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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 – 5 and 13 – 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions (I and II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 15th, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention III in the reply filed on June 15th, 2206 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 6 was not included in the grouping of Invention III as a generic claim. This is persuasive because the Examiner notes a typographical error was made and claim 6 is included in Invention II as a generic claim. The Examiner in the interest of brevity does not reiterate the previous Election Requirement, but notes the elected group now is claims 1, 6 – 12, and 19 – 20. No other arguments regarding burden or the groupings were presented, thus the Restriction requirement stands as amended.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The pending claims are 1, 6 – 12, and 19 – 20.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (CON of US Application 14/831,5458 filed August 20th, 2015 (earliest filed CON case)).
The Examiner for Search purposes used August 20th, 2015 as the priority date.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is longer than 150 words and is written in legalese language mimicking claim 1 rather than a series of brief sentences describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Note: In the interest of brevity, the Examiner will not cite identical / similar limitations in the analysis.
Claims 1, 7, 9 – 12, and 19 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4 – 10, 12 – 13, and 18 – 19 of U.S. Patent No. #10,248,883.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of at least the reasons given below:
Regarding claim 1, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 19 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and dependent claims 5 – 10 regarding the pixel-associated cost to align / match masks of the patient’s jaw.
Regarding claim 7, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 4 – 8 where the jaws are masked and pixel-associated costs are computed to update the virtual camera parameters.
Regarding claim 9, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 4 – 8 where the jaws are masked and pixel-associated costs are computed to update the virtual camera parameters.
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 1, 4, and 12 – 13 where the refinements to the virtual camera parameters would be obvious to duplicate to render obvious a third set of parameters for a virtual camera as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the method is withing in the scope of Patented claim 18 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and dependent claims 5 – 10 regarding the pixel-associated cost to align / match masks of the patient’s jaw as apparatus claims rending obvious steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 12, see pending claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, see pending claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus / program is within the scope of Patented claims 1 or 19 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and dependent claims 5 – 10 regarding the pixel-associated cost to align / match masks of the patient’s jaw.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the Patented claims as per-pixel analysis of images and aligning captured images to a 3D model using virtual camera parameterization techniques based on the alignment of masked jaw images in which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Patented claims are iterated to achieve the optimization patented to one of ordinary skill in the art as the steps are obvious to duplicate [See at least MPEP 2144.04 VI B].
Claims 1, 7, 9 – 12, and 19 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 – 6, and 12 – 16 of U.S. Patent No. #11,042,774.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of at least the reasons given below:
Regarding claim 1, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 1 and 15 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and dependent Patented claims 5 – 6 regarding the pixel-associated cost function to optimize the camera parameters which are further detailed in Patented claims 12 – 14 to align / match masks of the patient’s jaw.
Regarding claim 7, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 5 – 6 and 12 – 14 where the jaws are masked and pixel-associated costs are computed to update the virtual camera parameters.
Regarding claim 9, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 5 – 6 and 12 – 14 where the jaws are masked and pixel-associated costs are computed to update the virtual camera parameters.
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 1, 4, and 12 – 14 where the refinements to the virtual camera parameters would be obvious to duplicate to render obvious a third set of parameters for a virtual camera as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, see pending claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 12, see pending claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, see pending claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus / program is within the scope of Patented claims 1, 15, or 16 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and dependent Patented claims 5 – 6 regarding the pixel-associated cost function to optimize the camera parameters which are further detailed in Patented claims 12 – 14 to align / match masks of the patient’s jaw.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the Patented claims as per-pixel analysis of images and aligning captured images to a 3D model using virtual camera parameterization techniques based on the alignment of masked jaw images in which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Patented claims are iterated to achieve the optimization patented to one of ordinary skill in the art as the steps are obvious to duplicate [See at least MPEP 2144.04 VI B].
Claims 1, 6 – 7, 9 – 12, and 19 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 12, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. #12,402,983.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of at least the reasons given below:
Regarding claim 1, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claim 1 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and the masks of tooth / non-tooth regions being obvious variants of the pending claimed jaw and dependent Patented claims 13, 18, and 20 regarding the pixel-associated cost function to optimize the camera parameters.
Regarding claim 6, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claim 10.
Regarding claim 7, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claim 1 where the jaws are masked and pixel-associated costs are computed to update the virtual camera parameters on an iterative basis.
Regarding claim 9, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claim 1 where the jaws are masked and pixel-associated costs are computed to update the virtual camera parameters on an iterative basis.
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus is within the scope of Patented claims 1 where the refinements to the virtual camera parameters would be obvious to duplicate to render obvious a third set of parameters for a virtual camera as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, see Patented claim 12 and pending claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 12, see Patented claim 12 and pending claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, see Patented claim 12 and pending claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method for similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus / program is within the scope of Patented claims 19 regarding the virtual camera parameter adjustments and the masks of tooth / non-tooth regions being obvious variants of the pending claimed jaw and dependent Patented claims 13, 18, and 20 regarding the pixel-associated cost function to optimize the camera parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the Patented claims as per-pixel analysis of images and aligning captured images to a 3D model using virtual camera parameterization techniques based on the alignment of masked jaw images in which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Patented claims are iterated to achieve the optimization patented to one of ordinary skill in the art as the steps are obvious to duplicate [See at least MPEP 2144.04 VI B].
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, 6 – 12, and 19 – 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim lacks antecedent basis giving Indefinite metes and bounds as “one or more virtual camera parameters” are claimed, but “the virtual-camera parameters” are later claimed and additionally “first virtual camera parameter” and “second virtual camera parameters” thus the claim lacks antecedent basis regarding the number of virtual cameras and the number of parameters being claimed as a singularity or plurality at least.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, see claim 1 for similar reasoning as the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method (claim 11) or the claimed program (claim 20).
Regarding claims 6 – 11, 12, and 19, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1, 6, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah, et al. (US Patent #10,485,638 B2 referred to as “Salah” throughout), and further in view of Fisker (WO2015/063032 A1 referred to as “Fisker” throughout), Xiao, et al. (US PG PUB 2010/0214289 A1 referred to as “Xiao” throughout), and Urakabe (US PG PUB 2013/0286174 A1 referred to as "Urakabe" throughout).
Regarding claim 11, see claim 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 20, see claims 1 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 1, Salah teaches a dental imaging application with algorithms to align a 3D model to 2D images captured for registration / alignment purposes. Fisker teaches displaying and general alignment of 2D images and 3D models stored to supplement Salah’s teachings. Xiao teaches iterative techniques to perform alignment of 2D images and 3D models / images to determine viewpoints / alignments to render obvious repeating steps of Salah and Fisker. Urakabe teaches considerations of image processing with contours of teeth to combine with Salah and Xiao.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alignment / registration algorithms of Salah with the display techniques of Fisker and storage of information as well as use a maximum number of iterations in alignment / registration / pose determination algorithms as taught by Xiao where the algorithms of Xiao may be modified or more directly applied to teeth contours as taught by Urakabe. The combination teaches
a computing device with a non-transitory computer-readable data-storage having instructions that can be executed by one or more processors to cause the computing device to perform a method comprising [Salah Column 16 lines 10 – 26 (embodiments / structures including the use of a computer), Column 19 lines 22 – 48 and Column 20 lines 26 – 57 (computer used to implement the imaging and analysis of images), Column 43 lines 1 – 21 (computers used to process images); Xiao Figure 26 (processors and memory see at least reference characters 2600, 2602, 2604, and 2606) as well as Paragraphs 255 – 262 (computer embodiments with processors and memory to execute instructions / programs providing additional structure to Salah’s computer)]:
accessing an input image of a patient's teeth taken at a particular time during a course of dental treatment [Salah Figure 9 (see at least the first step) as well as Column 1 lines 12 – 22 (imaging during a treatment), Column 6 lines 23 – 47 (2D images captured during imaging), Column 8 lines 42 – 65 (2D imaging during a visit / treatment), and Column 36 line 54 – Column 37 line 43 (acquiring 2D images); Fisker Page 3 lines 4 – 17 (storing 2D images between visits to be accessed later)];
determining one or more virtual-camera parameters that represent an estimated position and orientation of a virtual camera for producing a generated image from a time-projected three-dimensional model of the patient's teeth [Salah Figures 1 and 9 – 10 (see at least “virtual acquisition” and “virtual movement” in the flow charts and the determination / modification of such parameters and “discriminating piece of information”) as well as Column 11 lines 58 – 62, Column 14 lines 32 – 62 (3D reference model stored in a database to combine with Column 15 lines 20 – 67 regarding time intervals / stamps of the model and images to compare), Column 23 lines 5 – 19 (testing / determine virtual acquisition / camera registration / parameters); Column 24 line 49 – Column 25 line 39 (virtual acquisition parameter determination / registration), Column 26 lines 18 – 67 (searching for parameters), Column 27 lines 45 – 62 (3D reference models to access), Column 34 lines 51 – 61 (real time operation / behavior rendering obvious the “time-projected” feature claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art), and Column 36 lines 3 – 30 (restriction of virtual acquired image renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art virtual camera parameters claimed); Fisker Page 8 line 20 – Page 9 line 12 (aligning images using perspective information and aligned to camera position); Xiao Figures 12 and 23 – 24 (see at least reference characters 1235 and 2325) as well as Paragraphs 16 – 19 (pose parameters computed in which pose is an obvious variant of a virtual camera parameter to one of ordinary skill in the art), 137 – 138; 221 – 224 (pose estimate / determination for 3D model fitting), 228 – 238 (initialization and correction to pose parameter estimates); Further the Examiner observes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a virtual camera as a mathematical convention in which computations of orientations or pose or positions / angles of either a real camera or the viewpoint / perspective of the image meets the limitations of the claim];
iteratively adjusting the virtual-camera parameters [Salah Figures 1 and 9 – 10 as well as Column 3 lines 44 – 67, Column 13 lines 20 – 59 (values associated with 2D image data for alignment (e.g. the number of points serves as the iteration variable) – to include those taught by Xiao which are used to achieve the alignment desired as a combination of known elements to one of ordinary skill in the art); Column 38 lines 9 – 46 (iterative approach to optimization); Fisker Page 11 lines 5 – 24 (updating points / alignment to within thresholds / snap values); Xiao Figures 5, 12, and 23 – 24 (iterative algorithms to optimize / determine pose parameters – see at least reference character 2445) as well as Paragraphs 69 – 79 (iterative approaches with a number of control points known / used for iteration control), 113 (maximum number of iterations that is known renders the claim obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art), 123 – 134 (iterative algorithms such as gradient descent), 169 – 179 (control points used for iterations), and 241 – 244 (maximum number of iterations used)], wherein iteratively adjusting the virtual-camera parameters includes:
modifying the virtual-camera parameters to determine first virtual-camera parameters based on one or more teeth of a first jaw of the patient in the generated image to generate a first generated image [Salah Figures 1, 4, 7 – 10, and 12 (subfigures included – methods in Figures 1 and 10 match against a reference models) as well as Column 27 lines 9 – 62 (pose / virtual parameters optimized / iterative optimized and determined to a 3D reference model accessed), Column 28 line 54 – Column 29 line 63 (cycling / iteratively to optimize the alignment / virtual parameters), Column 29 line 57 – Column 30 line 31 line 16 and Column 31 line 39 – Column 32 line 39 (optimization & iterative approach with comparison values), and; Fisker Page 11 lines 5 – 24 (updating points / alignment to within thresholds / snap values); Xiao Figures 5, 12 – 13, 21 and 23 – 25 (iterative algorithms to optimize / determine pose parameters – see at least reference character 2445) as well as Paragraphs 69 – 79 (iterative approaches with a number of control points known / used for iteration control), 123 – 134 (iterative algorithms such as gradient descent), 154 – 163 (optimization criteria / optimizing weights for pose / parameter search), 169 – 179 (control points used for iterations), 203 – 211 (optimization criteria for parameters determination), 222 – 224, and 241 – 244 (maximum number of iterations used)];
determining a pixel-associated cost based on a comparison of the first generated image to the input image [Salah Figures 1, 7 – 10 and 12 (subfigures included) as well as Column 9 lines 1 – 24 and Column 38 lines 7 – 47 (use of a quality threshold to compare images to a 3D model rendering obvious the use of a cost based on a comparison), Column 39 lines 8 – 22, Column 40 lines 1 – 9, and Column 41 lines 38 – 64 (description of requirements of the quality threshold) or alternatively regarding comparisons / correspondence see Column 22 lines 1 – 30 (thresholding applied to compare images), Column 28 line 54 – Column 29 line 63 (optimize the alignment / virtual parameters with a score / fitness value obtained to achieve desired matching accuracy), Column 29 line 57 – Column 30 line 31 (score comparison and generation); Urakabe Figures 9 (subfigures included), 15 (subfigures included), 21 – 23 (e.g. see at least Figure 21A reference character B8015) as well as Paragraphs 238 – 248 (matching algorithms with scoring where SSD and SAD render obvious per pixel analysis methods), 262 – 269 (pixel positions used for similarity analysis), 344 – 348 and 355 – 358 (matching as the fitness metric which includes contour information extracted in determining the matching score where Paragraphs 344 – 348 using a plurality of pixel values) where Urakabe’s matching is scored using techniques disclosed in at least in combination with Xiao Figures 5, 12 – 13, 21 and 23 – 25 (iterative algorithms to optimize / determine pose parameters – see at least reference character 2445) as well as Paragraphs 69 – 79 (comparison for alignments rendering obvious the use of fitness metrics), 123 – 134 (iterative algorithms with scores / metrics per iteration and includes using gradient magnitude information), 150 – 163 (optimization criteria / optimizing weights for pose / parameter search rendering obvious the use of fitness metrics), 203 – 211 (optimization criteria for parameters determination including scores / stopping criteria rendering obvious the use of the claimed “fitness metric”), 222 – 227 (fitting to a 3D model with scoring / fitness metrics at a pixel level)];
modifying the first virtual-camera parameters to determine second virtual-camera parameters based on one or more teeth of a second jaw of the patient in the first generated image to generate a second generated image [See prior “modifying” limitation for citations as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B) in view of the “time-projected” limitation for citations for the 3D teeth / jaw model to render obvious the “second jaw” limitation and additionally Salah Figures 1, 7, and 9 – 10 (see “compare” step in Figures 1 and 9) as well as Column 6 lines 23 – 47, Column 7 lines 8 – 25; Column 9 line 13 – Column 10 line 19 (various comparison techniques and matching as a comparison between two images for aligning images with the model), Column 14 lines 4 – 14 (comparison based on correlation), Column 17 lines 22 – 36 (video acquisition rendering obvious the “second jaw” feature claimed where the process from claim 1 is obvious to duplicate further in view of MPEP 2144.04 VI B), Column 24 line 49 – Column 25 line 39 (virtual acquisition parameter determination / registration), Column 26 lines 18 – 67 (searching for parameters rendering obvious the “modifying” feature claimed), Column 32 lines 30 – 43; and Column 33 lines 1 – 19 (nexus with earlier and later listed techniques for stores / known and acquired image); Fisker Figure 1 as well as Page 5 lines 9 – 15, Page 9 lines 13 – Page 10 line 2 (overlay images for comparing algorithms), and Page 11 lines 12 – 24 (thresholds in determining alignment of design guides)]; and
determining a pixel-associated cost based on a comparison of the second generated image and the input image [See prior “determining a pixel-associated cost” limitation for citations as the Examiner observes the step may be considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B) to one of ordinary skill in the art]; and
generating the generated image from the time-projected three-dimensional model using the adjusted virtual-camera parameters [Salah Figures 1, 3 – 4 (subfigures included), and 7 – 10 (matching / iterating through matching / aligning model and images and see at least “virtual acquisition” and “virtual movement” in the flow charts and the determination / modification of such parameters and “discriminating piece of information”) as well as Column 11 lines 58 – 62, Column 13 line 28 – Column 14 line 12 (projection to 2D / planes for comparison with position/ orientation considerations), Column 14 lines 32 – 62 (projection of model to planes for analysis / comparison based on points / virtual camera parameters), Column 23 lines 5 – 19 (testing / determine virtual acquisition / camera registration / parameters), Column 25 lines 15 – 54 (map generation between model and images with virtual camera parameters conditions considered), Column 33 lines 6 – 19 (mapping teeth model to images), and Column 36 lines 9 – 22 (projection to planes to register images / model to image); Fisker Page 6 lines 5 – 17 (projecting 3D models to planes (e.g. occlusal planes)), Page 8 line 20 – Page 9 line 12 (aligning images using perspective information and aligned to camera position), Page 10 lines 8 – 14 and Page 11 lines 1 – 20 (guide planes / virtual cameras based on 3D models and images in which the image is mapping the model to the image plane)].
The motivation to combine Fisker with Salah is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of digitally imaging a patient’s mouth / jaw / teeth [Fisker Page 1 lines 1 – 6] in order to provide a better guide for matching 2D images to 3D models of patients [Fisker Page 1 line 23 – Page 2 line 8 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (C) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Xiao with Fisker and Salah is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of model based imaging (e.g. for mouths / facial features) [Xiao Paragraphs 1 – 2, 58, and 62] in order to improve flexibility in computations / modeling and to improve processing time for time sensitive applications (e.g. video conferencing) [Xiao Paragraphs 60 – 62 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationale (F) is also applicable].
The motivation to combine Urakabe with Xiao, Fisker, and Salah is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of image processing techniques with dental applications [Urakabe Paragraphs 1 – 5] in order to improve image capturing for display and diagnosis purposes [Urakabe Paragraphs 65 – 68 where the Examiner also observes KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Salah, Fisker, Xiao, and Urakabe which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 6, Salah teaches a dental imaging application with algorithms to align a 3D model to 2D images captured for registration / alignment purposes. Fisker teaches displaying and general alignment of 2D images and 3D models stored to supplement Salah’s teachings. Xiao teaches iterative techniques to perform alignment of 2D images and 3D models / images to determine viewpoints / alignments to render obvious repeating steps of Salah and Fisker. Urakabe teaches considerations of image processing with contours of teeth to combine with Salah and Xiao.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alignment / registration algorithms of Salah with the display techniques of Fisker and storage of information as well as use a maximum number of iterations in alignment / registration / pose determination algorithms as taught by Xiao where the algorithms of Xiao may be modified or more directly applied to teeth contours as taught by Urakabe. The combination teaches
wherein the input image is a camera image from a smart phone camera [Salah Column 11 lines 1 – 26 (mobile phone embodiments defined rendering obvious the smart phone claimed), Column 16 lines 20 – 36 (smart devices listed including watches / phones – combinable with Column 17 and Column 4 lines 30 – 43), and Column 17 lines 10 – 31 (see the use of an iPhone which renders obvious the use of “smart phone camera” claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Salah, Fisker, Xiao, and Urakabe.
Claim(s) 7, 9 – 10, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salah, Fisker, Xiao, Urakabe, and further in view of Fisker, et al. (WO2012/000511 A1 referred to as “Fisker 11” throughout).
Regarding claim 12, see claim 9 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 7 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 7, Salah teaches a dental imaging application with algorithms to align a 3D model to 2D images captured for registration / alignment purposes. Fisker teaches displaying and general alignment of 2D images and 3D models stored to supplement Salah’s teachings. Xiao teaches iterative techniques to perform alignment of 2D images and 3D models / images to determine viewpoints / alignments to render obvious repeating steps of Salah and Fisker. Urakabe teaches considerations of image processing with contours of teeth to combine with Salah and Xiao. Fisker 11 teaches further uses of masks for image alignment checks / fits / comparison as suggested and rendered obvious by Salah.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alignment / registration algorithms of Salah with the display techniques of Fisker and storage of information as well as use a maximum number of iterations in alignment / registration / pose determination algorithms as taught by Xiao where the algorithms of Xiao may be modified or more directly applied to teeth contours / jaws as taught by Urakabe using masks as suggested by Salah and elaborated by Fisker 11. The combination teaches
wherein iteratively adjusting the virtual-camera parameters [See claim 1 for citations] further comprises
refining the virtual-camera parameters by [See claim 1 “modifying” limitations as obvious variants of the claimed “refining the virtual camera parameters” to one of ordinary skill in the art]:
masking out regions of the input image other than a region associated with a tooth group of the teeth of the second jaw [Salah Figures 3 – 4 and 6 (subfigures included) as well as Column 13 lines 48 – 67 (upper lower arches / jaws can be filtered / masked as taught in Column 21 lines 55 – 67), Column 21 lines 34 – 67 (use of masks / filters rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in aligning / updating images captured – further to accomplish the analysis in Column 21 lines 9 – 31) and Column 38 lines 9 – 47 (optimizing camera parameters / view of arches / jaws imaged where Column 43 lines 15 – 21 renders obvious filtering / processing arches individually or together) to combine with Fisker 11 Figures 6 and 11 (subfigures included and especially 6a and 11h and at least reference characters 601, 619, 1130 and 1131) as well as Page 36 line 20 – Page 37 line 27 (masking tooth / non-tooth regions for alignment / assessment of treatments to compare 2D image to models in which the mask creates a design guide (combinable with Fisker Page 37 lines 4 – 9 and Salah as well)) and Page 50 lines 6 – 25 (thresholding based on teeth / non-tooth regions)]; and
modifying the virtual-camera parameters based on the tooth group with respect to a pixel- associated cost for the generated image and the input image [See claim 1 “modifying” limitations for citations as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Salah, Fisker, Xiao, and Urakabe.
The motivation to combine Fisker 11 with Urakabe, Xiao, Fisker, and Salah is to combine features in the same / related field of generating images and models in 3D with dentistry applications [Fisker 11 Page 1 lines 6 – 30] in order to improve the alignment and assessment of treatments in an image based approach [Fisker 11 Page 3 lines 1 – 10 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable.
This is the motivation to combine Salah, Fisker, Xiao, Urakabe, and Fisker 11.
Regarding claim 9, Salah teaches a dental imaging application with algorithms to align a 3D model to 2D images captured for registration / alignment purposes. Fisker teaches displaying and general alignment of 2D images and 3D models stored to supplement Salah’s teachings. Xiao teaches iterative techniques to perform alignment of 2D images and 3D models / images to determine viewpoints / alignments to render obvious repeating steps of Salah and Fisker. Urakabe teaches considerations of image processing with contours of teeth to combine with Salah and Xiao. Fisker 11 teaches further uses of masks for image alignment checks / fits / comparison as suggested and rendered obvious by Salah.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alignment / registration algorithms of Salah with the display techniques of Fisker and storage of information as well as use a maximum number of iterations in alignment / registration / pose determination algorithms as taught by Xiao where the algorithms of Xiao may be modified or more directly applied to teeth contours / jaws as taught by Urakabe using masks as suggested by Salah and elaborated by Fisker 11. The combination teaches
wherein iteratively adjusting the virtual-camera parameters further comprises [See claim 7 for citations for the same / similar limitation]:
masking out teeth of the second jaw while modifying the virtual-camera parameters based on the teeth of the first jaw [See claim 7 for citations regarding the “masking out” feature claimed and claim 1 “modifying” limitations for citations as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B) where additionally Salah Column 31 lines 27 – 56 render obvious simultaneous image processing and image capture and modification of the models / masking for comparison and Column 43 lines 15 – 21 renders obvious filtering / processing arches individually or together]; and
masking out teeth of the first jaw while modifying the first virtual-camera parameters based on the teeth of the second jaw [See claim 7 for citations regarding the “masking out” feature claimed and claim 1 “modifying” limitations for citations as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B) where additionally Salah Column 31 lines 27 – 56 render obvious simultaneous image processing and image capture and modification of the models / masking for comparison and Column 43 lines 15 – 21 renders obvious filtering / processing arches individually or together].
See claim 7 for the motivation to combine Salah, Fisker, Xiao, Urakabe, and Fisker 11.
Regarding claim 10, Salah teaches a dental imaging application with algorithms to align a 3D model to 2D images captured for registration / alignment purposes. Fisker teaches displaying and general alignment of 2D images and 3D models stored to supplement Salah’s teachings. Xiao teaches iterative techniques to perform alignment of 2D images and 3D models / images to determine viewpoints / alignments to render obvious repeating steps of Salah and Fisker. Urakabe teaches considerations of image processing with contours of teeth to combine with Salah and Xiao. Fisker 11 teaches further uses of masks for image alignment checks / fits / comparison as suggested and rendered obvious by Salah.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alignment / registration algorithms of Salah with the display techniques of Fisker and storage of information as well as use a maximum number of iterations in alignment / registration / pose determination algorithms as taught by Xiao where the algorithms of Xiao may be modified or more directly applied to teeth contours / jaws as taught by Urakabe using masks as suggested by Salah and elaborated by Fisker 11. The combination teaches
wherein the adjusted virtual-camera parameters are second virtual-camera parameters [See claim 1 for citations of the claimed “adjusted virtual-camera parameters”], wherein the method further comprises iteratively adjusting the second virtual-camera parameters by [See claim 1 or 7 for citations for the same / similar limitation as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B)]:
modifying the second virtual-camera parameters to determine third virtual-camera parameters based on one or more teeth of the first jaw of the patient in the second generated image to generate a third generated image [See claim 7 for citations regarding the “masking out” feature claimed and claim 1 “modifying” limitations for citations as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B) where additionally Salah Column 31 lines 27 – 56 render obvious simultaneous image processing and image capture and modification of the models / masking for comparison and Column 43 lines 15 – 21 renders obvious filtering / processing arches individually or together]; and
determining a pixel-associated cost based on a comparison of the third generated image and the input image [See claim 1 for citations regarding the “determining a pixel-associated cost …” feature claimed and claim 1 “generating the generated image” limitations for citations as the Examiner observes the step is considered an obvious duplication of parts / steps (MPEP 2144.04 VI B)].
See claim 7 for the motivation to combine Salah, Fisker, Xiao, Urakabe, and Fisker 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) or 2nd Paragraph and 35 USC 101 / Obviousness Type Double Patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 recites a requirement the parameters for the virtual cameras in the refinement / determination of image matching / correspondence determination are reset or refreshed which is not fairly taught in the prior art of record or the combination of references cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cinader, Jr. (US Patent #10,307,221 B2 referred to as “Cinader” throughout) teaches fitting and registering / fitting images to a model in Figures 2 and 3 but lacks the usage of gradient vectors. Malfliet, et al. (US PG PUB 2010/0145898 A1 referred to as “Malfliet” throughout) teaches in Figures 2 and Paragraphs 39 – 45 alignment techniques and registration of teeth pictures and comparing curvatures or the jaw and teeth in registering / aligning images.
Cheng (US PG PUB 2010/0289874 A1 referred to as “Cheng” throughout) in Paragraphs 158 – 160 and Figures 23 – 24 teach masking images of teeth for comparison / analysis but nor to the details of the present application. Rubbert (US PG PUB 2005/0090749 A1 referred to as “Rubbert” throughout) was the closest prior art found in updated Interference search.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)-272-7327. 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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights