DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-12, 16, 19, and 22 were amended. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
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 limitations 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a computational device” and “a communication module” in claim 12. 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. 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792).
Regarding claim 1, Kosecoff teaches/suggests: A method, comprising:
receiving three-dimensional scan data, the scan data including input data representing a plurality of depth images (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)”);
Kosecoff further teaches/suggests transmitting (Kosecoff [0070]-[0071] “such data is transmitted via the network interface 517 to the remote computer system 160 ... the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model”). Kosecoff does not teach/suggest:
partially reconstructing a plurality of overlapping depth images to generate a single composite image with a reduced data size relative to a size of the plurality of overlapping depth images; and
transmitting the partially reconstructed composite image to a remote server for server model reconstruction.
Brailovskiy, however, teaches/suggests generate a single composite image with a reduced data size (Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Kosecoff to be stitched as taught/suggested by Brailovskiy to reduce the size of transmission frames. As such, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests:
partially reconstructing a plurality of overlapping depth images to generate a single composite image with a reduced data size relative to a size of the plurality of overlapping depth images (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”);
transmitting the partially reconstructed composite image to a remote server for server model reconstruction (Kosecoff [0070]-[0071] “such data is transmitted via the network interface 517 to the remote computer system 160 ... the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”).
Regarding claim 2, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the input data is received from a dental scanner equipped with a processing unit. However, the concept and advantages of such a dental scanner are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for the depth images of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to be received from the dental scanner to generate a 3D model of the teeth.
Regarding claim 4, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the partially reconstructing involves associative operations on the plurality of overlapping depth images (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The blending meets the associative operations. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein selection of the plurality of overlapping depth images for partial reconstruction is based on temporally adjacent images (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Kosecoff and Brailovskiy are silent regarding acquired at a high frequency. However, the concept and advantages of such acquisition are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for the depth images of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to be acquired at a high frequency for faster scanning.
Regarding claim 6, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein selection of the plurality of overlapping depth images for partial reconstruction is based on spatially adjacent images using spatial data structures or clustering methods (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0077562).
Regarding claim 3, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the input data is received from an edge device connected to a . Sharma, however, teaches/suggests the input data is received from an edge device connected to a filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the scanner of Sharma) for another (the scanner of Kosecoff) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to receive the depth images.
As such, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Sharma teaches/suggests the edge device having a processing unit for partial reconstruction of the plurality of overlapping depth images (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”).
Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Sharma does not teach/suggest a dental scanner. However, the concept and advantages of a dental scanner are well known and expected in the art (Official Notice). It would have been obvious for the depth images of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to be received from the dental scanner to generate a 3D model of the teeth.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US 2023/0123552).
Regarding claim 7, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising preserving weight sums during the partially reconstructing for proper combination in a final reconstruction step. Hamilton, however, teaches/suggests preserving weight sums (Hamilton [0236] “where the w.sub.i weights are incorporated with standard weighting procedures and re-normalized to maintain a total weight of 1”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stitching of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to maintain the total weight of Hamilton for normalization.
As such, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Hamilton teaches/suggests preserving weight sums during the partially reconstructing for proper combination in a final reconstruction step (Kosecoff [0071] “the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Hamilton [0236] “where the w.sub.i weights are incorporated with standard weighting procedures and re-normalized to maintain a total weight of 1”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cummings et al. (US 2011/0285757).
Regarding claim 10, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising rendering low-resolution versions of the plurality of overlapping depth images on the server for fast user feedback, discarding the low-resolution versions after receiving the partial reconstruction. Cummings, however, teaches/suggests rendering low-resolution versions (Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to include their low-resolution versions as taught/suggested by Cummings for previewing.
As such, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Cummings teaches/suggests rendering low-resolution versions of the plurality of overlapping depth images on the server for fast user feedback, discarding the low-resolution versions after receiving the partial reconstruction (Kosecoff [0070]-[0071] “such data is transmitted via the network interface 517 to the remote computer system 160 ... the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame” Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). In view of Kosecoff, Brailovskiy, and Cummings, the replacing meets the discarding.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0126295).
Regarding claim 11, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising performing global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long-span accuracy before volume integration during a final reconstruction step. Zhang, however, teaches/suggests performing global optimization (Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stitching of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to cover the wide range (the global optimization) as taught/suggested by Zhang to improve accuracy.
As such, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Zhang teaches/suggests performing global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long-span accuracy before volume integration during a final reconstruction step (Kosecoff [0071] “the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”).
Claim(s) 12-15 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) and Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135).
Claims 12-15 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 2, 5-6, 4, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest a dental cloud system. Lipnik, however, teaches/suggests a dental cloud system (Lipnik [0080]-[0081] “the remote dental monitoring and imaging system may be implemented on the server 1120 ... The remote entity 1120 may be a data center, a cloud, a server, and the like that is in communication with one or more user devices”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy to include the dental cloud system of Lipnik to generate the 3D model of the teeth.
Regarding claim 21, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Lipnik teaches/suggests: The system of claim 12, wherein the dental scanner is equipped with sensors to capture additional information including color (Kosecoff [0067] “the client application 540 also includes an image capture/3D scanning engine 541 configured to capture and process digital images (e.g., color images, infrared images, depth images, etc.)”), and the computational device is configured to preserve and transmit the additional information along with the partially reconstructed composite image (Kosecoff [0070]-[0071] “such data is transmitted via the network interface 517 to the remote computer system 160 ... the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein.
Claim 22 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 12, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Lipnik further teaches/suggests a computer-readable medium storing instructions (Kosecoff Fig. 5: computer-readable medium 530).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) and Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Cummings et al. (US 2011/0285757).
Regarding claim 16, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Lipnik does not teach/suggest: The system of claim 12, further comprising a rendering module on the server configured to render low-resolution versions of the plurality of depth images for fast user feedback, wherein the low-resolution versions are discarded after receiving the partial reconstruction. Cummings, in view of Kosecoff and Brailovskiy, teaches/suggests a rendering module on the server configured to render low-resolution versions of the plurality of depth images for fast user feedback, wherein the low-resolution versions are discarded after receiving the partial reconstruction (Kosecoff [0070]-[0071] “such data is transmitted via the network interface 517 to the remote computer system 160 ... the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame” Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). In view of Kosecoff, Brailovskiy, Lipnik, and Cummings, the replacing meets the discarding. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) and Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0126295).
Regarding claim 19, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Lipnik does not teach/suggest: The system of claim 12, further comprising a global optimization module configured to perform global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long- span accuracy during a final reconstruction on the remote server. Zhang, in view of Kosecoff and Brailovskiy, teaches/suggests a global optimization module configured to perform global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long- span accuracy during a final reconstruction on the remote server (Kosecoff [0071] “the 3D model engine 581 uses image data (e.g., color image data, infrared image data) and depth data to generate a 3D model” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosecoff (US 2023/0101494) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) and Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0077562).
Regarding claim 20, Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Lipnik teaches/suggests the communication module is configured to transmit the partially reconstructed composite image to the remote server via the internet (Kosecoff [0033] “configured to communicate over a network 170, such as the internet” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Kosecoff as modified by Brailovskiy and Lipnik does not teach/suggest: The system of claim 12, wherein the computational device is an edge device connected to the dental scanner. Sharma, however, teaches/suggests an edge device connected to the dental scanner, the edge device having a processing unit (Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Levene (US 2005/0093874) discloses texture mapping of a 3D virtual surface (Abstract). However, the limitations “the partially reconstructing includes volume integration on the plurality of overlapping depth images, extracting triangle meshes based on marching cubes, performing remeshing using the triangle meshes, applying active shape computation to retain information lost during volume integration, and generating a texture for the triangle meshes” in claims 8 and 17 and “a final reconstruction on the server involves volume integration on the partially reconstructed composite images with consideration for accumulated weights, extracting triangle meshes from the volume integration, performing remeshing using the triangle meshes, applying active shape computation to retain information lost during the volume integration, and generating a final texture atlas from texture information of the partial reconstructions” in claims 9 and 18, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[t]he ‘partial reconstruction; recited in the claims and defined in the specification (para [0005], [0082]) involves creating a 3D composite from overlapping depth images through volume integration into a voxel grid. Brailovskiy's alpha blending of 2D pixels does not result in a ‘partially reconstructed’ 3D model.” See Remarks, p. 9.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s disclosure does not define what a partial reconstruction is; it only explains how the partial reconstruction is implemented. If Applicant wants to limit the partial reconstruction as disclosed, Applicant should recite such details in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0375043 – intraoral scanner
US 2023/0206549 – 3D scan
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights