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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record on file.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on February 19th, 2025 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Drawing Objection
Figures 1-2, 9-10 and 13 are objected to as depicting a block diagram, features without “readily identifiable” descriptors of each block, arrows or features, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(n). Rule 84(n) requires “labeled representations” of graphical symbols, such as blocks; and any that are “not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office, if they are not likely to be confused with existing conventional symbols, and if they are readily identifiable.” In the case of figures 1-2, 9-10 and 13, the blocks, features are not readily identifiable per se and therefore require the insertion of text that identifies the function of that block. That is, each vacant block/feature should be provided with a corresponding label identifying its function or purpose.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 1-2, the reference “a first digital 3D image (13) and a second digital 3D image (14)” should be read as “a first digital 3D image” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 2, the reference “showing the oral cavity” should be read as “showing an ” since there is no proper antecedent support for the reference as there is no prior instantiation of “an oral cavity” to have such antecedent reference of “the oral cavity” here in this line. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, the antecedent instances of “the first digital 3D image (13)” in lines 3 and 12, should be read as “the first digital 3D image” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference instances of “in first digital 3D image (13)” in lines 17 and 20 should be read as “in the first digital 3D image” to follow proper antecedent reference to the prior first instantiation of “a first digital 3D image”, moreover, to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the antecedent instances of “the second digital 3D image (14)” in lines 5, 13, 18 and 21, should be read as “the second digital 3D image ” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “a first matching step (S100)”, in line 8, and its antecedent instances “the first matching step (S100)”, in lines 9-10, should be read as “a first matching”, for the first instantiation, and “the first matching”, for the following antecedent instances, to follow proper claim language formality and avoid 112(f) issues and further to avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “a second matching step (S200)”, in line 8, and its antecedent instances “the second matching step (S200)”, in line 19, should be read as “a second matching”, for the first instantiation, and “the second matching”, for the following antecedent instances, to follow proper claim language formality and avoid 112(f) issue and further to avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference instances in line 10 and line 19, “comprises the sub steps of:” should be read as “comprises” to follow proper antecedent basis since there is no prior first instantiation of “sub steps” to have such antecedent reference in this line, moreover, to follow proper claim language and formality. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, the reference, “the second 3D digital image”, in line 18, should be read as “the second digital 3D” to follow proper antecedent basis and consistency of term language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “determining (S101; S102)”, in line 11, should be read as “determining”, to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “anatomical structures (15)”, in line 12, should be read as “anatomical structures”, to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “corresponding anatomical structure (16)”, in line 13, should be read as “corresponding anatomical structure”, to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “creating (S103; S104)”, in line 14, should be read as “creating” , to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the antecedent instance of “each anatomical structure (15)”, in line 14, should be read as “each anatomical structure of the anatomical structures” to follow proper antecedent basis to give proper antecedent reference the priorly first instantiation, and further to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the antecedent instance of “said corresponding anatomical structure (16)”, in line 15, should be read as “ of the corresponding anatomical structures” to follow proper antecedent basis reference and follow proper claim language and formality, further to avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “generating (S105)”, in line 16, should be read as “generating” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “a first transformation (T1)”, in line 16 and its antecedent instance in lines 21-22 of page 1 and line 2 and line 6 of page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024 of “the first transformation (T1)”, should be read as “a first transformation” and “the first transformation” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “at least one representative point (P; P’)” should be read as “, at least one representative point” since the reference “(P; P’)” has no definition given in the claim and does not properly correspond to the reference “at least one representative point” since this reference only indicates at least one therefore cannot possibility cover both P and P’ points, the reference usage here is inappropriate and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “the representative points (P)”, in lines 16-17, should be read as “respective points in the at least one representative points” to follow proper claim language and proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of respective points (P) in the claim for such antecedent reference here in this line. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, the reference “determining (S201; S202)”, in line 20, should be read “determining” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “surface points (S)”, in line 20 in page 1, and its antecedent instance, “the surface points (S)” in page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as “surface points” and “the surface points” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers/letters in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number/letter referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “corresponding edge points (E)”, in line 21, should be read as “corresponding edge points” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers/letters in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number/letter referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “generating (S203)”, in line 1 of page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as ”generating” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers/letters in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number/letter referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “a second transformation (T2)”, in line 1 of page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024 and its antecedent instances in line 6 of page 2 of “the second transformation (T2)”, should be read as “a second transformation” and “the second transformation” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers/letters in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number/letter referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference “corresponding edge points (E)” in line 3 of page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as “corresponding edge points” to follow proper claim language and avoid using references of numbers/letters in parenthesis without proper support and definition of such usage of number/letter referencing in the claim itself. Appropriate correction is required.
claim 1, the reference, “in the given order”, in lines 6-7 of page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as “in a ” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of a given order to have such antecedent reference here. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, the reference, “in the overlapped state” in lines 8-9 of page 2 of the claims filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as “in an ” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of an overlapped state to have such antecedent reference here. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, the reference, “a step of overlapping the first digital”, in line 5 of page 2 of the amendment filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as “overlapping the first digital” to follow proper claim language formality and avoid indefiniteness and 112(f) issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, the reference, “a step of displaying the first digital”, in line 6 of page 2 of the amendment filed on 12/06/2024, should be read as “displaying the first digital” to follow proper claim language formality and avoid indefiniteness and 112(f) issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2, the reference “the tooth sequences including the tooth number and the tooth center” in lines 5-6, should be read as “” to follow proper antecedent basis, since there is no prior instantiation of such tooth sequences to have such antecedent reference here. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 3, the reference, line 1, “the computer-implemented method” should be read as “the computer[[-]] implemented method” to maintain proper term of use in consistency language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, the reference “the anatomical structure”, in lines 1-2, should be read as “the anatomical structures” to follow proper antecedent basis since the prior instantiation include a plural form. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 3, the reference, “the jaw arches, the tooth crown, the tooth pulps, the tooth roots”, in lines 3-4, should be read as “” to follow proper antecedent basis since these are first instantiation of the terms. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4, line 1, the reference “the computer-implemented method” should be read as “the computer[[-]] implemented method” to maintain proper term of use in consistency language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4, the reference, “the occlusal, lingual, or buccal surfaces of the teeth” should be read as “” to follow proper antecedent basis since these are first instantiation of the terms. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 5, line 1, the reference “the computer-implemented method” should be read as “the computer[[-]] implemented method” to maintain proper term of use in consistency language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5, the reference “the jar” in line 2, should be read as “” to follow proper antecedent basis since these are first instantiation of the term. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6, line 1, the reference “the computer-implemented method” should be read as “the computer[[-]] implemented method” to maintain proper term of use in consistency language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, the reference “in the step of determining the said corresponding edge points” should be read as “the determining ” to follow proper antecedent basis since the previous instantiation includes “determining corresponding edge points” in claim 1, lines 20-21. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 7, the reference “the system” in line 2, should be read as “a system” to follow proper antecedent basis since this is the first instantiation of the term. Appropriate correction is required to avoid 112(b) antecedent basis issue.
Claim 7, the reference “the first matching step, the second matching step, the overlapping step, and the displaying step of the method according to claim 1” in lines 3-4, should be read as “the first matching, the second matching, the overlapping computer implemented method according to claim 1” to follow proper antecedent basis and proper claim language formality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, the reference “the first matching step, the second matching step, and the overlapping step of the method according to claim 1” in line 5, should be read as “the first matching, the second matching, and the overlapping computer implemented method according to claim 1” to follow proper antecedent basis and proper claim language formality. Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 is drawn to a “computer program” per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention, since applicant`s specification do not define the term “computer program product”.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enables the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
See MPEP § 2106.01. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, 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's functionality to be realized.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitation(s) that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 1 and 8, recite(s) limitation(s) that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a step of overlapping….” [Line 27].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a step of displaying….” [Line 30].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the sub steps of: determining…creating…generating…3D digital image (14)” [Lines 10-18].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the sub steps of: determining…generating…3D image” [Lines 19-25].
Claim 8, recites the limitation, “an acquisition means for acquiring….” [Line 2].
Claim 8, recites the limitation, “a computing unit…to perform” [Line 4].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 1 and 8;
(i) “step of overlapping” there is no sufficient written support of a structure, material and/or act for the recited step of overlapping to perform the recited function, thus have no sufficient structure or material and/or act.
(ii) “step of displaying” there is no sufficient written support of a structure, material and/or act for the recited step of displaying to perform the recited function, thus have no sufficient structure or material and/or act.
(iii) “the sub steps of: determining…generating…3D image (14)” there is no sufficient written support of a structure, material and/or act for the recited step of displaying to perform the recited function, thus have no sufficient structure or material and/or act.
(iv) “the sub steps of: determining…generating…3D image” there is no sufficient written support of a structure, material and/or act for the recited step of displaying to perform the recited function, thus have no sufficient structure or material and/or act.
(v) “acquisition means” there is no sufficient written support of a structure, material and/or act for the recited acquisition means to perform the recited function, thus have no sufficient structure or material and/or act.
(vi) “computing unit” there is sufficient written support of a structure for the recited computing unit to perform the recited function, wherein the specification, filed on December 06th, 2024, in section “the dental imaging system”, wherein the computing unit includes a computer connected to an X-Ray device, a display device such as a screen for visualizing, thus have sufficient structure, material and/or act being a computer connected to an X-Ray and a display device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1 and 8 along with their dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 8’s limitations:
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a step of overlapping….” [Line 27].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a step of displaying….” [Line 30].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the sub steps of: determining…creating…generating…3D digital image (14)” [Lines 10-18].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the sub steps of: determining…generating…3D image” [Lines 19-25].
Claim 8, recites the limitation, “an acquisition means for acquiring….” [Line 2].
Claims 1 and 8, each respectively invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of the ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performed(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 along with their dependent claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function in the recited limitation.
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a step of overlapping….” [Line 27].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a step of displaying….” [Line 30].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the sub steps of: determining…creating…generating…3D digital image (14)” [Lines 10-18].
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “the sub steps of: determining…generating…3D image” [Lines 19-25].
Claim 8, recites the limitation, “an acquisition means for acquiring….” [Line 2].
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matvey Ezhov et. al. (“US 2022/0358740 A1” hereinafter as “Ezhov”) in view of Matvey Ezhov et. al. (“US 2023/0013902 A1” hereinafter as “Ezhov_2”).
Regarding claim 1, Ezhov teaches a computer implemented method of overlapping a first digital 3D image (13) and a second digital 3D image (14) each showing the oral cavity (Title states “System and Method for alignment of volumetric and surface scan images”; Par. [0137] discloses “method of aligning the volumetric and surface scan images…the received volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of the maxillofacial anatomy of a patient”), wherein the first digital 3D image (13) is obtained through optically scanning a surface of the oral cavity (Par. [0137] discloses “method of aligning the volumetric and surface scan images…the received volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of the maxillofacial anatomy of a patient”, wherein the surface scan image is analogous to the first digital 3D image), wherein the second digital 3D image (14) is obtained through X-ray imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, or acoustical imaging of the oral cavity (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “X-Ray imaging” which is disclosed in Ezhov’s Par. [0002] of “technology is Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)” wherein Par. [0137] discloses “method of aligning the volumetric and surface scan images…the received volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of the maxillofacial anatomy of a patient” wherein CBCT is a type of X-ray imaging; Par. [0007] discloses “volumetric CBCT images are already being merged with surface Intraoral Scans (IOS) to improve planning for computer-guided surgery” wherein, the volumetric image is analogous to the recited second digital 3D image), the method comprising: a first matching step (S100) (Par. [0159] discloses “one both are segmented and numerated, the volumetric tooth mesh and the surface scan tooth mesh are matched by their numbers” which is analogous to the first matching step as claimed), and a second matching step (S200) following the first matching step (S100) (Par. [0159] discloses “Border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” which is analogous to the recited second matching step [fusion by triangulating] which following the first matching step); wherein the first matching step (S100) comprises the sub steps of: determining (S101; S102) by using neural networks (NN;NN`) (Par. [0158] discloses ”first segmenting and numerating the teeth on the surface scan using a convolutional neural network… the teeth of the volumetric mesh are then segmented and numerated using a convolutional neural network”) anatomical structures (15) in the first digital 3D image (13) (Par. [0158] discloses ”Next, the parts of the volumetric tooth crown mesh also present on the surface crown mesh are identified and segmented…first segmenting and numerating the teeth on the surface scan using a convolutional neural network”; wherein, Par. [0137] discloses “a polygonal mesh corresponding to the maxillofacial anatomy of the same patient…anatomical landmarks” wherein, the surface scan image [first digital 3D image]) and corresponding anatomical structures (16) in the second digital 3D image (14) (Par. [0158] discloses “the parts of the volumetric tooth crown mesh also present on the surface crown mesh are identified and segmented” indicating corresponding parts between the two mesh [the volumetric tooth crown mesh obtained from the volumetric image being analogous to the second digital 3D image as claimed]; Par. [0137] discloses “a polygonal mesh corresponding to the maxillofacial anatomy of the same patient…anatomical landmarks”); and creating (S103; S104) respectively for each anatomical structure (15) and said corresponding anatomical structure (16) (Par. [0136] discloses “wherein the volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of a maxillofacial anatomy of a patient and the surface scan image is a polygonal mesh corresponding to the maxillofacial anatomy of the same patient” indicating each anatomical structure and corresponding anatomical structure between the two images) at least one representative point (P; P’) (Par. [0136] discloses “wherein at least one of the distinct anatomical structures are in common between the volumetric and the surface scan image… revealing voxels on the boundary for selection 1504; selecting a subset of boundary voxels as a point set by selecting a random subset of points to keep a number of points similar to a number of points on a corresponding structure in a polygonal mesh” indicating select voxels as point set for both images); generating (S105) a first processing (T1) (Par. [0121] discloses “the received images may be additionally pre-processed and normalized to fit for downstream alignment…a polygonal mesh featuring common structures with the polygonal mesh from the surface scan image is then extracted from the volumetric image” wherein, the normalization for extraction of common structure here is, together, analogous to the recited first processing) that maps the representative points (P) in first digital 3D image (13) to the corresponding representative points (P`) in the second 3D digital image (14) (Par. [0120 discloses “Once segmented, a polygonal mesh from the volumetric image featuring common structures with the polygonal mesh from the surface scan image is extracted/generated by the mesh layer…” which is performed by the localization layer according to FIG. 12B, Par. [0064] discloses “The localization layer is configured to select all voxels belonging to the localized anatomical structure by finding a minimal bounding rectangle around the voxels and the surrounding region for cropping as a defined anatomical structure”); wherein the second matching step (S200) comprises the sub steps of: determining (S201; S202) surface points (S) in first digital 3D image (13) (Pars. [0158-0159] discloses “next, each face in the volumetric tooth mesh found to match a face in the surface scan tooth crown mesh is removed from the volumetric tooth mesh…the tooth mesh is filled by triangulating the points of intersection… The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” wherein the vertices of the surface crown mesh are analogous to the surface points as claimed) and corresponding edge points (E) in the second digital 3D image (14) (Par. [0159] discloses “border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” wherein the edges are being fused through triangulating of the edges in volumetric image [the second digital image as claimed]) using the first processing (T1) (Par. [0121] discloses “wherein at least one of the distinct anatomical structures are in common between the volumetric and the surface scan image… Both the meshes, from the volumetric image and from the surface scan image, are converted to point clouds and the converted meshes are aligned via point clouds using a point set Registration” indicating the mesh alignment is performed following the common structure extraction using the output of the extraction); and generating (S203) a second transformation to be applied (Par. [0122] discloses “aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative trans form, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image)” wherein the relative transform is analogous to the recited second transformation) in succession to the first transformation (T1) (Par. [0121] discloses “wherein at least one of the distinct anatomical structures are in common between the volumetric and the surface scan image… Both the meshes, from the volumetric image and from the surface scan image, are converted to point clouds and the converted meshes are aligned via point clouds using a point set Registration” indicating the mesh alignment is performed following the common structure extraction) that maps the surface points (S) in first digital 3D image and corresponding edge points (E) in the second digital 3D image (Par. [0122] discloses “performed by a Marching Cubes algorithm…Essentially any means for aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative trans form, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image)” wherein, the relative transform is to align the first digital 3D image and the second digital 3D image on their meshes which include surface points and edge points, Par. [0159] discloses “border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices”); and the method further comprising: a step of overlapping the first digital 3D image (Par. [0122] discloses “aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative transform, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image). Aligned CBCT and IOS is then used for orthodontic treatment and implant planning”) and a second digital 3D (Par. [0122] discloses “aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative trans form, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image)”) by using the first processing (T1) (Par. [0121] discloses “wherein at least one of the distinct anatomical structures are in common between the volumetric and the surface scan image… Both the meshes, from the volumetric image and from the surface scan image, are converted to point clouds and the converted meshes are aligned via point clouds using a point set Registration” indicating the mesh alignment is performed using the output of the common structure extraction) and the second transformation successively (Par. [0122] discloses “aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative transform, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image). Aligned CBCT and IOS is then used for orthodontic treatment and implant planning”) in the given order (Par. [0121] discloses “Now in reference to FIG. 13, which illustrates a graphical flow of the alignment pipeline, the alignment method entails the steps of: A method for alignment of…polygonal mesh featuring common structures with the polygonal mesh from the surface scan image is then extracted…point clouds and the converted meshes are aligned via point clouds using a point set Registration” indicating a pipeline of such processing steps in a particular order); a step of displaying (FIG. 13 illustrates the displaying of the two meshes overlapping) the first digital 3D image and a second digital 3D in the overlapped state (Par. [0122] discloses “essentially any means for aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative trans form, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image)”).
However, Ezhov does not explicitly teach the first processing being a first transformation.
Ezhov_2 teaches the first processing being a first transformation (Par. [0127] discloses “distortion correction entails applying a transformation to the surface scan image mesh in which the geometry of a high-visibility anatomical structure with low-diagnostic value (HV-LD) is altered yielding the surface scan image mesh with tooth crowns closely corresponding to the volumetric image teeth image resulting in a correction for the geometric distortion”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Ezhov of having a computer implemented method of overlapping a first digital 3D image (13) and a second digital 3D image (14) each showing the oral cavity, wherein the first digital 3D image (13) is obtained through optically scanning a surface of the oral cavity, wherein the second digital 3D image (14) is obtained through X-ray imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, or acoustical imaging of the oral cavity, the method comprising: a first matching step (S100), and a second matching step (S200) following the first matching step (S100); wherein the first matching step (S100) comprises the sub steps of: determining (S101; S102) by using neural networks (NN;NN`) anatomical structures (15) in the first digital 3D image (13) and corresponding anatomical structures (16) in the second digital 3D image (14); and creating (S103; S104) respectively for each anatomical structure (15) and said corresponding anatomical structure (16) at least one representative point (P; P’); generating (S105) a first processing (T1) that maps the representative points (P) in first digital 3D image (13) to the corresponding representative points (P`) in the second 3D digital image (14); wherein the second matching step (S200) comprises the sub steps of: determining (S201; S202) surface points (S) in first digital 3D image (13) and corresponding edge points (E) in the second digital 3D image (14) using the first transformation (T1); and generating (S203) a second transformation to be applied in succession to the first processing (T1), with the teachings of Ezhov_2 of having wherein the first processing being a first transformation.
Wherein having Ezhov’s method with the first processing being a first transformation.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have a system for automated and AI-aided alignment of volumetric images and surface scan images for improved dental diagnostics and improved visual details, and further to correct geometric distortion between the images and perform accurate alignment between the images. Since both Ezhov and Ezhov_2 perform medical diagnosis and pathology monitoring with point cloud processing and mesh registration. Wherein Ezhov system improves an automated and AI-aided alignment of volumetric images and surface scan images for improved dental diagnostics and improved visual details (see Ezhov’s Par. [0041]), and Ezhov_2’s system improves alignment process by correcting geometric distortion between the images and perform accurate alignment for improved dental diagnostics (see Ezhov_2’s Par. [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the anatomical structure in the first digital 3D image (Par. [0158] discloses ”Next, the parts of the volumetric tooth crown mesh also present on the surface crown mesh are identified and segmented…first segmenting and numerating the teeth on the surface scan using a convolutional neural network”; wherein, Par. [0137] discloses “a polygonal mesh corresponding to the maxillofacial anatomy of the same patient…anatomical landmarks”) and corresponding anatomical structures in the second digital 3D image (Par. [0158] discloses “the parts of the volumetric tooth crown mesh also present on the surface crown mesh are identified and segmented” indicating corresponding parts between the two mesh [the volumetric tooth crown mesh obtained from the volumetric image being analogous to the second digital 3D image as claimed]; Par. [0137] discloses “a polygonal mesh corresponding to the maxillofacial anatomy of the same patient…anatomical landmarks”), are one of the jaw arches, the tooth crown, the tooth pulps, the tooth roots (“one of” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “jaw arches” which is disclosed in Ezhov’s Par. [0049] of “the anatomical structure being localized, includes, but not limited to, teeth, upper and lower jaw bone, sinuses, lower jaw canal and joint”).
Regarding claim 4, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches wherein surface points in the first digital 3D image (Pars. [0158-0159] discloses “next, each face in the volumetric tooth mesh found to match a face in the surface scan tooth crown mesh is removed from the volumetric tooth mesh…the tooth mesh is filled by triangulating the points of intersection… The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” wherein, the vertices of the surface crown mesh are analogous to the surface points as claimed) and corresponding edge points in the second digital 3D image ((Par. [0159] discloses “border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” wherein, the edges are being fused through triangulating of the edges in volumetric image [the second digital image as claimed]), are located in the occlusal, lingual, or buccal surfaces of the teeth (“or” indicates a selection, therefore, only one of the options is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “buccal” which is disclosed in Ezhov’s Pars. [0138-0140] of “exemplary dental anatomical landmarks… buccal and labial mucosa”).
Regarding claim 5, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches wherein the first digital 3D image and/or the second digital 3D image (Par. [0135] discloses “segmenting the volumetric image and surface scan image into a set of distinct anatomical structures by assigning each voxel in the volumetric image an identifier by structure and assigning each vertex or face of the mesh from the surface scan image an identifier by structure, wherein at least one of the distinct anatomical structures are in common between the volumetric and the surface scan image”) represents only a part of the jaw (Par. [0049] of “the anatomical structure being localized, includes, but not limited to, teeth, upper and lower jaw bone, sinuses, lower jaw canal and joint”).
Regarding claim 6, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches wherein in the step of determining the said corresponding edge points in the second digital image (Par. [0159] discloses “border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” wherein, the edges are being fused through triangulating of the edges in volumetric image [the second digital image as claimed]), an edge detection processing is used (Par. [0136] discloses “the selection of points on the surface of anatomical structures of the volumetric image is done by convolving a binary segmentation image with an edge-detection convolution kernel”, in this instance, the volumetric image is analogous to the second digital image and the surface scan image is analogous to the recited first digital image).
Regarding claim 7, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches a computer program comprising computer readable codes, which when executed by a computerized system (Par. [0009] discloses “a processor in communication with the memory unit” to execute instructions stored in the memory to carry out the invention), causes the system to carry out the first matching step (Par. [0159] discloses “one both are segmented and numerated, the volumetric tooth mesh and the surface scan tooth mesh are matched by their numbers” which is analogous to the first matching step as claimed), the second matching step, the overlapping step (Par. [0159] discloses “Border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” which is analogous to the recited second matching step [fusion by triangulating] which following the first matching step), and the displaying step (FIG. 13 illustrates the displaying of the two meshes overlapping) of the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches a dental imaging system comprising (Par. [0002] discloses “method utilizes is dental radiography”): an acquisition means (Par. [0002] of “technology is Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)” wherein Par. [0137] discloses “method of aligning the volumetric and surface scan images…the received volumetric image is a three-dimensional voxel array of the maxillofacial anatomy of a patient” wherein CBCT is a type of X-ray imaging; Par. [0007] discloses “volumetric CBCT images are already being merged with surface Intraoral Scans (IOS) to improve planning for computer-guided surgery”, the Cone Bean Computed Tomography imagery is analogous to the recited acquisition means) for acquiring a first digital 3D image (Par. [0021] discloses “this method involves receiving a 3D image comprising at least one of a volumetric image, surface scan…while the surface scan involves intra-oral scanning to produce a detailed polygonal mesh or point cloud reflect the surface contours”) and a second digital 3D image (Par. [0007] discloses “volumetric CBCT images are already being merged with surface Intraoral Scans (IOS) to improve planning for computer-guided surgery” wherein, the volumetric image is analogous to the recited second digital 3D image); a computing unit (Par. [0009] discloses “a processor in communication with the memory unit” to execute instructions stored in the memory to carry out the invention, the processor program of a computer system to perform the mapped steps is analogous to the recited computing unit) which is adapted to perform the first matching step (Par. [0159] discloses “one both are segmented and numerated, the volumetric tooth mesh and the surface scan tooth mesh are matched by their numbers” which is analogous to the first matching step as claimed), the second matching step (Par. [0159] discloses “Border vertices on the volumetric and surface scan meshes are identified by finding edges adjacent to a single triangle. The two meshes can then be fused by triangulating the border vertices” which is analogous to the recited second matching step [fusion by triangulating] which following the first matching step), and the overlapping step of the method according to claim 1 (Par. [0143] discloses “essentially any means for aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative transform, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image)”); and a display for displaying the first digital 3D image and the second digital 3D image in the overlapped state (Par. [0122] discloses “aligning two partially overlapping meshes given initial guess for relative transform, so long as one mesh is derived from a CBCT (volumetric image), and the other from an IOS (surface scan image). Aligned CBCT and IOS is then used for orthodontic treatment and implant planning”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matvey Ezhov et. al. (“US 2022/0358740 A1” hereinafter as “Ezhov”) in view of Matvey Ezhov et. al. (“US 2023/0013902 A1” hereinafter as “Ezhov_2”) further in view of Matvey Ezhov et. al. (“US 2022/0084267 A1” hereinafter as “Ezhov_3”) and David Anssari Moin et. al. (“US 2020/0320685 A1” hereinafter as “Moin”).
Regarding claim 2, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, Ezhov teaches wherein: at least one neural network is trained (Par. [0054] discloses “weak models could be trained and run the model on all of unlabeled data. From resulting predictions, teeth models that give highs cores on some rare pathology of interest are selected. Then, the teeth are sent to be labelled by humans or users and added to the dataset”, wherein the models being machine learning framework according to Par. [0075]) by data including a plurality of second digital 3D images (Par. [0054] discloses “weak models could be trained…the teeth are sent to be labelled by humans or users and added to the dataset”; Par. [0099] discloses “a volumetric image is uploaded (1.1) to a device, then it is preprocessed (1.2) so that it can be fed to the trained coarse model and to the fine model” indicating the training dataset include the volumetric image [second digital 3D images], in this instance, the volumetric image is analogous to the second digital image and the surface scan image is analogous to the recited first digital image), comprising annotations representing the anatomical structures (Par. [0054] discloses “weak models could be trained and run the model on all of unlabeled data. From resulting predictions, teeth models that give highs cores on some rare pathology of interest are selected. Then, the teeth are sent to be labelled by humans or users and added to the dataset” indicating the labels [annotations] representing the teeth anatomical structures according to Par. [0048] which discloses “parsing pipeline system for anatomical localization and condition classification”).
However, Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 does not explicitly teach at least one neural network is trained by data including a plurality of first digital 3D images, comprising tooth annotations representing the tooth sequences including the tooth number and the tooth center.
Moin teaches at least one neural network is trained (Par. [0008] discloses “a 2D deep convolutional neural network system is described that was trained to classify 2D CBCT bounding box segmentations of teeth”) by data including a plurality of first digital 3D images (Par. [0008] discloses “a 2D deep convolutional neural network system is described that was trained to classify 2D CBCT bounding box segmentations of teeth”, the CBCT is analogous to Ezhov’s CBCT images being volumetric images which is analogous to the recited first digital 3D images, wherein Moin’s Par. [0006] discloses “volumetric dento-maxillofacial images…using Cone Beam Computed Tomography”), comprising tooth annotations representing the tooth sequences including the tooth number (Par. [0088] discloses “for each voxel representation of an individual tooth, a correct label, i.e. a label representing the tooth number”) and the tooth center (Pars. [0039-0040] disclose “determining a center of gravity and/or high-volume part of the 3D tooth model…classifying at least one 3D image data set representing an individual 3D tooth model by assigning at least one tooth labels from a plurality of candidate tooth labels”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaches of Ezhov in view of Ezhov_2 of having a computer implemented method of overlapping a first digital 3D image (13) and a second digital 3D image (14) each showing the oral cavity, at least one neural network is trained by data including a plurality of second digital 3D images, comprising annotations representing the anatomical structures, with the teachings of Moin of having wherein at least one neural network is trained by data including a plurality of first digital 3D images, comprising tooth annotations representing the tooth sequences including the tooth number and the tooth center.
Wherein, having Ezhov’s method with wherein at least one neural network is trained by data including a plurality of first digital 3D images, comprising tooth annotations representing the tooth sequences including the tooth number and the tooth center.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to have a system for automated and AI-aided alignment of volumetric images and surface scan images for improved dental diagnostics and improved visual details, and further to perform classifying of tooth images for dental care automatically and reliably. Since both Ezhov and Moin perform medical diagnosis and pathology monitoring with point cloud processing and mesh registration. Wherein Ezhov system improves an automated and AI-aided alignment of volumetric images and surface scan images for improved dental diagnostics and improved visual details (see Ezhov’s Par. [0041]), and Moin’s system improves classifying of tooth images for dental care automatically and reliably (see Moin’s Par. [0003]).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matvey Ezhov et. al., (“US 2025/0009483 A1”), discloses a method for aligning 3D objects in an extended reality (XR) system involves obtaining 3D objects from a volumetric imager or surface scanner, where the volumetric imager captures a three-dimensional voxel array representing an anatomical structure and the surface scanner generates a polygonal mesh or point cloud of the same structure. The method includes detecting a set of points on the 3D objects by identifying distinct anatomical landmarks.
Baptiste Noblet et. al., (“US 2025/0086894 A1”), discloses a computer-implemented method for correcting topological defects on a surface mesh representing an organ homeomorphic to a sphere and obtained from a medical image. The method comprises applying a transformation to the surface mesh distributing positions of vertices of the surface mesh into a spherical point cloud and maintaining vertices neighborhoods.
Goris, Bart et. al., “US 2025/0228512 A1”, discloses method for automatically generating and displaying a 2D image derived from 3D image data representing a portion of a patient's maxillofacial anatomy. The method comprises the steps of receiving 3D image data comprising a voxel image volume representing the maxillofacial anatomy, the voxel image volume including teeth of the patient and each voxel of the voxel image volume being associated with a radiation intensity value; detecting one or more anatomical landmarks in said voxel image volume using a first artificial neural network; determining a crown center position for each tooth of multiple teeth included in the voxel image volume with the detected anatomical landmarks as reference points and using a second artificial neural network; and generating the 2D image crown center position.
RYU, Jegwang et. al., “US 2024/0257290 A1”, discloses a three-dimensional tooth image display apparatus, according to an embodiment of the present invention, comprises: a tooth division unit which divides a boundary of each object in a dental cross-section image generated by dividing an input three-dimensional dental image in an axial direction; a tooth detection unit which recognizes a tooth area among objects in the dental cross-sectional image and detects a tooth number of each tooth belonging to the tooth area; and a tooth image obtainment unit which generates a three-dimensional image of each tooth on the basis of the boundary of each object in each dental cross-sectional image and the tooth number of each tooth, which are obtained through the tooth division unit and the tooth detection unit, wherein the three-dimensional image of each tooth may have a different display method according to the tooth number.
Xue, Ya et. al., “US 2023/0410495 A1”, discloses a method includes receiving an image of a face, processing the image using a first trained machine learning model to determine a bounding shape around teeth in the image, cropping the image based on the bounding shape to produce a cropped image, processing the cropped image using an edge detection operation to generate edge data for the cropped image, and processing the cropped image and the edge data using a second trained machine learning model to label edges in the cropped image.
Abraham, Zeev et. al., “US 11645746 B2”, discloses a system and method are disclosed for representing and studying anatomy in the oral region such as parts of a subject's teeth and adjoining tissues. Types of inputs are used to form segmented outputs representing the teeth and can include segmented crown and root portions of the teeth. Machine learning methods are used for optimum and accurate results and to generate data objects corresponding to respective anatomical features of the subject.
Matvey Ezhov et. al., “US 2022/0084267 A1”, discloses a system for an infographic display of an image analysis, said system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory storage element coupled to the processor; encoded instructions stored in the non-transitory storage element, wherein the encoded instructions when implemented by the processor, configure the system to: receive at least one image frame; localize at least one of a present tooth, dental, or non-dental condition inside the received image frame and identify it by at least one of a number, name, or short-hand; extract the at least one identified tooth, dental, or non-dental condition within the received image; classify the at least one tooth, dental, or non-dental condition based on the extracted; and represent results of the at least one classified area of interest in at least one of three layers, wherein the layers are an image-based layer, infographic-based layer, or an informational layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights