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 . Claims 1-8 are pending under this Office action.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under §35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claimed invention is directed to computer program per se. See MPEP 2106(1). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium having the program encoded thereon establishes a sufficient functional relationship between the program and a computer so as to remove it from the realm of “program per se”. MPEP 2111.05(111). Hence, adding the limitation of “non-transitory” before “computer-readable storage medium” for claim 7 , and “non-transitory” before “computer program product” for claim 8, would resolve this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 recite the limitation "the surfaced model " in “uniformly sampling the surfaced model to generate a uniformly sampled point cloud”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopelman (US 20130110469 A1) in view of Long, etc. (US 20190378344 A1), further in view of Nikolskiy, etc. (US 20200405455 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman teaches that a three-dimensional scanning method (See Kopelman: Figs. 2-3, and [0193], “The first 3D virtual model VM1, i.e. the 3D digitized data of the intraoral cavity, including the dentition and associated anatomical structures of a patient, may be provided using any suitable scanning equipment for scanning a patient's teeth, for example by scanning the intra oral cavity of the patient in vivo, or via scanning of a physical model or an impression thereof. Referring to FIG. 2, this may be done for example at a dental clinic 22 by the dentist or another dental practitioner. The dental clinic 22 is typically linked to one or more dental labs 26, and possibly also to a dental service center 23 via a communication means or network such as for example the Internet or other suitable communications medium such as an intranet, local access network, public switched telephone network, cable network, satellite communication system, and the like, indicated by the cloud at 24. The dental lab 26 is particularly adapted for defining the finish line, as well as for other tasks such as designing prostheses, designing and manufacturing physical models of the dentition, and possibly also for manufacturing at least an external profile of the prostheses. The dental service center 23 is particularly adapted for manufacturing dental hardware that requires a very high degree of precision, for example inner surfaces of prostheses that are required to match external surfaces of copings, and possibly also the copings themselves”; and [0194], “Such scanning equipment may include any suitable scanner, for example, an optical hand-held scanner 31 (or any other suitable optical scanner, mechanical scanner, ultrasound scanner, radiation-based scanner, including for example x-ray scanner, or other laser scanner, or any other suitable scanner) that is used by the practitioner to acquire the 3D data for example by directly scanning the patient's oral cavity”. Note that the method and system to interact with the virtual 3D models has the 3D scanning system with scanner 31) comprising:
identifying a region for replacement (See Kopelman: Fig. 1, and [0216], “In step 430 this part DVM1 of the first virtual model VM1 is marked on the first image of the first virtual model VM1 on the display 33. By "marked" it is meant that this zone or area of the first image DI1 is at least identified by the user, and may optionally include interacting with the display 33 so that a visual mark is included in the image to show and demarcate this area on the image DI1 that is on the display 33. For example, wand 34, operatively connected to the computer system 32 can be used for interacting with the display 33, wherein a visual mark is displayed wherever the tip 39 of the wand 34 touches the image DI1 on the display 33”; [0148], “The analysis may also be configured for identifying regions of the first physical part (i.e., on the first 3D virtual model) that require physical change--for example, the criteria may include the amount of original tooth reduction required at various points on the tooth to allow for good prosthesis seating and to allow for a minimum prosthetic thickness that is consistent with mechanical integrity standards therefor. The analysis software may further identify these regions and mark them automatically. Furthermore, the deleting/removing/replacing step can also be carried out automatically once these regions are marked, either immediately, or following a confirmation command from the user”; and [0093], “( C ) configured for enabling identifying at least one portion of the virtual model that is desired to be modified with at least a part of said additional 3D data”. Note that the method and system to interact with the virtual 3D models has the 3D scanning system with scanner 31) in a first point cloud of a dental object; and
patching the region for replacement with a corresponding region (See Kopelman: Figs. 1-8, and [0238], “In the aligned position of the registered modified first virtual model VM1' with second virtual model VM2, part DVM2 of the second virtual model VM2 virtually fits in and corresponds to at least a portion of the deleted portion DVM1, and part DVM2 is then stitched to modified first virtual model VM1' in a virtual manner to create a further modified first virtual model, i.e., composite third 3D virtual model VM3. The remainder of the second virtual model VM2, including the identifying surface data ID may then be discarded”. Note that the part of the second virtual model DVM2 is stitched into the identified region in the first virtual model VM1’, and this is mapped to replace the region for replacement in the first 3D model by the correspondent region from the second 3D model. However, stitching may not be exactly “patching”, so another art will be searched) from a second point cloud of a dental object.
However, Kopelman fails to explicitly disclose that a first point cloud of a dental object; patching the region for replacement from a second point cloud of a dental object.
However, Long teaches that a first point cloud of a dental object (See Long: Figs. 10-11, and [0088], “At step 1110, the computing device 100 generates a first point cloud and a second point cloud. In some implementations, the model manager 202 of the computing device 100 generates the first point cloud and the second point cloud. The model manager 202 generates a first point cloud for the first digital model, and a second point cloud for the second digital model. Each point cloud may include a plurality of points in a three-dimensional space which represent an outermost point on the surface of the user's dentition. The points of the point cloud may include a respective point normal. Each point normal includes a vector extending outwardly from the points of the point cloud. For each point, the vectors can be perpendicular to the surface of the digital model at the point. Each of the points and point normals for the point clouds may together define, characterize or otherwise describe the surface geometry of the customer's dental arch. The model manager 202 computes, determines, or otherwise generates the point clouds according to steps 1115-1125 described below. In some implementations, the model manager 202 may use, implement, or otherwise access one or more external systems, devices, or libraries, such as a TriMesh library, for determining, identifying, or otherwise generating one or more aspects of the point clouds”; and Fig. 1, and [0023], “Referring now to FIG. 1, an illustrative computing device 100 for merging three-dimensional models of dental impressions is shown. In use, as described further below, the computing device 100 generates or otherwise acquires three-dimensional models for each of multiple dental impressions. For example, multiple dental impressions created by a user with an at-home dental impression kit may be scanned to generate the three-dimensional models”. Note that the 3D model and the point cloud are mathematically related, thus, identifying the region in the first 3D model is also equivalent to identifying the region in the first point cloud that is mathematically related to the first 3D model. In addition, the point cloud is about the dental impression which is mapped to a dental object); and
from a second point cloud of a dental object (See Long: Figs. 10-11, and [0088], “At step 1110, the computing device 100 generates a first point cloud and a second point cloud. In some implementations, the model manager 202 of the computing device 100 generates the first point cloud and the second point cloud”; and Fig. 2, and [0098], “Once the model manager 202 aligns the first and second point cloud, the computing device 100 generates a merged model (e.g., a model which includes at least some portions of the first and second point cloud). In some implementations, prior to generating the merged model, the computing device 100 may convert the aligned point clouds into STL files. The computing device 100 may use the aligned point clouds or aligned STL files for generating the merged model. The computing device may generate the merged model as described in greater detail above (e.g., starting at step 408 of FIG. 4, for instance)”. Note that two point clouds are merged into one merged cloud that includes some points from the first point cloud and some points from the second point cloud, and discarding points from both point clouds. If taking the first point cloud as the starting point for the merged point cloud, discarding some points from the first point cloud and obtaining the points from the second point cloud is equivalent to replacing the portion of the first point cloud by the portion of the second point cloud).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Kopelman to have a first point cloud of a dental object; and from a second point cloud of a dental object as taught by Long in order to improve the proportion of at-home dental kits that are successfully completed or reduce the number of retake impression kits are sent to users (See Long: Fig. 1, and [0030], “Referring now to FIG. 1, an illustrative computing device 100 for merging three-dimensional models of dental impressions is shown. In use, as described further below, the computing device 100 generates or otherwise acquires three-dimensional models for each of multiple dental impressions. For example, multiple dental impressions created by a user with an at-home dental impression kit may be scanned to generate the three-dimensional models. The computing device 100 automatically merges geometry from the models to generate a complete model of one or more of the user's dental arches. In some embodiments, the computing device 100 may use multiple merge strategies and select the best merged model. Thus, the computing device 100 may generate a higher-quality merged model as compared to any of the individual models. Additionally, the computing device 100 may be able to generate a complete model from multiple incomplete dental impressions, which may improve the proportion of at-home dental kits that are successfully completed and/or reduce the number of retake impression kits that are sent to users (e.g., customers)”). Kopelman teaches a method and system that may provide for modifying a virtual model of a physical structure with additional 3D data obtained from the physical structure to provide a modified virtual model by identifying the desired modification region in the first 3D model and deleting/modifying/replacing the region with data from the second 3D model; while Long teaches a system and method that may merge dental impression scans by generating, aligning, and merging a first point cloud of the first model and a second point cloud of the second model. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kopelman by Long to use a first point cloud of the first model and a second point cloud of the second model to generate the third improved 3D models (or the third point cloud) which is mathematically related to the point cloud. The motivation to modify Kopelman by Long is “Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”.
However, Kopelman, modified by Long, fails to explicitly disclose that patching the region for replacement.
However, Nikolskiy teaches that patching the region for replacement (See Nikolskiy: Fig. 7, and [0072], “In FIG. 7, a volumetric image 190 of an object having a boundary 192 that is not precisely defined. A small patch of an iso-surface 194 is illustrated within the boundary 192, with the iso-surface 194 representing a collection of points within the volumetric image 190 that have the same volumetric density value”; Figs. 19A-B, and [0148], “In some embodiments of the computer-implemented method, one or more portions of the digital surface or digital surface mesh that have “holes” or missing digital surface mesh areas can optionally be filled or patched using a variety of techniques known in the art. Digital surface mesh holes or tunnels can arise where dental impression material is thin or nonexistent, or as an artifact of surface selection. The digital surface mesh holes can be optionally initially “filled” with a digital surface patch. As illustrated in the example of FIG. 19(a) digital surface mesh holes 801, 802, 804, and 806 on the digital surface mesh can be optionally patched as necessary in one embodiment. The digital surface patching can involve a variety of digital surface patching techniques known in the art. Some of these techniques are described in A COMPARISON OF HOLE-FILLING METHODS IN 3D, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4, 85-903. In one embodiment, a hole filler and surface patching technique by GeoMagic Design X can be used”; and [0149], “In some embodiments of the computer-implemented method, holes can be optionally patched by first identifying regions where no digital surface exists. Next, holes can be optionally patched using any hole filler technique known in the art. FIG. 19(b) illustrates a digital surface with patched holes”. Note that the digital surface mesh having holes may be patched using a variety of techniques in the art, and combined with Long, this is mapped to patching the region for replacement with a corresponding region from a second point cloud).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Kopelman to have patching the region for replacement as taught by Nikolskiy in order to improve accuracy and reduce processing time in determining iso-value of density, and thus allow extraction of the proper iso-surface of the impression material in some embodiments (See Nikolskiy: Fig. 1, and [0108], “Some advantages of the features described in this disclosure include, but are not limited to, for example, determining the iso-value of density value rather than setting it randomly or based on previous or other scans. Another advantage is, for example, avoiding subjective manual guessing/setting of the iso-value of density by user. Instead, for example, the system empirically itself automatically can calculate the iso-value of density from the scan itself. This can, for example, advantageously improve accuracy and reduce processing time in determining iso-value of density, and thus allow extraction of the proper iso-surface of the impression material in some embodiments”). Kopelman teaches a method and system that may provide for modifying a virtual model of a physical structure with additional 3D data obtained from the physical structure to provide a modified virtual model by identifying the desired modification region in the first 3D model and deleting/modifying/replacing the region with data from the second 3D model; while Nikolskiy teaches a system and method that may scan the physical dental impression using CT scan, generate 3D surface model of the dental impression, and patch the defected surface mesh having holes. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kopelman by Nikolskiy to patch the regions desired for modification/replacement. The motivation to modify Kopelman by Nikolskiy is “Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”.
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman, Long, and Nikolskiy teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Kopelman teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein one of the first point cloud and second point cloud is a point cloud of a dental impression, and the other of the first point cloud and second point cloud is a point cloud of a cast from the dental impression (See Kopelman: Fig. 2, and [0207], “Alternatively or additionally, the clinic 22 may include equipment for obtaining a negative casting of a patient's teeth. In this case, the negative cast or impression can be taken of the patient's teeth, in a manner known in the art, and this physical negative model is dispatched to one of the dental labs 26 that is equipped to prepare from the negative model a physical positive cast suitable for scanning. The positive cast may be scanned at the dental lab 26 by any method known in the art, including for example x-ray scanning, laser scanning or using the aforesaid probe manufactured under the name of CB-CAD or as disclosed in WO 00/08415 and referred to above. The 3D data is then transmitted over the network 24 to the service center 23. Alternatively, the positive cast may be dispatched to the service center 23 by the dental clinic 22 and scanned at the service center 23 to obtain the 3D data. Alternatively, the service center 23 produces a positive model from the negative model and is scanned thereat, or sent to the dental clinic 22 to be scanned thereat. Alternatively, the negative model is scanned, either at the dental lab 26 or at the service center 23”. Note that the cast 3D model and its related 3D point cloud is negative model, while the dental impression 3D model or point cloud is negative. That is the negative mode is mapped to the dental impression model while the positive model is mapped to the cast point model).
Regarding claim 7, Kopelman, Long, and Nikolskiy teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Kopelman teaches that a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (See Kopelman: Figs. 1-2, and [0056], “For example, the program can be configured for applying a computer implemented method as defined above for the first aspect of the invention, mutatis mutandis. Additionally or alternatively, the computer readable medium comprises any one of optical discs, magnetic discs, magnetic tapes, or solid state memory storage”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if amendments are made to overcome the 112 (b) rejections. The best arts searched do not teach the cited limitations of “the method of claim 1, comprising: surfacing the first point cloud, and uniformly sampling the surfaced model to generate a uniformly sampled point cloud, identifying a closest point in the first point cloud to each point in the uniformly sampled point cloud, and flagging the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud for replacement if a distance between the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud and the identified closest point exceeds a threshold distance.”
Claim 8 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, and if amendments are made to overcome the 112 (b) rejections and 101 rejections. The best arts searched do not teach the cited limitations of “the method of claim 1, comprising: surfacing the first point cloud, and uniformly sampling the surfaced model to generate a uniformly sampled point cloud, identifying a closest point in the first point cloud to each point in the uniformly sampled point cloud, and flagging the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud for replacement if a distance between the point in the uniformly sampled point cloud and the identified closest point exceeds a threshold distance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON G LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Devona E Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GORDON G LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618