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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of informalities, which appear to be minor draft errors causing grammatical and/or antecedent basis issues.
As noted in the following format (location of objection: suggestion for correction), the following objections may be overcome by making the corresponding corrections: (claim 15, lines 5-6, “images of the object”: replacing “the” with --an--).
For purposes of examination, the claim has been treated as such with the correction(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadakane et al. (JP 2021/159514; hereinafter Sadakane).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Sadakane discloses a dental X-ray imaging system (2) for a computed tomography (CT) dental X-ray imaging of an object (par. 125) with a corresponding method and , the system comprising: a dental X-ray imaging unit (10) comprising: an X-ray source part (20) for emitting X-rays, an X-ray imaging detector part (30) for receiving the X-rays from the source part, and a gantry part (12) comprising the X-ray source part and the X-ray imaging detector part; and a control system (50) configured to: receive a scan request comprising an indication of at least one region of interest (ROI) (par. 76); control the parts of the dental X-ray imaging unit to acquire two X-ray scout images (C1 and C2) of the object; detect at least one target structure of the object from the two X-ray scout images associated with the at least one ROI (par. 93) by applying at least one trained detection model for the X-ray scout images (pars. 99-100); define field of view (FOV) data of the dental X-ray imaging unit at least partially based on the detected at least one target structure (“third region”, determination: see par. 107, field of view data: “information regarding the third region”, central position of target area); and control the parts of the dental X-ray imaging unit to implement the defined FOV data for a CT scan the object in order to acquire dental CT X-ray image data of the object (par. 125).
Regarding claim 2, Sadakane discloses wherein the FOV data comprises a FOV position and a FOV size (par. 118).
Regarding claim 3, Sadakane discloses wherein the two X-ray scout images of the object comprise a lateral (LAT) view angle X-ray scout image and a posterior-anterior (PA) view angle X-ray scout image (fig. 12 and par. 86).
Regarding claim 4, Sadakane discloses wherein the control system is further configured to: obtain imaging geometry data representing an imaging geometry of the dental X-ray imaging unit respective to the two X-ray scout images; and transform the detected at least one target structure into 3D device coordinates by using the obtained imaging geometry data (pars. 119-120).
Regarding claim 5, Sadakane discloses wherein the scan request further comprises object data representing at least one object related parameter (par. 56) and/or imaging program data representing required imaging program (par. 75).
Regarding claim 6, Sadakane discloses wherein the object data and/or the imaging program data is used in the defining of the FOV data (pars. 75-76).
Regarding claim 7, Sadakane discloses wherein the at least one trained detection model is a machine learning (ML) model (par. 99) or an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Regarding claim 8, Sadakane discloses wherein the at least one trained detection model comprises at least one common trained detection model trained for both X-ray scout images (par. 107).
Regarding claim 9, Sadakane discloses wherein the at least one trained detection model comprises necessarily different (i.e., different from other prior art) at least one trained detection model trained for each X-ray scout image (par. 107).
Regarding claim 10, Sadakane discloses wherein the at least trained detection model depends on a region of the object imaged in the X-ray scout images (par. 107: in order to run the training).
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0024671; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Sadakane discloses claim 1. Sadakane further discloses wherein the detecting the at least one target structure of the object from the two X-ray scout images is based on detection (pars. 93 and 99-100).
However, Sadakane fails to disclose landmark-based detection, bounding box based detection, and/or object segmentation-based detection.
Kim teaches landmark-based detection (title, abstract, and par. 4), bounding box based detection, and/or object segmentation-based detection.
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sadakane with the teaching of Kim, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for reducing time (Kim: par. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Sadakane discloses wherein in detection associated with the at least one ROI is detected from the two X-ray scout images by applying the at least one trained detection model for the X-ray scout images (pars. 93 and 99-100). Kim teaches landmark-based detection (title, abstract, and par. 4).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadakane in view of Michael (US 2007/0058786).
Sadakane discloses an X-ray dental imaging system (2) to: receive a scan request comprising an indication of at least one region of interest (ROI) (par. 76); control the parts of the dental X-ray imaging system to acquire two X-ray scout images (C1 and C2) of the object; detect at least one target structure of the object from the two scout images associated with the at least one ROI (par. 93) by applying at least one trained detection model for the X-ray scout images (pars. 99-100); define field of view (FOV) data of the dental X-ray imaging system at least partially based on the detected at least one target structure (“third region”, determination: see par. 107, field of view data: “information regarding the third region”, central position of target area); and control the parts of the dental X-ray imaging system to implement the defined FOV data for a CT scan of the object in order to acquire CT dental X-ray image data of the object (par. 125).
However, Sadakane fails to disclose a tangible non-volatile computer-readable medium comprising instructions executed by a control unit of an X-ray dental imaging system.
Michael teaches a tangible non-volatile computer-readable medium comprising instructions executed by a control unit (par. 33) of an X-ray dental imaging system (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sadakane with the teaching of Michael, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for easier user control (Michael: par. 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sadakane fails to disclose “detect at least one target structure of the object from the two X-ray scout images associated with the at least one ROI by applying at least one trained detection model for the X-ray scout images”, since Sadakane instead discloses detecting based on both CT image data and X-ray scout images. The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Since the claim uses the transitional term “comprising”, the claim is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Therefore, the disclosure of Sadakane with both CT image data and X-ray scout images would read on this portion of the claim, since the claim language is not limited to just scout images.
Applicant also argues that Sadakane fails to disclose “receive a scan request comprising an indication of at least one region of interest (ROI)”, since Sakadane instead describes setting imaging parameters. The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Sakadane disclosure of the operator inputting to set imaging regions (par. 76) is an indication of at least one ROI. These set imaging parameters are not random. They are done by the operator with the intent of indicating to the system that this is the ROI, in which the operator is interested. Therefore, Sakadane’s imaging region setting unit reads on this portion of the claim, and the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights