the scan may provide 3D surface data (e.g., surface topography data) for the patient's intraoral cavity (including teeth, gingival tissues, etc.). The 3D surface data can be generated by directly scanning the intraoral cavity, a physical model (positive or negative) of the intraoral cavity, or an impression of the intraoral cavity, using a suitable scanning device (e.g., a handheld scanner, desktop scanner, etc.)).
However, the combination does not expressly teach to remove representations of the soft tissue from the one or more intraoral scans prior to determining the first 3D surface.
Sabina teaches that processing logic may generate a three dimensional virtual model of the dental site from the intraoral images. Processing logic may determine that a portion of the intraoral images represents soft tissue (e.g., gums) based at least in part on a difference between a previous depiction of the dental site as represented in the historical template and a current depiction of the dental site as represented in the intraoral images. The portion of the intraoral images determined to represent the soft tissue may be removed from the three dimensional virtual model of the dental site (see paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination by Sabina to obtain the portion of the intraoral images determined to represent the soft tissue may be removed from the three dimensional virtual model of the dental site, in order to provide to remove representations of the soft tissue from the one or more intraoral scans prior to determining the first 3D surface. Therefore, combining the elements from prior arts according to known methods and technique would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9. The combination teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the one or more intraoral scans are to be processed using a trained machine learning model that identifies the soft tissue in the one or more intraoral scans (see paragraph 53, Processing logic may determine that a portion of the intraoral images represents soft tissue (e.g., gums) based at least in part on a difference between a previous depiction of the dental site as represented in the historical template and a current depiction of the dental site as represented in the intraoral images. The portion of the intraoral images determined to represent the soft tissue may be removed from the three dimensional virtual model of the dental site).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIN JIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5536. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-7:30pm.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571)272-3838. 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.
/XIN JIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights