DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s response to the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/12/2025, filed with the office on 02/10/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the objections of record with respect to specification is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Abu-Tarif et al. (US 2021/0186667 A1) in view of Medit (“New IScan Functions: Manual Adjustment of Scan Depth and Filtering Levels - MEDIT Intraoral Scanner and Dental Software”).
Regarding claim 11, Abu-Tarif teaches ““An electronic device (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0022] "intraoral scanning system") comprising: a communication circuit communicatively connected to a three-dimensional scanner (Abu-Tarif Figure 1 and paragraph [0023] "intraoral scanning system (1), acquisition system (5), processing system (7), and/or presentation system (9) may send and receive communications between one another directly. Some versions of intraoral scanning system (1), acquisition system (5), processing system (7), and/or presentation system (9) may send and receive communications between one another indirectly through a network (24)");
PNG
media_image1.png
538
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Abu-Tarif Figure 1
a display (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0029] "HMI (36) may be operatively coupled to processor (28) of computer system (26) in a known manner to allow a user to interact directly with computer system (26). HMI (36) may include video or alphanumeric displays, a touchscreen, a speaker, and any other suitable audio and visual indicators capable of providing data to the user"); and
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0025] "acquisition system (5), processing system (7), presentation system (9), and network (24) of intraoral scanning system (1) may incorporate therein or be implemented on one or more computing devices or systems, such as an exemplary computer system (26). Computer system (26) may include a processor (28), a memory (30), a mass storage memory device (32), an input/output (I/O) interface (34), and a Human Machine Interface (HMI) (36)") is configured to:
acquire, through the three-dimensional scanner, scan data of a measurement object (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0034] "acquisition system (5) may include an illumination module (25), an imaging module (27), and/or a sensor module (29) to facilitate projecting light patterns onto object of interest (3) and capturing the resulting reflected images for further downstream processing") within a preconfigured scan depth of the three-dimensional scanner (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0040] "the desired coded light pattern is transmitted from illumination module (25) to imaging module (27), whereby it is focused and tuned by a lens assembly (35) for efficient projection and imaging capture with respect to object of interest (3)");
determine whether the scan data is abnormal based on a scan image acquired from the three-dimensional scanner (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "Image sensor (41) may also be operatively connected to lens assembly (35) with logic circuitry to determine whether an incoming reflected image is out of focus and provide a feedback control signal to lens assembly (35) to fine tune varifocal lens (37)"); and
adjusting the scan depth of the three-dimensional scanner in a case of determining that there is abnormality (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "if image sensor (41) receives the incoming reflected image and determines the image is slightly unfocused or blurry in certain areas such as the periphery and determines the lens should be "zoomed out" three millimeters, image sensor ( 41) signals to lens assembly (35) the image is out of focus along with a correction offset of +3 mm") in the scan data, ”
However, Abu-Tarif is not relied on to teach “the scan depth being a scannable distance of the three- dimensional scanner, wherein the amount of the acquired scan data of the measurement object varies according to the scan depth”.
Medit teaches “adjusting the scan depth of the three-dimensional scanner in a case of determining that there is abnormality in the scan data (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "So, when should you adjust the scan depth to a different distance? An example would be when scanning the mandible. In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area. On the flipside, in order to acquire more data, you might want to set the scan depth to 21 mm when scanning deep areas such as for implant cases. Do take note, however, to reduce the scan depth again once you are done acquiring the necessary scan data as scanning with 21 mm may result in a lot of noise data due to the bigger scan area"), the scan depth being a scannable distance of the three- dimensional scanner, wherein the amount of the acquired scan data of the measurement object varies according to the scan depth (Medit page 1 paragraph 2 "For a smooth scanning experience, you should always maintain an optimal distance between the scanner tip and the teeth such that the tip is close enough to the teeth to pick up data but not too close that it touches the teeth")”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to combine a
three-dimensional oral scanner that detects anomalies and adjusts scanning parameters as taught by Abu-Tarif to include adjustment the scan distance as taught by Medit.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that there is a need in
the field of oral scanning to properly capture images of scanned object, " For a smooth scanning experience, you should always maintain an optimal distance between the scanner tip and the teeth such that the tip is close enough to the teeth to pick up data but not too close that it touches the teeth" as noted by the Medit disclosure in page 1 paragraph 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the disclosure of Abu-Tarif with the Medit disclosure to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11 as there is a
reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art
elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 1 recites a method with steps corresponding to the device with elements
recited in claim 11. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the
proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of device
claim 11. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Abu-Tarif and Medit
references, presented in rejection of claim 11 apply to this claim.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "if image sensor (41) receives the incoming reflected image and determines the image is slightly unfocused or blurry in certain areas such as the periphery and determines the lens should be "zoomed out" three millimeters, image sensor ( 41) signals to lens assembly (35) the image is out of focus along with a correction offset of +3 mm") the scan depth (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "So, when should you adjust the scan depth to a different distance? An example would be when scanning the mandible. In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area. On the flipside, in order to acquire more data, you might want to set the scan depth to 21 mm when scanning deep areas such as for implant cases. Do take note, however, to reduce the scan depth again once you are done acquiring the necessary scan data as scanning with 21 mm may result in a lot of noise data due to the bigger scan area")comprises providing a visual, auditory, or tactile notification to a user (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "intraoral scanning system (1), image sensor (41) provides a focusing offset along with a notification the incoming reflected image is out of focus").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 10. Finally the device recited in claim 10 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 12 (similarly claim 2), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the determining whether the scan data is abnormal based on a scan image acquired from the three-dimensional scanner comprises, in case that the measurement object does not exist within the scan depth (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "On the flipside, in order to acquire more data, you might want to set the scan depth to 21 mm when scanning deep areas such as for implant cases") or a density of the acquired scan image is equal to or less than a predetermined value, determining that the scan data is abnormal (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "Image sensor (41) may also be operatively connected to lens assembly (35) with logic circuitry to determine whether an incoming reflected image is out of focus and provide a feedback control signal to lens assembly (35) to fine tune varifocal lens (37)").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 12. Finally the device recited in claim 12 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 13 (similarly claim 3), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 12, wherein the adjusting the scan depth comprises increasing a scan depth value of the three-dimensional scanner (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area. On the flipside, in order to acquire more data, you might want to set the scan depth to 21 mm when scanning deep areas such as for implant cases").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 13. Finally the device recited in claim 13 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 14 (similarly claim 4), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 13, wherein the increasing the scan depth value comprises configuring the scan depth value to be a preconfigured scan depth value (Medit page 1 paragraph 2 "Generally, the scan depth should be set to between 15mm and 17mm for most cases, which would enable you to acquire the necessary scan data for your purposes") or increasing the scan depth value by a predetermined value (Medit page 2 paragraph 1 "However, there may be some instances where it would be useful to adjust the scan depth. You can set the scan depth to anything between 12mm and 21 mm on iScan, using the scan depth selector").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 14. Finally the device recited in claim 14 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 15 (similarly claim 5), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the determining whether the scan data is abnormal based on a scan image acquired from the three-dimensional scanner comprises, in case that noise data is included in the acquired scan image (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area. On the flipside, in order to acquire more data, you might want to set the scan depth to 21 mm when scanning deep areas such as for implant cases. Do take note, however, to reduce the scan depth again once you are done acquiring the necessary scan data as scanning with 21 mm may result in a lot of noise data due to the bigger scan area"), determining that the scan data is abnormal (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "if image sensor (41) receives the incoming reflected image and determines the image is slightly unfocused or blurry in certain areas such as the periphery and determines the lens should be "zoomed out" three millimeters, image sensor ( 41) signals to lens assembly (35) the image is out of focus along with a correction offset of +3 mm").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 15. Finally the device recited in claim 15 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 16 (similarly claim 6), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 15, wherein the adjusting the scan depth comprises reducing a scan depth value of the three-dimensional scanner (Medit page 1 paragraph 2 "Generally, the scan depth should be set to between 15mm and 17mm for most cases, which would enable you to acquire the necessary scan data for your purposes" and page 2 paragraph 2 "In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 16. Finally the device recited in claim 16 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 17 (similarly claim 7), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 13, wherein the reducing of the scan depth value comprises configuring the scan depth value to be a preconfigured scan depth value (Medit page 1 paragraph 2 "Generally, the scan depth should be set to between 15mm and 17mm for most cases, which would enable you to acquire the necessary scan data for your purposes") or reducing the scan depth value by a predetermined value (Medit page 1 paragraph 2 "Generally, the scan depth should be set to between 15mm and 17mm for most cases, which would enable you to acquire the necessary scan data for your purposes" and page 2 paragraph 2 "In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 17. Finally the device recited in claim 17 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 18 (similarly claim 8), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the determining whether the scan data is abnormal based on a scan image acquired from the three-dimensional scanner comprises, in case that a target region is not included in the acquired scan image (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "On the flipside, in order to acquire more data, you might want to set the scan depth to 21 mm when scanning deep areas such as for implant cases"), determining that the scan data is abnormal (Abu-Tarif paragraph [0053] "Image sensor (41) may also be operatively connected to lens assembly (35) with logic circuitry to determine whether an incoming reflected image is out of focus and provide a feedback control signal to lens assembly (35) to fine tune varifocal lens (37)").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 18. Finally the device recited in claim 18 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Regarding claim 19 (similarly claim 9), the combination of Abu-Tarif and Medit teaches “The electronic device of claim 18, wherein the adjusting the scan depth comprises configuring a scan depth value (Medit page 2 paragraph 1 "You can set the scan depth to anything between 12mm and 21 mm on iScan, using the scan depth selector") to be a minimum scan depth value (Medit page 2 paragraph 2 "In this case, it may be useful to set the scan depth to 12mm to prevent scanning the tongue as reducing the scan depth would reduce the scan area").“
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining Abu-Tarif and Medit references presented in the rejection of claim 11, applies to claim 19. Finally the device recited in claim 19 is met by Abu-Tarif and Medit.
Claim 20 recites a computer readable medium including computer executable instructions corresponding to the elements of the device recited in claim 11. Therefore, the recited instructions of the computer readable medium of claim 20 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements of the apparatus claim 11. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Abu-Tarif and Medit presented in rejection of claim 11, apply to this claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASPREET KAUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571)272-3382. 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.
/JASPREET KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662