DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments/Arguments
This office action is responsive to the communication filed on 07/13/2026. As an initial matter, the claim objections 35 USC 112 rejections set forth in the previous office action have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments and arguments. In addition, renaming of previous claims 23-25 to 22-24 is noted, and addressed in this office action accordingly, necessitating a new ground of rejections.
Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to claims 1-24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues RE the limitations of independent claims 1 and 12 in pages 8-13 against the references individually. In response, the examiner contests that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As cited in the previous office action, combined teachings of Casas, Saphier and Shin are relied upon to address the limitations as a whole with explicit teaching and motivation, under the guidance of MPEP 2143.01. Here Casas teaches A method for aligning three-dimensional (3D) imagery of a patients in an extended reality (XR) system (Figs 1-2, abstract, [0006]), said method comprising the steps of: receiving a 3D image comprising at least one of a volumetric image, surface scan, or a photograph with depth information of the patient, wherein the volumetric image comprises a three-dimensional voxel array representing an anatomical structure, and the surface scan comprises a polygonal mesh or point cloud representing the same anatomical structure, and a photo represents the same anatomical structure with associated depth values for each pixel (Figs 1-3, [0030]-[0031], [0076], [0078]);
receiving at least one of a real-time display or video feed from XR goggles, or a prerecorded video (display/feed), wherein the display/feed provides real-time or prerecorded imagery of the patient's anatomical structure (Figs 1-3, [0031], [0014]);
registering the 3D imagery onto the display/feed's coordinates system frame by frame, while keeping temporal consistency; and rendering the 3D imagery onto the video feed based on the video feed coordinates registered (Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127] wherein real time tracking, pose update, and blending indicates keeping temporal consistency).
Casas is silent RE: patient's oral cavity and the temporal consistency between frames.
However Saphier teaches receiving intraoral scanning of an oral cavity of the patient in abstract, [0213] for capturing 3D dental structures for dental evaluation and treatment. In addition Shin teaches keeping temporal consistency across frames in [0044] using correlation response values, for learning correlation filters in object tracking in typical AR applications, which is readily available or can equally be applied in Casas readily teaching live tracking for real time medical procedure (Casas Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127], [0129]-[0130] etc) to provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time, enhancing user experience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas a system and method of receiving intraoral scanning of an oral cavity of the patient, as suggested by Saphier, for dental evaluation and treatment and further ensure temporal consistency across frames as suggested by Shin in order provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time extending the method and system to dentistry and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
In addition combined teachings of Casas and Saphier teaches limitations of amended claim 24 (previous claim 25), wherein Saphier (Figs 2A, 3, [0217], [0233], [0258]- [0259], [0226], [0271] etc) identifying facial and dental landmarks to assist in dental evaluation and treatment planning, wherein soft tissue points and hard tissue points are visible when the moth is closed and open is applied to address the limitations “soft tissue including standard facial landmarks, or on hard tissue, including teeth; wherein alignment by soft tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is closed, and alignment by hard tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is open”, in the in the alignment and displaying in XR of Casas accordingly with live tracking for real time medical procedure (Casas Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127], [0129]-[0130] etc) , as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, to extend the system in the dentistry.
In response to applicant's argument in page 8 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here explicit teaching and motivation to combine the references is set forth from the references above, wherein Casas readily teaches live tracking/alignment/superposition of anatomical structure for real time medical procedure in XR (Casas Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127], [0129]-[0130] etc). Further applying the intraoral scanning of an oral cavity of the patient, as suggested by Saphier, for dental evaluation and treatment extends the method and system to dentistry. In addition further ensure temporal consistency across frames suggested by Shin in order provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time, wherein Casas readily teaches real time tracking of anatomical landmark/structure in XR environment. Shin also suggests that maintaining temporal consistency within frame was known at the time of invention.
In response to applicant’s argument in pages 8-9 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, explicit teaching and motivation to combine the references is set forth from the references above, applying the intraoral scanning of an oral cavity of the patient, as suggested by Saphier, for dental evaluation and treatment extending the method and system to dentistry. In addition further ensure temporal consistency across frames suggested by Shin in order provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time, Casas readily teaches real time tracking of anatomical landmark/structure in XR environment.
Therefore as clearly set forth above, the applied references satisfies the claimed requirement and rejection of the claims are maintained.
Priority
The application is a CIP of US applications 17564565, 17215315, 16783615 and 16175067. However none of parent applicant application discloses the feature of “registering the 3D imagery onto the display/feed's coordinates system, frame by frame while keeping temporal consistency between frames; and rendering the 3D imagery onto the video feed based on the video feed coordinates registered.” in the independent claims 1 and 12.
In addition none of parent applicant application discloses the feature of “align the 3D object data with the video feed based on the identified corresponding points, wherein alignment by soft tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is closed, and alignment by hard tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is open; and display the aligned 3D objects in the XR environment.” In independent claim 24.
Therefore the priority of the claims 1-21, 23-25 are considered as the current filing date 2024-07-10 for examination purpose.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, including “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “module” in claims 12-21, 23-24.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9, 12-18, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casas (US 20160191887 A1), and further in view of Saphier et al (US 20210321872 A1) and Shin et al (US 20200380274 A1).
RE claim 1, Casas teaches A method for aligning three-dimensional (3D) imagery of a patient in an extended reality (XR) system (Figs 1-2, abstract, [0006]), said method comprising the steps of:
receiving a 3D image comprising at least one of a volumetric image, surface scan, or a photograph with depth information of the patient, wherein the volumetric image comprises a three-dimensional voxel array representing an anatomical structure, and the surface scan comprises a polygonal mesh or point cloud representing the same anatomical structure, and a photo represents the same anatomical structure with associated depth values for each pixel (Figs 1-3, [0030]-[0031], [0076], [0078]);
receiving at least one of a real-time display or video feed from XR goggles, or a prerecorded video (display/feed), wherein the display/feed provides real-time or prerecorded imagery of the patient's anatomical structure (Figs 1-3, [0031], [0014]);
registering the 3D imagery onto the display/feed's coordinate system frame by frame, while keeping temporal consistency; and rendering the 3D imagery onto the video feed based on the video feed coordinates registered (Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127] wherein real time tracking, pose update, and blending indicates keeping temporal consistency).
Casas is silent RE: patient's oral cavity and the temporal consistency between frames.
However Saphier teaches receiving intraoral scanning of an oral cavity of the patient in abstract, [0213] for capturing 3D dental structures for dental evaluation and treatment. In addition Shin teaches keeping temporal consistency across frames in [0044] using correlation response values, for learning correlation filters in object tracking in typical AR applications, which is readily available or can equally be applied readily teaching live tracking for real time medical procedure (Casas Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127], [0129]-[0130] etc with temporal consistency) to provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time, enhancing user experience.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas a system and method of receiving intraoral scanning of an oral cavity of the patient for dental evaluation and treatment, as suggested by Saphier, and further ensure temporal consistency across frames applying Shin in order provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time, as set forth above extending the method and system to dentistry and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches wherein receiving the 3D image from a volumetric image involves capturing multiple cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images and reconstructing them into a three-dimensional voxel array that represents the patient's anatomical structure (Casas [0030], [0073]-[0075] wherein the 3D data set is rendered/reconstructed as the 3D volumetric image represented with a grid of voxels (volume elements). Furthermore Saphier Fig 2A, [0213], [0471], [0521]).
RE claim 3, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches wherein receiving the 3D image from a surface scan involves intra-oral scanning the anatomical structure to produce a detailed polygonal mesh or point cloud that accurately reflects the surface contours (Casas [0076], [0083]. Furthermore Saphier Fig 2A, [0225], [0342], [0521]).
RE claim 4, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches, wherein receiving a video feed from the XR goggles includes streaming real-time video data from the goggles' cameras to a processing unit that integrates the registered feed of the 3D image (Casas [0171]).
RE claim 5, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches, wherein receiving a video feed from a prerecorded video includes accessing and processing stored video files that were captured during prior clinical sessions or procedures (Casas [0171]).
RE claim 6, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises detecting a set of points on the images, using machine learning algorithms to automatically identify and label anatomical landmarks on the volumetric image and surface scan (Casas [0130], [0167]. Furthermore Saphier Figs 2A, 3, [0271]).
RE claim 7, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches, wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises applying facial recognition algorithms to identify soft tissue landmarks and comparing them to the points detected on the 3D image (Casas [0130], [0089], [0092], [0108]. Furthermore Saphier Figs 2A, 3, [0233], [0258]- [0259] identifying facial/dental landmarks).
RE claim 8, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches, wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises applying dental recognition algorithms to identify hard tissue landmarks, including teeth, and comparing them to the points detected on the 3D image (Casas [0130], [0089], [0092], [0108]. Furthermore Saphier Figs 2A, 3, [0233], [0258]- [0259], [0271] identifying facial/dental landmarks).
RE claim 9, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin is silent RE, wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises applying a fully convolutional U-Net-like architecture, to obtain a probability distribution over the location of every point of interest; selecting a location of maximum probability as a detection of a landmark; and then filtering said detections by a probability threshold.
However Saphier teaches applying a fully convolutional U-Net-like architecture to identify dental landmarks in [0369], to obtain a probability distribution over the location of every point of interest ; selecting a location of maximum probability as a detection of a landmark; and then filtering said detections by a probability threshold ([0576], [0580], [0647], [0255], [0258]-[0259], [0295]-[0296], [0347]) to effectively perform the dental landmark detecting with high quality and accuracy utilizing the fully convolutional U-Net-like architecture.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin a system and method of wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises applying a fully convolutional U-Net-like architecture, to obtain a probability distribution over the location of every point of interest ; selecting a location of maximum probability as a detection of a landmark; and then filtering said detections by a probability threshold, as suggested by Saphier, to effectively perform the dental landmark detecting with high quality and accuracy utilizing the fully convolutional U-Net-like architecture and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 12, Casas teaches A system for aligning 3D images in an extended reality (XR) environment, said system comprising: a processor; a memory element coupled to the processor (Figs 1-2, 6, abstract, [0006], [0183], [0185]);
a first module configured to receive 3D images from a volumetric image or surface scan, wherein the volumetric image comprises a three-dimensional voxel array representing an anatomical structure, and the surface scan comprises a polygonal mesh or point cloud of the same anatomical structure (Figs 1-3, [0030]-[0031], [0076], [0078]);
a second module configured to detect a set of points on said 3D image, wherein the detection includes identifying distinct anatomical landmarks on the volumetric image or surface scan, including landmarks for soft tissue or landmarks for hard tissue, and assigning each identified point a unique identifier ([0130], [0089], [0092], [0108]);
a third module configured to receive a video feed from XR goggles or a prerecorded video, wherein the video feed provides real-time or prerecorded imagery of the patient's anatomical structure (Figs 1-3, [0031], [0014]);
a fourth module configured to register the 3D imagery onto the video feed's coordinates system, frame by frame while keeping temporal consistency; and a fifth module configured to render the 3D imagery onto the video feed based on the video feed coordinates registered (Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127] wherein real time tracking, pose update, and blending indicates keeping temporal consistency).
Casas is silent RE: facial landmarks or tooth landmarks and the temporal consistency between frames.
However Saphier teaches detecting facial landmarks or tooth landmarks in Figs 2A, 3, [0233], [0258]- [0259], [0271] to assist in dental evaluation and treatment planning. In addition Shin teaches keeping temporal consistency across frames in [0044] using correlation response values, for learning correlation filters in object tracking in typical AR applications, which is readily available or can equally be applied to provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time, enhancing user experience
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas a system and method of detecting facial landmarks or tooth landmarks for dental evaluation and treatment, as suggested by Saphier, and further ensure temporal consistency across frames as suggested by Shin in order provide the seamless blended video stream in real-time extending the method and system to dentistry and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 13-18, 22-23 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 2-3, 6, 9, 7-8, 4-5 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
RE claim 20, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches further comprising a user interface module configured to allow a clinician to manually select and mark anatomical landmarks on the volumetric image or surface scan (Casas [0087], in addition Saphier [0508]).
RE claim 21, Casas teaches further comprising a user interface module configured to allow a clinician to interact with the rendered video feed by hand or voice gesture to make annotations ([0076], [0084]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin, and further in view of Meyer et al (US 20210090272 A1).
RE claim 10, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin is silent RE, wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises detecting corresponding points and applying a weighted point-set alignment approach that assigns different weights to soft-tissue and hard-tissue points.
However Meyer teaches in Figs 7-8, [0045], [0072] for error free registration separating soft tissue from hard tissue based on the contribution weight.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin a system and method of wherein the registering and rendering of the 3D imagery onto the video feed comprises detecting corresponding points applying a weighted point-set alignment approach that gives different weights to soft tissue and hard tissue points, as suggested by Meyer, to obtain error free registration and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 10 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin, and further in view of Anssari et al (US 20210322136 A1).
RE claim 11, Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin teaches converting the volumetric image and the surface scan to a point cloud for alignment (Casas [0078], [0080], [0083], [0087]).
Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin is silent RE extracting a mesh from the volumetric image and converting the mesh to a point cloud. However Anssari teaches in [0075], [0098] to obtain the same data representation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas as modified by Saphier and Shin a system and method of extracting a mesh from the volumetric image and converting the mesh to a point cloud, as suggested by Anssari, to perform the point based registration between the 3D images and surface scans and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casas in view of Saphier.
RE claim 24, Casas teaches A system for aligning and displaying three-dimensional (3D) objects in an extended reality (XR) environment, said system comprising: a processor; a memory element coupled to the processor, wherein the memory element includes instructions (Figs 1-2, 6, abstract, [0006], [0183], [0185]) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive 3D image data comprising volumetric image and surface scan image; obtain a video feed from an XR device or from prerecorded content (Figs 1-3, [0030]-[0031], [0076], [0078]);
identify corresponding points between the 3D image data and the video feed, wherein the points are on at least one of soft tissue or on hard tissue ([0130], [0089], [0092], [0108]);
align the 3D image data with the video feed based on the identified corresponding points, and display the aligned 3D image data in the XR environment (Figs 1-3, [0006], [0009]- [0012], [0016]-[0017], [0032],[0035]-[0038], [0124], [0127] wherein real time tracking, pose update, and blending indicates keeping temporal consistency).
Casas is silent RE: soft tissue including standard facial landmarks, or on hard tissue, including teeth; wherein alignment by soft tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is closed, and alignment by hard tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is open.
However Saphier teaches in Figs 2A, 3, [0217], [0233], [0258]- [0259], [0226], [0271] etc identifying facial and dental landmarks to assist in dental evaluation and treatment planning, wherein soft tissue points and hard tissue points are visible when the moth is closed and open. This can be equally used in the alignment and displaying accordingly, as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Casas a system and method of detecting standard facial landmarks, or on hard tissue, including teeth; wherein alignment by soft tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is closed, and alignment by hard tissue points is used when the patient's mouth is open, for dental evaluation and treatment, as set forth above applying Saphier, in order to extend the method and system to dentistry and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See attached 892).
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 SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights