DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024, 11/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200 B2.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150209118 A1; Kopelman).
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Fisker et al (U.S. 20140022356 A1; Fisker).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Pesach et al (WO-2019/021285 A1 ; Pesach).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Fisker et al (U.S. 20140022356 A1; Fisker), and in further view of Pesach et al (WO-2019/021285 A1 ; Pesach).
Claim(s) 14 is 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.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200 B2.
For Claim 1, although this claim is not identical to Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200, this claim is not patentably distinct from Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200 because Claim 1 is broader than and fully encompassed by Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200.
Application 18/785,992 (U.S. 20240382295 A1)
US Patent 12,076,200 B2
A system comprising: an intraoral scanner configured to generate a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental arch; and one or more computing devices configured to: receive the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental arch; determine that at least one intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans comprises a depiction of a first three-dimensional (3D) surface and a depiction of at least a feature of a second 3D surface that is separated from the first 3D surface by at least one intervening 3D surface not shown in the at least one intraoral scan, wherein there is a distance between the first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan; stitch together the plurality of intraoral scans; and generate a virtual 3D model of the dental arch from the plurality of intraoral scans, wherein a distance between the first 3D surface and the second 3D surface in the virtual 3D model is based on the distance between first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan.
A system comprising: an intraoral scanner configured to generate a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental arch; and a computing device, wherein the computing device is to: receive the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental arch; determine that at least one intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans comprises both a buccal view of a first three-dimensional (3D) surface disposed at a first quadrant of the dental arch and having a first depth that is less than a depth threshold and a lingual view of at least a feature of a second 3D surface disposed at a second quadrant of the dental arch and having a second depth that is greater than the depth threshold, wherein there is a distance between the first 3D surface and at least the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan; stitch together the plurality of intraoral scans; and generate a virtual 3D model of the dental arch from the plurality of intraoral scans, wherein the at least one intraoral scan is used for generation of both the first 3D surface of the virtual 3D model and the second 3D surface of the virtual 3D model, and wherein a distance between the first 3D surface and the second 3D surface in the virtual 3D model is based on the distance between first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan.
For Claims 2-20, although this claim is not identical to Claims 1-11 and 13-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200, this claim is not patentably distinct from Claims 1-11 and 13-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200 because Claims 2-20 are broader than and fully encompassed by Claims 1-11 and 13-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,200.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6-8 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman).
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman discloses a system (Paragraph 25: “a system 100 for performing intraoral scanning and/or generating a virtual three dimensional model of a dental site. “) comprising:
an intraoral scanner (Fig.1: a scanner 150) configured to generate a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental arch; (Paragraph 29: “The scanner 150 may be used to perform an intraoral scan of a patient's oral cavity. An intraoral scan application 108 running on computing device 105 may communicate with the scanner 150 to effectuate the intraoral scan. A result of the intraoral scan may be a sequence of intraoral images that have been discretely generated (e.g., by pressing on a “generate image” button of the scanner for each image)”) and one or more computing devices (Fig.1: a computing device 105) configured to:
receive the plurality of intraoral scans of the dental arch; (Paragraph 29: “the scanner 150 may transmit the discrete intraoral images or intraoral video (referred to collectively as intraoral image data 135) to the computing device 105.”)
determine that at least one intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans comprises a depiction of a first three-dimensional (3D) surface (Fig.4: intraoral images 425) and a depiction of at least a feature of a second 3D surface (Fig.4: intraoral image 440) that is separated from the first 3D surface by at least one intervening 3D surface not shown in the at least one intraoral scan, (Fig. 4A-4B; Paragraph 30; Paragraph 75: “verification may be performed by testing the proximity and/or geometric conditions of the AOI relative to a surface of the latest intraoral image … if a candidate intraoral area of interest does not correspond to a region of a surface from another intraoral image, then the candidate intraoral image may be verified as an actual intraoral area of interest.”; Paragraph 127-129: “Multiple intraoral images 425, 430, 435, 440 have been taken of a dental site of a patient. Each of the intraoral images 425-440 may have been generated by an intraoral scanner having a particular distance from the dental surface being imaged. … the intraoral areas of interest 447, 448 represent portions of the patient's dental site that lack image data.”; Fig. 5B and Paragraph 131: “Multiple areas of interest 562, 564, 566, 568, 570, 572 are also shown in the image of the dental arch 550. These areas of interest 562, 564, 566, 568, 570, 572 represent missing scan data that satisfies a clinical importance criterion (e.g., intraoral areas of interest greater than a threshold size or having one or more dimensions that violate a geometric criterion). However, some areas of interest 562, 570 are largely occluded in the example image of the dental arch 550. Additionally, there are other areas of interest that are completely hidden.”) wherein there is a distance between the first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan; (Paragraph 59: “Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images. For example, model generation module 125 may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points.”;
stitch together the plurality of intraoral scans; (Paragraph 24: “apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and stitches these images together to form a combined image or virtual model.”; Paragraph 35: “overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be stitched together to provide a composite 3D virtual model.”) and
generate a virtual 3D model of the dental arch from the plurality of intraoral scans, (Paragraph 24: apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and stitches these images together to form a combined image or virtual model.”; Paragraph 35: “overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be stitched together to provide a composite 3D virtual model.” ; Paragraph 58: “to generate the virtual model, model generation module 125 may register (i.e., “stitch” together) the intraoral images generated from the intraoral scan session.”) wherein a distance between the first 3D surface and the second 3D surface in the virtual 3D model is based on the distance between first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan. (Paragraph 59: “image registration is performed for each pair of adjacent or overlapping intraoral images (e.g., each successive frame of an intraoral video). Image registration algorithms are carried out to register two adjacent intraoral images, which essentially involves determination of the transformations which align one image with the other. Each registration between a pair of images may be accurate to within 10-15 microns. Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images. For example, model generation module 125 may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points. “ ; Paragraph 61: “an image registration algorithm may compute a transformation between two adjacent images that will minimize the distances between points on one surface, and the closest points to them found in the interpolated region on the other image surface used as a reference.”)
Regarding claim 6, Kopelman discloses the first 3D surface is a disposed at a first quadrant of the dental arch, and wherein the feature of the second 3D surface is disposed at a second quadrant of the dental arch. (Paragraph 71: “At block 205 of method 200, an intraoral scan session of a dental site is started by a dental practitioner. The scan session may be for an intraoral scan of a partial or full mandibular or maxillary arch, or a partial or full scan of both arches. The dental practitioner may move an intraoral scanner to a first intraoral position and generate a first intraoral image.” ; Paragraph 74: “after the dental practitioner generates the first intraoral image, he or she moves the intraoral scanner to a second position and generates a next intraoral image.”)
Regarding claim 7, Kopelman discloses an intermolar width of the dental arch depicted in the virtual 3D model differs from a true intermolar width of the dental arch by no more than 20 microns. (Paragraph 78: “For a virtual 3D model of a full dental arch, the arch width of the virtual 3D model may be accurate to within 200 microns of the arch width of the patient's actual dental arch.”)
Regarding claim 8, Kopelman discloses the dental arch comprises at least one scan body having a known 3D shape, (Paragraph 37: “Such reference data 138 may include past data regarding the at-hand patient (e.g., intraoral images and/or virtual 3D models), pooled patient data, and/or pedagogical patient data, some or all of which may be stored in data store 110.”) and wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: determine that the feature of the second 3D surface depicts a portion of the scan body based on a comparison of the feature of the second 3D surface to the known 3D shape; ;(Paragraph 40 : “AOI identifying module 115 may additionally or alternatively analyze patient scan data relative to reference data in the form of dental record data of the patient and/or data of the patient from prior to the patient visit (e.g., one or more prior-to-the-visit 3D image point clouds and/or one or more prior-to-the-visit virtual 3D models of the patient).”) and determine a position of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan, wherein the known 3D shape is used to improve an accuracy of the position of the second 3D surface. (Paragraph 88: “block 320, the processing logic may consider patient scan data and/or one or more patient virtual 3D models relative to entities indicated by pooled patient data and/or by pedagogical patient data to constitute complete and/or un-flawed data.”)
Regarding claim 17, Kopelman discloses wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: guide a user to place a probe of the intraoral scanner at a particular position and a particular orientation via a graphical user interface; (Paragraph 64: “The training module 120 may match the scan data and/or one or more virtual 3D models arising from scanning performed by the user to scan data and/or virtual 3D models of the training guidance data pool, access corresponding information describing scanning technique changes, and present such scanning change technique information to the user (e.g., via a user interface).”; Paragraph 105: “he processing logic may provide indication regarding scan assistance, diagnostic assistance, and/or foreign object recognition assistance. As also discussed hereinabove, the processing logic may provide such indication during the user's (e.g., the practitioner's) scanner application, after the user's scanner application, and/or prior to and/or without construction of an intraoral virtual 3D model.”) detect when the probe of the intraoral scanner is at the particular position and the particular orientation; (Paragraphs 126-127: “The processing logic may allow a practitioner to respond (e.g., via user interface) to such an indication with agreement and/or disagreement that processing logic-identified objects are foreign objects. Each intraoral image may be generated by a scanner at a particular position (scanning station). The location and orientation of scanning stations may be selected such that together the intraoral images adequately cover an entire target zone.) and automatically cause the intraoral scanner to generate the at least one intraoral scan. (Paragraphs 30-35: “the user may apply scanner 150 to one or more patient intraoral locations. The scanning may be divided into one or more segments. … Via such scanner application, the scanner 150 may provide image data (also referred to as scan data) 135 to computing device 105. The image data 135 may include 2D intraoral images and/or 3D intraoral images. Such images may be provided from the scanner to the computing device 105 in the form of one or more points (e.g., one or more pixels and/or groups of pixels). … Intraoral scan application 108 may identify or determine a scanning protocol by relating the type of scanner, resolution thereof, capture area at an optimal spacing between the scanner head and the dental surface to the target area, etc.”;
Regarding claim 18, Kopelman discloses the second 3D surface is not connected to the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan. (Paragraph 75: “verification may be performed by testing the proximity and/or geometric conditions of the AOI relative to a surface of the latest intraoral image … if a candidate intraoral area of interest does not correspond to a region of a surface from another intraoral image, then the candidate intraoral image may be verified as an actual intraoral area of interest.”)
Regarding claim 19, Kopelman discloses a method (Paragraph 22: “a method and apparatus for improving the quality of scans, such as intraoral scans taken of dental sites for patients.”) comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices, a plurality of intraoral scans of a dental arch; (Paragraph 29: “the scanner 150 may transmit the discrete intraoral images or intraoral video (referred to collectively as intraoral image data 135) to the computing device 105.”)
determining, by the one or more computing devices, that at least one intraoral scan of the plurality of intraoral scans comprises a depiction of a first three-dimensional (3D) surface (Fig.4: intraoral images 425) and a depiction of at least a feature of a second 3D surface (Fig.4: intraoral image 440) that is separated from the first 3D surface by at least one intervening 3D surface not shown in the at least one intraoral scan, (Fig. 4A-4B; Paragraph 30; Paragraph 75: “verification may be performed by testing the proximity and/or geometric conditions of the AOI relative to a surface of the latest intraoral image … if a candidate intraoral area of interest does not correspond to a region of a surface from another intraoral image, then the candidate intraoral image may be verified as an actual intraoral area of interest.”; Paragraph 127-129: “Multiple intraoral images 425, 430, 435, 440 have been taken of a dental site of a patient. Each of the intraoral images 425-440 may have been generated by an intraoral scanner having a particular distance from the dental surface being imaged. … the intraoral areas of interest 447, 448 represent portions of the patient's dental site that lack image data.”; Fig. 5B and Paragraph 131: “Multiple areas of interest 562, 564, 566, 568, 570, 572 are also shown in the image of the dental arch 550. These areas of interest 562, 564, 566, 568, 570, 572 represent missing scan data that satisfies a clinical importance criterion (e.g., intraoral areas of interest greater than a threshold size or having one or more dimensions that violate a geometric criterion). However, some areas of interest 562, 570 are largely occluded in the example image of the dental arch 550. Additionally, there are other areas of interest that are completely hidden.”) wherein there is a distance between the first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan; (Paragraph 59: “Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images. For example, model generation module 125 may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points.”)
stitching together the plurality of intraoral scans; (Paragraph 24: “apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and stitches these images together to form a combined image or virtual model.”; Paragraph 35: “overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be stitched together to provide a composite 3D virtual model.”) and
generating a virtual 3D model of the dental arch from the plurality of intraoral scans, (Paragraph 24: apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and stitches these images together to form a combined image or virtual model.”; Paragraph 35: “overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be stitched together to provide a composite 3D virtual model.” ; Paragraph 58: “to generate the virtual model, model generation module 125 may register (i.e., “stitch” together) the intraoral images generated from the intraoral scan session.”) wherein a distance between the first 3D surface and the second 3D surface in the virtual 3D model is based on the distance between first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan. (Paragraph 59: “image registration is performed for each pair of adjacent or overlapping intraoral images (e.g., each successive frame of an intraoral video). Image registration algorithms are carried out to register two adjacent intraoral images, which essentially involves determination of the transformations which align one image with the other. Each registration between a pair of images may be accurate to within 10-15 microns. Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images. For example, model generation module 125 may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points. “ ; Paragraph 61: “an image registration algorithm may compute a transformation between two adjacent images that will minimize the distances between points on one surface, and the closest points to them found in the interpolated region on the other image surface used as a reference.”)
Regarding claim 20, Kopelman discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations (Paragraphs 136-139: “The data storage device 728 may include a machine-readable storage medium (or more specifically a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) 724 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions 726 embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. … the instructions 726 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 704 and/or within the processing device 702 during execution thereof by the computer device 700,”) comprising:
determining that at least one intraoral scan of a plurality of intraoral scans comprises a depiction of a first three-dimensional (3D) surface(Fig.4: intraoral images 425) and a depiction of at least a feature of a second 3D surface (Fig.4: intraoral image 440) that is separated from the first 3D surface by at least one intervening 3D surface not shown in the at least one intraoral scan, (Fig. 4A-4B; Paragraph 30; Paragraph 75: “verification may be performed by testing the proximity and/or geometric conditions of the AOI relative to a surface of the latest intraoral image … if a candidate intraoral area of interest does not correspond to a region of a surface from another intraoral image, then the candidate intraoral image may be verified as an actual intraoral area of interest.”; Paragraph 127-129: “Multiple intraoral images 425, 430, 435, 440 have been taken of a dental site of a patient. Each of the intraoral images 425-440 may have been generated by an intraoral scanner having a particular distance from the dental surface being imaged. … the intraoral areas of interest 447, 448 represent portions of the patient's dental site that lack image data.”; Fig. 5B and Paragraph 131: “Multiple areas of interest 562, 564, 566, 568, 570, 572 are also shown in the image of the dental arch 550. These areas of interest 562, 564, 566, 568, 570, 572 represent missing scan data that satisfies a clinical importance criterion (e.g., intraoral areas of interest greater than a threshold size or having one or more dimensions that violate a geometric criterion). However, some areas of interest 562, 570 are largely occluded in the example image of the dental arch 550. Additionally, there are other areas of interest that are completely hidden.”) wherein there is a distance between the first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan; (Paragraph 59: “Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images. For example, model generation module 125 may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points.”;
stitching together the plurality of intraoral scans; (Paragraph 24: “apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and stitches these images together to form a combined image or virtual model.”; Paragraph 35: “overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be stitched together to provide a composite 3D virtual model.”) and
generating a virtual 3D model of the dental arch from the plurality of intraoral scans, (Paragraph 24: apply to any type of scanner that takes multiple images and stitches these images together to form a combined image or virtual model.”; Paragraph 35: “overlapping of the images or scans capable of being obtained at adjacent scanning stations is designed into the scanning protocol to enable accurate image registration, so that intraoral images can be stitched together to provide a composite 3D virtual model.” ; Paragraph 58: “to generate the virtual model, model generation module 125 may register (i.e., “stitch” together) the intraoral images generated from the intraoral scan session.”) wherein a distance between the first 3D surface and the second 3D surface in the virtual 3D model is based on the distance between first 3D surface and the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan. (Paragraph 59: “image registration is performed for each pair of adjacent or overlapping intraoral images (e.g., each successive frame of an intraoral video). Image registration algorithms are carried out to register two adjacent intraoral images, which essentially involves determination of the transformations which align one image with the other. Each registration between a pair of images may be accurate to within 10-15 microns. Image registration may involve identifying multiple points in each image (e.g., point clouds) of an image pair, surface fitting to the points of each image, and using local searches around points to match points of the two adjacent images. For example, model generation module 125 may match points of one image with the closest points interpolated on the surface of the other image, and iteratively minimize the distance between matched points. “ ; Paragraph 61: “an image registration algorithm may compute a transformation between two adjacent images that will minimize the distances between points on one surface, and the closest points to them found in the interpolated region on the other image surface used as a reference.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150209118 A1; Kopelman).
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman discloses wherein the dental arch is an edentulous dental arch comprising a plurality of scan bodies, wherein the first 3D surface represents at least a portion of a first scan body of the plurality of scan bodies, wherein the at least one intervening 3D surface represents a second scan body of the plurality of scan bodies, and wherein the second 3D surface represents at least a portion of a third scan body of the plurality of scan bodies.
Kopelman discloses the dental arch is an edentulous dental arch comprising a plurality of scan bodies, (Paragraph 62: “FIG. 4A illustrates an example dental arch 400 that is missing two teeth. The illustrated dental arch 400 is missing a pair of adjacent teeth at a target zone 415 of the dental arch 400. The dental arch 400 includes gums 405 and multiple teeth 410”) wherein the first 3D surface represents at least a portion of a first scan body of the plurality of scan bodies, (Paragraph 84: “FIG. 5D illustrates a first intraoral image 520, which includes a first representation of a first portion of an adhesive object 530, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.”) wherein the at least one intervening 3D surface represents a second scan body of the plurality of scan bodies, (Paragraph 84: “This enables the system to extrapolate the shape and orientation of the rest of the adhesive object to form a virtual representation of the adhesive object 532 from each of the representations of the adhesive object 530. The virtual representation 532 can be used to successfully stitch the two intraoral images together, as shown in FIG. 5F, even though there may be no or minimal overlap between the intraoral images 520, 525.”) and wherein the second 3D surface represents at least a portion of a third scan body of the plurality of scan bodies (Paragraph 84: “FIG. 5E illustrates a second intraoral image 525, which includes a second representation of a second portion of the adhesive object 530, in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention. As shown, the first representation of adhesive object 530 and the second representation of the adhesive object 530 each include a different portion of the adhesive object.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman by including addition of an adhesive object placed at the location of the missing teeth that is taught by Kopelman, to make the invention that intraoral scanning in oral cavities that lack one or more teeth; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the quality of intraoral scans taken of dental sites for patients missing some or all of their teeth as well as enhancing an accuracy of image registration.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Fisker et al (U.S. 20140022356 A1; Fisker).
Regarding claim 3, Kopelman discloses all the claim invention except wherein the plurality of intraoral scans are generated by an intraoral scanner having a depth of focus that is greater than 30 mm, wherein the first 3D surface has a depth of less than 30 mm, and wherein the second 3D surface has a depth of greater than 30 mm.
Fisker discloses the plurality of intraoral scans are generated by an intraoral scanner having a depth of focus that is greater than 30 mm, (Paragraph 32: “the depth of the scan volume of the scanner as measured from the scanner is in the range of about 3 mm to about 100 mm, such as in the range of about 5 mm to about 50 mm, such as in the range of about 10 mm to about 30 mm, such as in the range of about 15 mm to about 25 mm”) wherein the first 3D surface has a depth of less than 30 mm, (Paragraph 29: “the first camera may record a high value of the correlation measure for that sensor element at the in-focus position,” ; Paragraph 30: “the first depth of field is in the range of about 5 .mu.m to about 1000 .mu.m,”) and wherein the second 3D surface has a depth of greater than 30 mm. (Paragraph 31: “the second depth of field is in the range of about 1 mm to about 150 mm,”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman by including 3D focus scanner that is taught by Fisker, to make the invention that an optical system in a 3D focus scanner.; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the scanner properly for 3D scanning of a certain region as well as enhancing a 3D surface or 3D model of the object in image processing.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Kopelman discloses the plurality of intraoral scans are generated by an intraoral scanner having a lateral field of view, (Paragraph 71: “The intraoral image may be a three dimensional (3D) image having a particular height, width and depth. In some embodiments, an intraoral scanner is used that generates 3D images having a depth of 12-14 mm, a height of 13-15 mm and a width of 17-19 mm”)wherein the first 3D surface is at a first side of the lateral field of view, and wherein the second 3D surface is at a second side of the lateral field of view. (Paragraphs 53-54: “indicators may identify classifications assigned to intraoral areas of interest. … The AOI identifying module 115 may compare the first bite line component to the second bite line component to check for a deviation. Such a deviation might be suggestive of the patient having moved his jaw during scanning (e.g., the patient having moved his jaw in an interim between a practitioner's scanning of the lower jaw and the practitioner's scanning of the upper jaw, or in an interim between the practitioner's scanning of the left side of the jaw and the and the practitioner's scanning of right side of the jaw).
However, Kopelman does not discloses the plurality of intraoral scans are generated by an intraoral scanner having a lateral field of view of greater than 30 mm,
Fisker discloses the plurality of intraoral scans are generated by an intraoral scanner having a lateral field of view of greater than 30 mm, (Paragraph 32: “the depth of the scan volume of the scanner as measured from the scanner is in the range of about 3 mm to about 100 mm, such as in the range of about 5 mm to about 50 mm, such as in the range of about 10 mm to about 30 mm, such as in the range of about 15 mm to about 25 mm”).
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman by including 3D focus scanner that is taught by Fisker, to make the invention that an optical system in a 3D focus scanner.; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the scanner properly for 3D scanning of a certain region as well as enhancing a 3D surface or 3D model of the object in image processing.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Kopelman discloses all the claim invention except wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: determine a first depth of the first 3D surface, wherein the first depth is less than a depth threshold; and determine a second depth of the feature of the second 3D surface, wherein the second depth is greater than the depth threshold, and wherein a largest depth of a point on the first 3D surface is smaller than a smallest depth of a point on the feature of the second 3D surface.
Fisker discloses wherein the one or more computing device is further to: determine a first depth of the first 3D surface, wherein the first depth is less than a depth threshold; (Paragraph 29: “the first camera may record a high value of the correlation measure for that sensor element at the in-focus position,” ; Paragraph 30: “the first depth of field is in the range of about 5 .mu.m to about 1000 .mu.m,” and
determine a second depth of the feature of the second 3D surface, wherein the second depth is greater than the depth threshold, (Paragraph 31: “the second depth of field is in the range of about 1 mm to about 150 mm,”) and
wherein a largest depth of a point on the first 3D surface is smaller than a smallest depth of a point on the feature of the second 3D surface. (Paragraph 80: “the depth of field is very small or shallow in the images obtained by the first camera for the focus scanning, and the depth of field is very large for the assisting image obtained by the second camera.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman by including 3D focus scanner that is taught by Fisker, to make the invention that an optical system in a 3D focus scanner.; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the scanner properly for 3D scanning of a certain region as well as enhancing a 3D surface or 3D model of the object in image processing.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Kopelman, as modified by Fisker, discloses all the claims invention. Fisker further discloses the first depth is about 0-30 mm, (Paragraph 30: “the first depth of field is in the range of about 5 .mu.m to about 1000 .mu.m,”) and wherein the second depth is about 40-90 mm. (Paragraph 31: “the second depth of field is in the range of about 1 mm to about 150 mm,”)
Regarding claim 15, Kopelman, as modified by Fisker, discloses all the claims invention. Fisker further discloses wherein: determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises searching for 3D surfaces that have depths that are less than the depth threshold; (Paragraph 19: “a first optical system for imaging with a first depth of field on the first camera at least part of the transmitted light rays returned from the object to the array of sensor elements,”; Paragraph 20: means for varying the position of the focus plane on the object,” ; Paragraph 29: “The first camera may record a high value of the correlation measure for that sensor element at the in-focus position, when the position of the focus plane is varied over a range of values.”) and determining the second depth of at least the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises searching for 3D surfaces that have depths that are greater than or equal to the depth threshold, (Paragraph 28: “the second camera is configured for obtaining images with a second depth of field. In some embodiments, the scanner comprises optical components arranged to image at least part of the selected portion of the light rays returned from the object onto the second camera with a second depth of field.”) wherein the searching for the 3D surfaces that have depths that are greater than or equal to the depth threshold is performed after all 3D surfaces with depths that are less than the depth threshold have been identified. (Paragraph 49: “a second camera used for obtaining an image with a large depth of field while obtaining shallow depth of field images needed for the 3D scanning with the first camera in the apparatus. The large depth of field image may have such a large depth of field that all scanned parts of the object are in focus”)
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Pesach et al (WO-2019/021285 A1 ; Pesach).
Regarding claim 5, Kopelman discloses all the claims invention except wherein: as a result of stitching together the plurality of intraoral scans exclusive of the at least one intraoral scan, there are a first number of links between pairs of intraoral scans that connect the first 3D surface on a first quadrant of the dental arch to the second 3D surface on a second quadrant of the dental arch; as a result of stitching together the plurality of intraoral scans inclusive of the at least one intraoral scan, there are a second number of links between pairs of intraoral scans that connect the first 3D surface on the first quadrant of the dental arch to the second 3D surface on the second quadrant of the dental arch; and the second number of links is lower than the first number of links and causes an increased accuracy in the virtual 3D model.
Pesach discloses as a result of stitching together the plurality of intraoral scans exclusive of the at least one intraoral scan, there are a first number of links between pairs of intraoral scans that connect the first 3D surface on a first quadrant of the dental arch to the second 3D surface on a second quadrant of the dental arch; (Figs.40 ; Page 84 – lines 13-15 : “the composite model may include a composite image, a composite depth mapped image and/or a full 3D composite model. Optionally, one or more of the small scale models 4082 may include an image, a depth mapped image and/or a 3D model.”) as a result of stitching together the plurality of intraoral scans inclusive of the at least one intraoral scan, there are a second number of links between pairs of intraoral scans that connect the first 3D surface on the first quadrant of the dental arch to the second 3D surface on the second quadrant of the dental arch; (Fig.40 and Page 84 – lines 18-22: “the locations of features in the model are corrected based on a large scale measurement 4084. For example, measurement 4084 may be derived from a large scale image and/or a compound image that includes features in distant locations. For example, the 3D model may be conditioned on one or more large scale measurements 4084. In some embodiments, a large scale measurement is collected by an IOS using imager/s at different location/s within the IOS.”) and the second number of links (large scale measurement 4084) is lower than the first number of links (the small scale models 4082) and causes an increased accuracy in the virtual 3D model ( Page 84– lines15-17: “stitching together small scale models 4082 creates an additive error over a long distance (covering a few small stitched together zones).”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman by including correcting of a composite image that is taught by Pesach, to make the invention that an intra oral scanner to produce accurate large scale maps; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving depth accuracy when working at a large distance of intraoral scanner as well as enhancing accuracy of calculations of the relative position of the ends of the arch.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Kopelman discloses all the claims invention except wherein: the intraoral scanner comprises a plurality of cameras and a plurality of light projectors; a first combination of data associated with a first light projector of the plurality of light projectors and a first camera of the plurality of cameras is used to detect the first 3D surface, wherein the first light projector has a first distance from the first camera; and a second combination of data associated with the first flight projector and a second camera of the plurality of cameras is used to detect at least the feature of the second 3D surface, wherein the first light projector has a second distance from the second camera that is greater than the first distance.
Pesach discloses the intraoral scanner comprises a plurality of cameras and a plurality of light projectors; (Fig.19B ; Page 53 – lines 29-31: “the IOS is used to image details on a nearby object (for example an object that is less than 15 mm from the imager module 1912b) imager module 1912b may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920c” ; Page 54- lines 1-4 : when the IOS is used to image details on a relatively far away object (for example an object that is more than 15 mm from imager module 1912c), imager module 1912c may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920c.”)
a first combination of data associated with a first light projector of the plurality of light projectors and a first camera of the plurality of cameras is used to detect the first 3D surface, wherein the first light projector has a first distance from the first camera; ; (Page 53 – lines 27-31 : “a first imager module 1912b is optionally located on the IOS near a projector 1920c (e.g. the baseline 1907a distance between the imager module 1912b and the projector 1920c is small). For example, when the IOS is used to image details on a nearby object (for example an object that is less than 15 mm from the imager module 1912b) imager module 1912b may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920c.”) and a second combination of data associated with the first flight projector and a second camera of the plurality of cameras is used to detect at least the feature of the second 3D surface, wherein the first light projector has a second distance from the second camera that is greater than the first distance. Page 53 – lines 32-34 and Page 54 – lines 1-4 : a second imager module 1912c may be located on the IOS further from the project 1920c than imager module 1912b (e.g. the baseline 1907b distance between the imager module 1912c and the projector 1920c is larger than the baseline 1907a distance between the imager module 1912b and the projector 1920c). For example, when the IOS is used to image details on a relatively far away object (for example an object that is more than 15 mm from imager module 1912c), imager module 1912c may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920c.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman by including scanning an oral cavity that is taught by Pesach, to make the invention that an intra oral scanner to produce accurate large scale maps; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving depth accuracy when working at a large distance of intraoral scanner as well as enhancing accuracy of calculations of the relative position of the ends of the arch.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman et al (U.S. 20150320320 A1; Kopelman), in view of Fisker et al (U.S. 20140022356 A1; Fisker), and in further view of Pesach et al (WO-2019/021285 A1 ; Pesach).
Regarding claim 11, Kopelman, as modified by Fisker, discloses all the claim invention except wherein: the at least one intraoral scan comprises a plurality of detected pattern features, where each detected pattern feature of the plurality of detected pattern features is based on a projected pattern feature projected by a light projector of an intraoral scanner that has been captured by one or more cameras of a plurality of cameras of the intraoral scanner; determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises running a correspondence algorithm that determines three-dimensional positions for detected pattern features using the depth threshold, wherein the depth threshold limits searching for depths that are greater than the depth threshold for the detected pattern features; and determining the second depth of at least the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises running the correspondence algorithm without the depth threshold after the correspondence algorithm has been run using the depth threshold.
Pesach discloses the at least one intraoral scan comprises a plurality of detected pattern features, where each detected pattern feature of the plurality of detected pattern features is based on a projected pattern feature projected by a light projector of an intraoral scanner that has been captured by one or more cameras of a plurality of cameras of the intraoral scanner; (Fig.19A-19B ; Page 53– line 12: “imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920a.” ; Page 53 – lines 18-19: “imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920b.”) determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises running a correspondence algorithm that determines three-dimensional positions for detected pattern features using the depth threshold, wherein the depth threshold limits searching for depths that are greater than the depth threshold for the detected pattern features; (Page 53 – lines 10-12:when the IOS is used to image details on a nearby object (for example an object that is less than 15 mm from the imager module 1912a) imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920a.”) and determining the second depth of at least the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises running the correspondence algorithm without the depth threshold after the correspondence algorithm has been run using the depth threshold. (Page 53 – lines 16-19: “the IOS is used to image details on a relatively far away object (for example an object that is more than 15 mm from imager module 1912a), imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920b.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman and Fisker by including scanning an oral cavity that is taught by Pesach, to make the invention that an intra oral scanner to produce accurate large scale maps; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving depth accuracy when working at a large distance of intraoral scanner as well as enhancing accuracy of calculations of the relative position of the ends of the arch.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Kopelman, as modified by Fisker and Pesach, discloses all the claim invention. Pesach further discloses the detected pattern features and the projected pattern feature comprise spots. (Fig.7A-C and Page 40 – line 9: “In Fig. 7C, structured light projecting microtransparency 702 is rotated to project a schematic line pattern of diagonal lines that are close to normal to baseline 706 connecting the centers of image sensors 112. In this example, variations of projected pattern or lines during movements will be different between the two images acquired by image sensors 112. … structured light projecting slides 702 with several pattern orientations can be used to cast patterns on a common portion of the ROI, so that processing unit 116 can select the most appropriate structured light projecting microtransparency 702 to use based on IOS head 750 orientation and position in respect to the location of tooth 200 and/or ROI”)
Regarding claim 13, Kopelman, as modified by Fisker, discloses all the claim invention except wherein: the at least one intraoral scan comprises a plurality of detected pattern features, where each detected pattern feature of the plurality of detected pattern features is based on a projected pattern feature projected by one of a plurality of light projectors of an intraoral scanner that has been captured by one or more cameras of a plurality of cameras of the intraoral scanner; determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises identifying a first correspondence of a first pattern feature of the plurality of detected pattern features detected by a first camera of the plurality of cameras to a first projected pattern feature projected by a first light projector of the plurality of light projectors, wherein the first light projector has a first distance from the first camera; and determining the second depth of at least the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises identifying a second correspondence of a second pattern feature of the plurality of detected pattern features detected by the first camera or a second camera of the plurality of cameras to a second projected pattern feature projected by a second light projector of the plurality of light projectors, wherein the second light projector has a second distance from the first camera or the second camera, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance.
Pesach discloses the at least one intraoral scan comprises a plurality of detected spots, where each detected spot of the plurality of detected spots is based on a projected spot projected by one of a plurality of light projectors of an intraoral scanner that has been captured by one or more cameras of a plurality of cameras of the intraoral scanner; (Fig.19A-19B ; Page 53– line 12: “imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920a.” ; Page 53 – lines 18-19: “imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920b.”) determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises identifying a first correspondence of a first spot of the plurality of detected spots detected by a first camera of the plurality of cameras to a first projected spot projected by a first light projector of the plurality of light projectors, (Page 53– lines 22-24: “the focal distance of pattern projector 1920b may be larger (for example ranging between 15 to 50 mm) than the focus distance of projector 1920a (for example ranging between 1 to 15 mm).”) wherein the first light projector has a first distance from the first camera; (Page 53 – lines 8-12: a first projector 1920a is optionally located on the IOS near an imager module 1912a (e.g. the baseline 1907a distance between the imager module 1912a and the projector 1920a is small). For example, when the IOS is used to image details on a nearby object (for example an object that is less than 15 mm from the imager module 1912a) imager module 1912a may be used to detect a pattern produced by projector 1920a.”) and determining the second depth of at least the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises identifying a second correspondence of a second spot of the plurality of detected spots detected by the first camera or a second camera of the plurality of cameras to a second projected spot projected by a second light projector of the plurality of light projectors, (Page 53– lines 22-24: “the focal distance of pattern projector 1920b may be larger (for example ranging between 15 to 50 mm) than the focus distance of projector 1920a (for example ranging between 1 to 15 mm).”) wherein the second light projector has a second distance from the first camera or the second camera, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance. (Page 53 – lines 13-16: “ a second pattern projector 1920b may be located on the IOS further from imager module 1912a than projector 1920a (e.g. the baseline 1907b distance between the imager module 1912a and the projector module 1920b is larger than the baseline 1907a distance between the imager module 1912a and the projector module 1920a).”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kopelman and Fisker by including scanning an oral cavity that is taught by Pesach, to make the invention that an intra oral scanner to produce accurate large scale maps; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving depth accuracy when working at a large distance of intraoral scanner as well as enhancing accuracy of calculations of the relative position of the ends of the arch.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, Kopelman, as modified by Fisker and Pesach, does not discloses/teaches wherein: the at least one intraoral scan was generated by an intraoral scanner comprising a plurality of cameras;
the first 3D surface was in a first field of view (FOV) of a first camera of the plurality of cameras and in a second FOV of a second camera of the plurality of cameras that is a first distance from the first camera;
the feature of the second 3D surface was in the first FOV of the first camera or a third FOV of a third camera of the plurality of cameras and in a fourth FOV of a fourth camera of the plurality of cameras that is a second distance from the first camera or the third camera, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance;
determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises triangulating a first depiction of the first 3D surface as captured by a first camera with a second depiction of the first 3D surface as captured by the second camera; and
determining the second depth of the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises triangulating a first depiction of the feature of the second 3D surface as captured by the first camera or the third camera with a second depiction of the feature of the second 3D surface as captured by the fourth camera.
Claims 14 is subject allowable matter by the limitation wherein: the at least one intraoral scan was generated by an intraoral scanner comprising a plurality of cameras;
the first 3D surface was in a first field of view (FOV) of a first camera of the plurality of cameras and in a second FOV of a second camera of the plurality of cameras that is a first distance from the first camera; the feature of the second 3D surface was in the first FOV of the first camera or a third FOV of a third camera of the plurality of cameras and in a fourth FOV of a fourth camera of the plurality of cameras that is a second distance from the first camera or the third camera, wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance; determining the first depth of the first 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises triangulating a first depiction of the first 3D surface as captured by a first camera with a second depiction of the first 3D surface as captured by the second camera; and determining the second depth of the feature of the second 3D surface in the at least one intraoral scan comprises triangulating a first depiction of the feature of the second 3D surface as captured by the first camera or the third camera with a second depiction of the feature of the second 3D surface as captured by the fourth camera.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dillon et al (U.S. 20120062701 A1), “Method of Data Acquisition for Three-Dimensional Imaging”, teaches about a method of acquiring 3D image data of an object scene using a plurality of 3D measurement scans and generating a complete 3D image from the scans. It also teaches about the measurement device is positioned and translated to enable 3D data to be acquired for a backbone 3D data set. Subsequent controlled motion of the measurement device enables additional 3D data to be acquired and accurately joined to the backbone 3D data set.
Duret et al (U.S. 20140146142 A1), “Three-Dimensional Measuring Device Used In the Dental Field”, teaches about a new secure three-dimensional measuring device through contactless high-precision and wide-field optical color impression without structured active light projection, especially for dentistry. It also teaches about The image-capturing device is capable of simultaneously, or almost simultaneously, capturing at least two images, one of which is totally or partially included in the other one. The included image describes a narrower field than that of the other one, and has a higher accuracy than that of the other one.
Jin (U.S. 20150379780 A1), “ Image Display to Display 3D image and Sectional Images”, teaches about image display capable of displaying a three-dimensional image and sectional images concurrently in defined relation. It also teaches about the processor may generate the 3D image data to display the 3D image by locating the first image point of the 3D image at a first position in the first display region and the sectional image data to display the sectional image of the 3D image by locating a second image point of the sectional image at a second position in the second display region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duy A Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-4887. 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, ONEAL R MISTRY can be reached at (313)-446-4912. 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.
/DUY TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights