DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 18 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… embodiment of FIG. 23 there is in effect a single handle member 154, the different handle regions 60' can be considered to be different portions of the curved handle member 154 that can be held by a hand of a user and that are oriented transversely to one another to permit the scanner 10' to oriented in different orientations …” in paragraph 114) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a plurality of handle regions is provided around the opening, the plurality of handle regions including at least two distinct handle regions each defining a respective which the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user; the at least two distinct handle regions having different orientations relative to one another and relative to the set of imaging modules”.
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 of this title, 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) 44-46, 48-51, 53-64, 70, and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 2019/0064889) in view of Studer et al. (US 2009/0109271).
In regard to claim 44, it should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)) if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114). Thus, “so that, in use, by gripping a first handle region of the at least two distinct handle regions, the user orients the handheld scanner in a first orientation and, by gripping a second handle region of the at least two distinct handle regions, the user orients the handheld scanner in a second orientation distinct from the first orientation” was not given any patentable weight since “in use” does not appear to impose any additional structural limitations on the claimed apparatus. Wong et al. disclose a handheld scanner for generating 3D data relating to a surface of a target object, the handheld scanner comprising a frame on which is mounted a set of imaging modules including at least one camera, the frame having an outer periphery where at least part of the set of imaging modules is located (e.g., “… Scanner 102 may also include a camera 136 to detect the reflection from the projected light in order to generate a 3D model of the scanned object … camera 136 may be exposed via front side 106 of scanner 102 …” in paragraph 17), the frame having an inner periphery defining an opening at least partially enclosed by the frame, and wherein: a plurality of handle regions is provided around the opening, the plurality of handle regions including at least two distinct handle regions defining regions where the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user; the at least two distinct handle regions having different orientations relative to one another and relative to the set of imaging modules so that, in use, by gripping a first handle region of the at least two distinct handle regions, the user orients the handheld scanner in a first orientation and, by gripping a second handle region of the at least two distinct handle regions, the user orients the handheld scanner in a second orientation distinct from the first orientation (e.g., “… a user of scanner 102 may hold body region 116 of handle 104 to move scanner 102 in different orientations …” in paragraph 17). The scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as at least two distinct handle regions each defining a respective region having a geometry by which the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”, in order achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as at least two distinct handle regions each defining a respective region having a geometry by which the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 45 which is dependent on claim 44, Wong et al. also disclose that the opening defined by the inner periphery of the frame is a generally polygonal opening and wherein the frame includes a plurality of elongated members defining the generally polygonal opening, the plurality of elongated members including a main member on which is mounted the set of imaging modules and at least two elongated handle members including a first elongated handle member and a second elongated handle member (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 46 which is dependent on claim 45, Wong et al. also disclose that the outer periphery of the frame has a generally polygonal shape (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 48 which is dependent on claim 45, Wong et al. also disclose that the generally polygonal opening defined by the plurality of elongated members has a generally trapezoidal shape (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 49 which is dependent on claim 45, Wong et al. also disclose that the plurality of elongated members at least partially encloses the generally polygonal opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 50 which is dependent on claim 45, Wong et al. also disclose that the plurality of elongated members are contiguous with one another and fully enclose the generally polygonal opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 51 which is dependent on claim 45, Wong et al. also disclose that the first elongated handle member extends from the main member at a first angle (e.g., see Fig. 1C) and wherein the second elongated handle member extends from the main member at a second angle different from the first angle (e.g., see the different angle illustrated in Fig. 2 and “… user may hold onto … second member 212 …” in paragraph 23).
In regard to claim 53 which is dependent on claim 45, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such the first handle region is positioned on the first elongated handle member; and the second handle region is positioned on the second elongated handle member. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”, in order achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as the first handle region is positioned on the first elongated handle member; and the second handle region is positioned on the second elongated handle member) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 54 which is dependent on claim 44, Wong et al. also disclose that the frame includes an elongated main member on which is mounted the set of imaging modules and a handle member extending from the elongated main member, wherein at least one of the at least two distinct handle regions is positioned on the handle member (e.g., see Fig. 1C). The scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as curved. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”, in order achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as a curved handle member extending from the elongated main member, wherein at least one of the at least two distinct handle regions is positioned on the curved handle member) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 55 which is dependent on claim 54, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 54 above. Wong et al. also disclose that the elongated main member and the handle member together form the opening and wherein two of the at least two distinct handle regions are positioned on the handle member (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 56 which is dependent on claim 54, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 54 above. Wong et al. also disclose that the elongated main member and the handle member at least partially enclose the opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 57 which is dependent on claim 54, the cited prior art is applied as in claim 54 above. Wong et al. also disclose that the elongated main member and the handle member are contiguous with one another and fully enclose the opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 58 which is dependent on claim 54, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as a half-moon shape. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”, in order achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as the opening defined by the elongated main member and the curved handle member has a half-moon shape) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 59 which is dependent on claim 54, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as the curved handle member is a first curved handle member, wherein the frame includes a second curved handle member extending from the elongated main member, wherein the first and second curved handle members together with the elongated main member form the opening and wherein: the first handle region is positioned on the first curved handle member; and the second handle region is positioned on the second curved handle member. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”, in order achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as the curved handle member is a first curved handle member, wherein the frame includes a second curved handle member extending from the elongated main member, wherein the first and second curved handle members together with the elongated main member form the opening and wherein: the first handle region is positioned on the first curved handle member; and the second handle region is positioned on the second curved handle member) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 60 which is dependent on claim 45, Wong et al. also disclose that the plurality of handle regions includes a third handle region positioned on the main member of the frame (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 61 which is dependent on claim 44, Wong et al. also disclose a user operable control device mounted to the frame for controlling operations of the handheld scanner (e.g., “… scanner 102 of FIG. 1, handle 104 of FIG. 1, and a mount 204 … scanner 102 may communicate with or provide power to mobile device 202 …” in paragraphs 19 and 20). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the “mobile device 202” mounted to the frame and “communicate” for controlling operations of the handheld scanner while eliminate the expense of controls on the “scanner 102”.
In regard to claim 62 which is dependent on claim 61, it should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)) if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114). Thus, “so that, in use, the user can hold the handheld scanner by the one of the at least two distinct handle regions and access the user operable control device using a same hand” was not given any patentable weight since “in use” does not appear to impose any additional structural limitations on the claimed apparatus. Wong et al. also disclose that the user operable control device is mounted to the outer periphery of the frame and is positioned opposite to one of the at least two distinct handle regions so that, in use, the user can hold the handheld scanner by the one of the at least two distinct handle regions and access the user operable control device using a same hand (e.g., see Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 63 which is dependent on claim 62, Wong et al. also disclose that the user operable control device includes at least one of a touch-sensitive screen and a keypad including at least one electro-mechanical keys (e.g., “… mobile device 202 may be a mobile phone …” in paragraph 21).
In regard to claim 64 which is dependent on claim 44, Wong et al. also disclose that the set of imaging modules comprises a pattern generator comprising a light source, the pattern generator being mounted alongside the at least one camera on the frame (e.g., “… 3D scanning via structured light … Scanner 102 may include a light source 134 that projects light onto an object to perform 3D scanning. Scanner 102 may also include a camera 136 to detect the reflection from the projected light in order to generate a 3D model of the scanned object …” in paragraphs 12 and 17).
In regard to claim 70 which is dependent on claim 44, Wong et al. also disclose that the different orientations of the at least two distinct handle regions are coplanar with a scanning direction of the handheld scanner (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 71 which is dependent on claim 44, Wong et al. also disclose that the frame comprises a main member and at least one handle member, and the main member and the at least one handle member extending in different directions that are coplanar with each other and with a scanning direction of the handheld scanner (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
Claim(s) 47 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. in view of Studer et al. as applied to claim(s) 45 above, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 5,561,526).
In regard to claim 47 which is dependent on claim 45, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as a generally triangular shape. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43 and electrically connects to computer 47 which controls cameras 17, 19 to provide a switching mechanism enabling a user to activate cameras 17, 19 by squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger …” in Fig. 2B and the first column 4 paragraph of Huber et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43”, in order for “squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as the generally polygonal opening defined by the plurality of elongated members and the outer periphery of the frame has a generally triangular shape) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 52 which is dependent on claim 51, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as the first angle is 15°-45° and/or the second angle is 45°-75°. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43 and electrically connects to computer 47 which controls cameras 17, 19 to provide a switching mechanism enabling a user to activate cameras 17, 19 by squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger …” in Fig. 2B and the first column 4 paragraph of Huber et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43”, in order for “squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as one or more of the first angle is between 15° and 45° and the second angle is between 45° and 75°) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
Claim(s) 65, 66, and 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. in view of Studer et al. as applied to claim(s) 44 and 64 above, and further in view of Intel Corporation (RealSense™ Camera R200 Product Datasheet, June 2016, pp. 1 and 13).
In regard to claim 65 which is dependent on claim 64, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Scanner 102 may perform 3D scanning via different techniques …” such as the at least one camera comprises a first camera and a second camera, the second camera mounted to have a field of view at least partially overlapping with a field of view of the first camera. However, “… Scanner …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see Fig. 2-4 of Intel Corporation’s Datasheet). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as “RealSense™ Camera R200” commercially available from Intel Corporation) for the unspecified scanner of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as the at least one camera comprises a first camera and a second camera, the second camera mounted to have a field of view at least partially overlapping with a field of view of the first camera) as the unspecified scanner of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 66 which is dependent on claim 65, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Scanner 102 may perform 3D scanning via different techniques …” such as the light source is an infrared light source wherein the first and second cameras are infrared cameras, and the at least one camera further comprises a third camera comprising a color camera. However, “… Scanner …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see Fig. 2-4 of Intel Corporation’s Datasheet). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as “RealSense™ Camera R200” commercially available from Intel Corporation) for the unspecified scanner of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as the light source is an infrared light source wherein the first and second cameras are infrared cameras, and the at least one camera further comprises a third camera comprising a color camera) as the unspecified scanner of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 69 which is dependent on claim 44, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Scanner 102 may perform 3D scanning via different techniques …” such as one or more processors in communication with said set of imaging modules, said one or more processors being positioned within an interior of said frame and being configured for receiving data generated by said set of imaging modules. However, “… Scanner …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see Fig. 2-4 of Intel Corporation’s Datasheet). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as “RealSense™ Camera R200” commercially available from Intel Corporation) for the unspecified scanner of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as one or more processors in communication with said set of imaging modules, said one or more processors being positioned within an interior of said frame and being configured for receiving data generated by said set of imaging modules) as the unspecified scanner of Wong et al.
Claim(s) 67 and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. in view of Studer et al. as applied to claim(s) 45 above, and further in view of Hillebrand et al. (US 2016/0073096).
In regard to claim 67 which is dependent on claim 45, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Scanner 102 may perform 3D scanning via different techniques …” such as the main member is configured to define a recessed portion on the outer periphery of said frame, the set of imaging modules being mounted in the recessed portion of the main member. However, “… Scanner …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… The protective elements 105 may be attached to the housing 104 or to the carrying structure 102, particularly at the ends of the arms 102a, 102b, 102c, which protect from impacts and from damage resulting thereof. If not used, the 3D measuring device 100 can be put down with its front side to the bottom. Due to the concave curvature of the front side, it thus comes to lie on the ends of the arms 102a, 102b, 102c. Here, too, the protective elements 105 at the ends of the arms 102a, 102b, 102c are advantageous, since the 3D measuring device 100 comes to lie on them …” in paragraph 32 of Hillebrand et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as “protective elements 105”, in order to “protect from impacts and from damage resulting thereof”) for the unspecified scanner of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as the main member is configured to define a recessed portion on the outer periphery of said frame, the set of imaging modules being mounted in the recessed portion of the main member) as the unspecified scanner of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 68 which is dependent on claim 67, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Scanner 102 may perform 3D scanning via different techniques …” such as a projection at least partially surrounding the recessed portion defined by the main member, the projection extending above the set of imaging modules and forming a protective bumper for the set of imaging modules. However, “… Scanner …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… The protective elements 105 may be attached to the housing 104 or to the carrying structure 102, particularly at the ends of the arms 102a, 102b, 102c, which protect from impacts and from damage resulting thereof. If not used, the 3D measuring device 100 can be put down with its front side to the bottom. Due to the concave curvature of the front side, it thus comes to lie on the ends of the arms 102a, 102b, 102c. Here, too, the protective elements 105 at the ends of the arms 102a, 102b, 102c are advantageous, since the 3D measuring device 100 comes to lie on them …” in paragraph 32 of Hillebrand et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as “protective elements 105”, in order to “protect from impacts and from damage resulting thereof”) for the unspecified scanner of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional scanner (e.g., comprising details such as a projection at least partially surrounding the recessed portion defined by the main member, the projection extending above the set of imaging modules and forming a protective bumper for the set of imaging modules) as the unspecified scanner of Wong et al.
Claim(s) 72-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 2019/0064889) in view of Huber et al. (US 5,561,526) and Studer et al. (US 2009/0109271).
In regard to claim 72, Wong et al. disclose a handheld scanner for generating 3D data relating to a surface of a target object, the handheld scanner comprising a frame and a camera affixed to the frame, the frame comprising:
(a) a main member that is elongate and has a first end and a second end opposite the first end (e.g., see “… front side 106 of scanner 102 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraph 17); and
(b) a first handle member adjacent to the main member and extending from near the first end of the main member, the first handle member being oriented transversely to the main member (e.g., see “… first arm 118 …” in Fig. 1C and paragraph 15);
wherein the camera is disposed on the main member of the frame (e.g., “… Scanner 102 may also include a camera 136 to detect the reflection from the projected light in order to generate a 3D model of the scanned object … camera 136 may be exposed via front side 106 of scanner 102 …” in paragraph 17), wherein the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user by any one of a plurality of handle regions, and wherein the plurality of handle regions comprise at least a first handle region disposed on the first handle member (e.g., “… a user of scanner 102 may hold body region 116 of handle 104 to move scanner 102 in different orientations …” in paragraph 17).
The scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as a second handle member extending from at least one of the main member and the first handle member and oriented transversely to the main member and transversely to the first handle member, wherein a second handle region disposed on a second handle member, and wherein each handle region defines a respective region having a geometry by which the handheld scanner is configured to be held by the hand of the user. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43 and electrically connects to computer 47 which controls cameras 17, 19 to provide a switching mechanism enabling a user to activate cameras 17, 19 by squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger …” in Fig. 2B and the first column 4 paragraph of Huber et al. and “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68” and “Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43”, in order for “squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger” and also achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as a second handle member extending from at least one of the main member and the first handle member and oriented transversely to the main member and transversely to the first handle member, wherein a second handle region disposed on a second handle member, and wherein each handle region defines a respective region having a geometry by which the handheld scanner is configured to be held by the hand of the user) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 73 which is dependent on claim 72, Wong et al. also disclose that the frame has: an outer periphery defined at least in part by the main member, the first handle member and the second handle member, wherein the outer periphery of the frame has a generally polygonal shape; and an inner periphery defining an opening at least partially enclosed by the frame, the inner periphery being defined at least in part by the main member, the first handle member and the second handle member (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 74 which is dependent on claim 73, Wong et al. also disclose that the opening at least partially defined by the inner periphery of the frame is a generally polygonal opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 75 which is dependent on claim 74, Wong et al. also disclose that the main member, the first handle member and the second handle member at least partially enclose the generally polygonal opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 76 which is dependent on claim 74, Wong et al. also disclose that the frame fully encloses the generally polygonal opening (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 77 which is dependent on claim 74, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as a generally triangular shape. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43 and electrically connects to computer 47 which controls cameras 17, 19 to provide a switching mechanism enabling a user to activate cameras 17, 19 by squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger …” in Fig. 2B and the first column 4 paragraph of Huber et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Trigger 49 is mounted on handle 43”, in order for “squeezing trigger 49 with a forefinger”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as the generally polygonal opening defined by the inner periphery of the frame and the outer periphery of the frame has a generally triangular shape) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
In regard to claim 78 which is dependent on claim 72, it should be noted that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)) if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114). Thus, “in use, by gripping the first handle region, a user orients the handheld scanner in a first orientation and by gripping the second handle region, the user orients the handheld scanner in a second orientation distinct from the first orientation” was not given any patentable weight since “in use” does not appear to impose any additional structural limitations on the claimed apparatus. The cited prior art is applied as in claim 72 above.
In regard to claim 79 which is dependent on claim 72, Wong et al. also disclose that the main member, the first handle member and the second handle member extend in different directions that are coplanar with each other and with a scanning direction of the handheld scanner (e.g., see Fig. 1C).
Claim(s) 80 and 81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. in view of Studer et al. as applied to claim(s) 44 above, and further in view of Sheng (US 2019/0204720).
In regard to claims 80 and 81 which are dependent on claim 44, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as a user operable control device contained within an external casing of the frame and configured for controlling operations of the handheld scanner, wherein the user operable control device is exposed on the outer periphery of the frame. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… handle assembly 30 disposed outside the main body 10 includes a handle part 31 and a start button 33 disposed beside the handle part, so that the user can operate with one single hand (one single hand holds the handle part 31 and controls the start button 33 at the same time to control the image capturing timings) … handle and the start button are disposed on the main body so that the user can operate the portable image capture device with one single hand. The main work of processing information is performed by the computer or server disposed outside the electronic device, so that the components and weights of the portable image capture device can be simplified and reduced. Consequently, when the user manipulates the portable image capture device, the burden on the wrist is minimized …” in paragraphs 33 and 34 of Sheng). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “start button 33 disposed beside the handle part”, in order for “components and weights of the portable image capture device can be simplified and reduced”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as a user operable control device contained within an external casing of the frame and configured for controlling operations of the handheld scanner, wherein the user operable control device is exposed on the outer periphery of the frame) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
Claim(s) 82 and 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. in view of Huber et al. and Studer et al. as applied to claim(s) 72 above, and further in view of Sheng (US 2019/0204720).
In regard to claims 82 and 83 which are dependent on claim 72, the scanner of Wong et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… handle 104 …” such as a user operable control device contained within an external casing of the frame and configured for controlling operations of the handheld scanner, wherein the user operable control device is exposed on an outer periphery of the frame defined at least in part by the main member, the first handle member and the second handle member. However, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… handle assembly 30 disposed outside the main body 10 includes a handle part 31 and a start button 33 disposed beside the handle part, so that the user can operate with one single hand (one single hand holds the handle part 31 and controls the start button 33 at the same time to control the image capturing timings) … handle and the start button are disposed on the main body so that the user can operate the portable image capture device with one single hand. The main work of processing information is performed by the computer or server disposed outside the electronic device, so that the components and weights of the portable image capture device can be simplified and reduced. Consequently, when the user manipulates the portable image capture device, the burden on the wrist is minimized …” in paragraphs 33 and 34 of Sheng). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “start button 33 disposed beside the handle part”, in order for “components and weights of the portable image capture device can be simplified and reduced”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as a user operable control device contained within an external casing of the frame and configured for controlling operations of the handheld scanner, wherein the user operable control device is exposed on an outer periphery of the frame defined at least in part by the main member, the first handle member and the second handle member) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended and new claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended independent claim 44 is novel and allowable because Wong et al. fail to teach the claimed “plurality of handle regions” and “including at least two distinct handle regions”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Amended independent claim 44 recites “a plurality of handle regions is provided around the opening, the plurality of handle regions including at least two distinct handle regions each defining a respective the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user; the at least two distinct handle regions having different orientations relative to one another and relative to the set of imaging modules”. Wong et al. teach a scanner user may hold body region 116 of handle 104 to achieve different scanner orientations (e.g., “… a user of scanner 102 may hold body region 116 of handle 104 to move scanner 102 in different orientations …” in paragraph 17). Thus Wong et al. teach that a scanner user’s hand contact a first distinct handle region to achieve a first orientation and the scanner user’s hand contact a second distinct handle region to achieve a second orientation. Wong et al. also teach that the scanner user may hold onto a second member 212 (e.g., “… user may hold onto … second member 212 …” in paragraph 23). Thus Wong et al. teach a scanner user’s hand contact a third distinct handle region to achieve a third orientation. In regard to claim 44 amendments, it should be noted that MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… embodiment of FIG. 23 there is in effect a single handle member 154, the different handle regions 60' can be considered to be different portions of the curved handle member 154 that can be held by a hand of a user and that are oriented transversely to one another to permit the scanner 10' to oriented in different orientations …” in paragraph 114) serves as a glossary for the claim term “a plurality of handle regions is provided around the opening, the plurality of handle regions including at least two distinct handle regions each defining a respective the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user; the at least two distinct handle regions having different orientations relative to one another and relative to the set of imaging modules”. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”, in order achieve “different positions at which the person may grip”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as at least two distinct handle regions each defining a respective region having a geometry by which the handheld scanner is configured to be held by a hand of a user) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in amended independent claim 44.
Applicant argues that none of Huber et al., Studer et al., Intel Corporation, and Hillebrand et al., nor any combination thereof with Wong et al., make up for Wong et al.’s deficiencies noted above. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above. Further in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the rejection of dependent claim 53 was based solely on improper hindsight reasoning. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (e.g., achieve “different positions at which the person may grip” and “plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand”). Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in amended independent claim 44.
Applicant argues that the combination of the cited art in the rejection of dependent 53 would render Wong et al. unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially in response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Wong et al. teach the intended purpose is a hand held 3D scanning system (e.g., “… portable 3D scanner may have relatively small physical dimensions so that a user may perform the 3D scanning by holding and moving the 3D scanner around the object of interest …” in paragraph 8). Wong et al. also teach examples of a hand held 3D scanning system wherein a user may hold mobile device 202 and/or second member 212 (e.g., “… user may hold onto mobile device 202 and/or second member 212 …” in paragraph 23). It is important to recognize the intended purpose of a hand held 3D scanning system is achieved by following the teachings of Wong et al. such as the different hand grips required by “and/or” (in paragraph 23), and wherein said different hand grips are gripping only the mobile device 202, gripping only the second member 212, and gripping both mobile device 202 and second member 212 (see Fig. 2). Fig. 2 of Wong et al. also teach a user may hold a handle 104 (e.g., “… a user of scanner 102 may hold body region 116 of handle 104 to move scanner 102 in different orientations …” in paragraph 17). Thus the combination of the cited art in the rejection of dependent 53 would achieve the intended purpose of a hand held 3D scanning system. Therefore applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found in the references themselves. Wong et al. teach a hand held 3D scanning system wherein an optional handle 104 is provided (e.g., see Fig. 2). Further, “… handle …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… Handle 24 includes base 50, neck 52, and triggers 54, 56 … neck 52 includes a forward facing concave side 66 and a rearward facing side 68 generally opposite convex side 68 … Surfaces 66 and 68 provide a person with a plurality of continuous different positions at which the person may grip neck 52 to position nose 28 and head 22 at a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand … Scanning device 338, also known as an imager, is configured to sense, scan or capture an image upon a surface. In one embodiment, scanning device 338 comprises a scanner module comprising a two dimensional (2D) Imaging Scanner and one or more illumination sources such as targeted light emitting diodes, facilitating omni-directional scanning a in lowlight conditions. In other embodiments, scanning device 338 may comprise other devices configured to sense or capture the visible image such as other forms of a camera or other two dimensional (2D) charge coupled devices (CCD) and the like. In yet other embodiments, scanning device 338 may utilize ultraviolet or infrared light to scan or sense an image on surface … manual trigger 350 may be configured to generate a trigger signal in response to contact with or force exerted by a person's hand or one or more fingers …” in Figs 3-6 and paragraphs 17, 22, 44, and 52 of Studer et al.). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as “Surfaces 66 and 68”) for the unspecified handle of Wong et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (e.g., “different positions at which the person may grip” provide additional options for an user for “a plurality of different angles with respect to the person's forearm and hand”). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional handle (e.g., comprising details such as the first handle region is positioned on the first elongated handle member; and the second handle region is positioned on the second elongated handle member) as the unspecified handle of Wong et al. Therefore, the combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests all limitations as arranged in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0131788 teaches a 3D camera.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884