DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PA202370444, filed on August 29, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because a computer program product could be a transitory medium or program software per se. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: "the method" language is missing from line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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, 2, 13, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Makmel (US20240307159A1).
Regarding claim 1, Makmel teaches an intraoral scanner system configured to display a correction feedback signal during a scan session, wherein the intraoral system comprises: “The intraoral scans may be generated by projecting, via the projectors, a structured light including features (e.g., spots, a projected pattern) onto the dental site and capturing the features on the dental site” (Makmel, 0043).
A handheld intraoral scanner configured to obtain light information reflected from a dental object inside an oral cavity through a field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner; “As the quality scores gradually change, a visualization of the regions may change in accordance with the changes in the quality scores, enabling a user to have real time or near real time feedback on surface quality during scanning” (Makmel, 0068) and “FIG. 2A is a schematic illustration of a handheld intraoral scanner with a plurality of cameras disposed within a probe at a distal end of the intraoral scanner, according to certain embodiments” (Makmel, 0029). “The light reflects off intraoral objects and passes back through windows (if they are present), reflects off of the mirror, passes through the optical system, and is reflected by the beam splitter onto a detector. The detector is an image sensor having a matrix of sensing elements each representing a pixel of the scan or image. In some embodiments, the detector is a charge coupled device (CCD) sensor. In some embodiments, the detector is a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) type image sensor. Other types of image sensors may also be used for detector. In some embodiments, the detector detects light intensity at each pixel, which may be used to compute height or depth” (Makmel, 0102).
One or more processors configured to process the light information and to generate a digital 3D model of the dental object based on the processed light information; “The intraoral scanner 300 may use multi-structured light to create a 3D model” (Makmel, 0106) and “In some embodiments, the processor 96 may combine at least one 3D scan captured using illumination from structured light projectors 22 with a plurality of intraoral 2D images captured using illumination from uniform light projector 118 in order to generate a digital three-dimensional image of the intraoral three-dimensional surface” (Makmel, 0094).
And a graphical user interface configured to display the digital 3D model, “Intraoral scan application 115 may generate one or more 3D models from intraoral scans and may display the 3D models to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a graphical user interface (GUI)” (Makmel, 0072).
Where the one or more processors are configured to:
Display in real-time and on the graphical user interface a field-of-view frame representing a position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner; “This process may be performed in real time or near-real time to provide an updated view of the captured 3D surfaces during the intraoral scanning process” (Makmel, 0068).
Generate a correction feedback signal that corresponds to the field-of-view, and wherein the correction feedback signal that corresponds to the field-of-view frame, and wherein the correction feedback signal includes a suggested correction of the position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner, wherein the correction feedback signal is characterized by a signal direction, wherein the signal direction is a direction from a center of the field-of-view frame towards a center of mass of a part of the digital 3D model rendered in the field-of-view frame. “The feedback signal guides the scanner and directly facilitates the center of the display “ (Makmel, 0067). “In one viewing mode, the 3D surface may be continuously updated such that an orientation of the 3D surface that is displayed aligns with a field of view of the intraoral scanner (e.g., so that a portion of the 3D surface that is based on a most recently generated intraoral scan is approximately centered on the display or on a window of the display)” (Makmel, 0067). “In some embodiments, a mouth model (interpreted as generated correction) is generated and/or adjusted using the estimated position and/or orientation of abutment/s” (Makmel, 0193). “This process may be performed in real time or near-real time to provide an updated view of the captured 3D surfaces during the intraoral scanning process. As scans are received, these scans may be registered and stitched to a 3D surface. Quality scores may be determined for various regions of the 3D surface based on one or more criteria as discussed in detail below. The quality scores may be continuously or periodically updated as information is added from further intraoral scans. As the quality scores gradually change, a visualization of the regions may change in accordance with the changes in the quality scores, enabling a user to have real time or near real time feedback on surface quality during scanning” (Makmel, 0068). It is interpreted that the feedback signal changes and directly facilitates the display when correction is needed.
Regarding claim 2, the system according to claim 1, Makmel teaches further wherein the correction feedback signal is characterized by a signal intensity. “Additionally, or alternatively, as scanning is being performed a zoom setting for displaying the 3D surface(s) may be dynamically determined based on one or more criteria, such as a velocity of the scanner and/or of a point of focus of the scanner (interpreted as signal intensity). Signal intensity is the primary indicator used to find the optimal point of focus” (Makmel, 0068).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 1. As such, claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 16, the method according to claim 13, Makmel teaches wherein the predetermined distance limit is a depth-of-field of the handheld intraoral scanner. “During scanning, the scanner 150 is calculating distances to solid surfaces in some embodiments. These distances may be recorded as images called ‘height maps’ (interpreted as predetermined distance limit) or as point clouds in some embodiments. Each scan (e.g., optionally height map or point cloud) is overlapped algorithmically, or ‘stitched,’ with the previous set of scans to generate a growing 3D surface” (Makmel, 0066).
Regarding claim 19, Makmel teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 13. “In some embodiments, a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium stores instructions that when executed by a processing device (e.g., of computing device 105 of FIG. 1, computing device 600 of FIG. 6, etc.) cause the processing device to perform methods 500A-B” (Makmel, 0150).
Regarding claim 20, Makmel teaches computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, causes the computer to carry out the according to claim 13. “Examples described herein also relate to an apparatus for performing the methods described herein. In some embodiments, this apparatus is specially constructed for performing the methods described herein or includes a general-purpose computer system selectively programmed by a computer program stored in the computer system. Such a computer program is stored in a computer-readable tangible storage medium” (Makmel, 0169).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makmel (US20240307159A1) in view of Pesach (US20230285124A1).
Regarding claim 3, The system according to claim 2, Makmel does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, Pesach teaches wherein the signal direction and/or the signal intensity are determined based on a relative position of a part of the digital 3D model rendered in the field-of-view frame with respect to the field-of-view frame. “For example, in some embodiments, direction and/or angle that the FOVs are directed to (e.g. by movement of the IOS) are selected before and/or during measurements, e.g. based on known implant and/or abutment position” (Pesach, 0452).
Makmel and Pesach are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and signal direction of Pesach in order for small FOV detailed scans may achieve the desired precision over a collection of small FOVs covering the zone (Pesach, 0145).
Regarding claim 4, The system according to claim 2, Makmel does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, Pesach teaches wherein the signal intensity is determined as a function of a distance between the center of the field-of-view frame and the center of mass of the part of the digital 3D model rendered in the field-of-view frame. “For example, to increase a depth of focus and/or components having different focal lengths may be mounted at a differing depth from surface 1306 to synchronize their focal length and/or get multiple views of a single ROI and/or the depth of a component with respect to surface 1306 may be adjusted according to its distance from a center of focus (interpreted as center of mass)” (Pesach, 0313). Claim language is interpreted as the center of mass of the object in the scene of which the digital model is created.
Makmel and Pesach are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and function of distance of Pesach in order to achieve a desired accuracy at a given scanning distance. (Pesach, 0147).
Regarding claim 8, The system according to claim 1, Makmel alone does not teach the claimed limitations. However, Pesach teaches wherein the one or more processors is configured to:
Determine a deviation of the position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner from a scan path. “The difference between the measurements is optionally used to calibrate the movement of the IOS attachment relative to the scanner body” (Pesach, 0424).
Determine the suggested correction of a position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner based on the determined deviation and the current position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner. “The relative positions of between tooth 1 and tooth 16 on opposite sides of an arch may be measured and used to correct position data throughout the arch” (Pesach, 0347). While prior art does not explicitly teach processor, those aspects are embodied in the invention. It would have been obvious that any correction would be applied to the current position by real-time alignment.
Makmel and Pesach are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and deviation of position of Pesach in order to achieve a desired accuracy at a given scanning distance. (Pesach, 0147).
Regarding claim 9, The system according to claim 8, Makmel teaches wherein the scan path is one of:
A selectable scan path that is selected amongst several selectable scan paths for different dentitions; “The manner in which the oral cavity of a patient is to be scanned may depend on the procedure to be applied thereto. For example, if an upper or lower denture is to be created, then a full scan of the mandibular or maxillary edentulous arches may be performed. In contrast, if a bridge is to be created, then just a portion of a total arch may be scanned which includes an edentulous region, the neighboring preparation teeth (e.g., abutment teeth) and the opposing arch and dentition. Alternatively, full scans of upper and/or lower dental arches may be performed if a bridge is to be created” (Makmel, 0062). Depending on what dentition is selected in the software at the start, the system directs the dental practitioner to use a specific scan path.
Or a dynamic scan path that is configured to be modified during a scan session by the one or more processors to adapt relative to a current position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner
Regarding claim 10, The system of claim 1, Makmel alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, Makmel in combination with Pesach teaches wherein the one or more processors is configured to:
Determine an area of the digital 3D model comprising missing information; “Some procedures also call for removable prosthetics to be fabricated to replace one or more missing teeth, such as a partial or full denture, in which case the surface contours of the areas where the teeth are missing need to be reproduced accurately” (Makmel, 0037).
Determine a direction and/or orientation of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner towards the area of the digital 3d model, “The 2D images may be used by a user of the intraoral scanner to determine where the scanning face of the intraoral scanner is directed and/or to determine other information about a dental site being scanned” (Makmel, 0059).
And generate the suggested correction based on the determined direction and/or orientation. “In some embodiments, a mouth model (interpreted as generated correction) is generated and/or adjusted using the estimated position and/or orientation of abutment/s” (Pesach, 0193).
Makmel and Pesach are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and missing information of Pesach in order to achieve a desired accuracy at a given scanning distance. (Pesach, 0147).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 4. As such, claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 8. As such, claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 9. As such, claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makmel in view of Sabina (US20160259515A1).
Regarding claim 5, The system according to claim 1, Makmel teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a second field-of-view frame within the field-of-view frame if a distance between a scan tip of the handheld intraoral scanner and the dental object being scanned exceeds a predetermined distance limit. “In a seventh implementation, a method includes: positioning a first projector in a first orientation in a frame of an intraoral scanner; positioning a second projector in a second orientation in the frame” (Makmel, 0011) and “During scanning, the scanner 150 is calculating distances to solid surfaces in some embodiments. These distances may be recorded as images called ‘height maps’ (interpreted as predetermined distance limit) or as point clouds in some embodiments. Each scan (e.g., optionally height map or point cloud) is overlapped algorithmically, or ‘stitched,’ with the previous set of scans to generate a growing 3D surface” (Makmel, 0066).
However, Makmel does not explicitly teach, but Sabina teaches predetermined distance limit:
“Accordingly, intraoral scanner 200 may automatically disable touch sensor 230 when an object is detected in a field of view of sensor head 220 and/or within a threshold distance from sensor head” (Sabina, 0070) and “At block 365, processing logic detects whether an object is in a field of vision (FOV) of scanner head of the intraoral scanner” (Sabina, 0083).
Makmel and Sabina are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and direction distance of Sabina in order to improve the efficiency of performing medical scans (Sabina, 0020).
Regarding claim 6, the system according to claim 5, Makmel teaches wherein the predetermined distance limit is a depth-of-field of the handheld intraoral scanner. “During scanning, the scanner 150 is calculating distances to solid surfaces in some embodiments. These distances may be recorded as images called ‘height maps’ (interpreted as predetermined distance limit) or as point clouds in some embodiments. Each scan (e.g., optionally height map or point cloud) is overlapped algorithmically, or ‘stitched,’ with the previous set of scans to generate a growing 3D surface” (Makmel, 0066).
Regarding claim 7, the system according to claim 5, Makmel alone does not teach the claimed limitations. However, Sabina teaches wherein the correction feedback signal comprises a scan frame gap between the field-of-view frame and the second field-of-view frame to indicate the correction of the position of the field-of-view of the handheld intraoral scanner such that, when the correction is applied by the user, the distance between the scan tip of the handheld intraoral scanner and the dental object being scanned is less than the predetermined distance limit. “For example, the FOV may be configured as 13.5 millimeters×13.5 millimeters×13.5 millimeters (13.5 cubic millimeters), but may also be increased or decreased as needed. An ideal FOV for medical scans may be dependent on the type of scan. For intraoral scans, a FOV of less than 20 cubic millimeters may be appropriate (interpreted as less than the predetermined distance limit). Processing logic may also determine at block 365 whether a detected object is within a threshold distance from the scanner head” (Sabina, 0083). This describes how the scan volume is set up.
Makmel and Sabina are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and direction distance of Sabina in order to improve the efficiency of performing medical scans (Sabina, 0020).
Regarding claim 11, The system according to claim 1, Makmel alone does not teach the claimed limitations. However, Sabina teaches wherein the suggested correction is based on a prediction of a location of a neighboring dental object to the dental object being scanned. “The manner in which the oral cavity of a patient is to be scanned may depend on the procedure to be applied thereto. For example, if an upper or lower denture is to be created, then a full scan of the mandibular or maxillary edentulous arches may be performed. In contrast, if a bridge is to be created, then just a portion of a total arch may be scanned which includes an edentulous region, the neighboring abutment teeth and the opposing arch and dentition” (Sabina, 0030). When scanning a bridge site, the scanner relies on the geometry of neighboring abutments to predict and guide the user in capturing the missing anatomy of the edentulous span.
Makmel and Sabina are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of visual or photographical inspection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Makmel and correction of Sabina in order to improve the efficiency of performing medical scans (Sabina, 0020).
Regarding claim 12, the system according to claim 11, Makmel teaches wherein the prediction of the location of the neighboring dental object to the dental object being scanned is performed by a trained neural network. “The computer-readable storage medium 624 may also be used to store intraoral scan application 115, which may include one or more machine learning modules, and which may perform the operations described herein above” (Makmel, 0166).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 5. As such, claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANA SZE whose telephone number is (571)272-9916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/TERRELL M ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights