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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Arguments pertaining to the previous references reapplied are addressed as follows.
Applicant argues on page 9 “Although Lu employs both a monochrome camera and a color camera to obtain reflectance images of the patient's head, it does not mention the synchronous projection of visible light and infrared light bearing a stripe pattern.” Examiner agrees with this as recited in the Office Action. However, secondary reference had been applied to show the synchronous feature. Obviousness rejection is to be considered as the combination.
Applicant argues on page 10 “Therefore, during projection the infrared light with the stripe pattern is projected to the user's face and partly to the user's tooth area. Consequently, when the first acquisition optical system captures the first image based on the infrared light, the first image includes both facial information and tooth information.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Facial information or tooth information are broad terms. These terms can be interpreted as any information relating to face and tooth. As seen in Lu, the mapping of the various images for generating the composite image as in Fig 9, (that includes teeth), requires facial and tooth information. Since applicant does not specify a tooth image, or what the information is, examiner maintains that the image comprises some facial and tooth information, without which mapping cannot occur.
Applicant argues on page 13 “differs from the present application in projecting visible light content, the situation of simultaneous projection and purpose. Specifically, Fuchikami's system adjusts the visible light image according to the result of the infrared pattern shape measurement and then projects the adjusted visible light image to the object. It does not directly project the finally calibrated visible light and non-visible light at the same instant.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are equating the term synchronous to simultaneous. It is noted that they have different scope and meaning and something can be synchronous while not being simultaneous. Hence the arguments are not persuasive. All the prior art rejections that follow, are in view of interpretation applied above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “wherein the infrared light with the stripe pattern is projected to a user's face and partially to the user's tooth area”. There is confusion as to what is being performed and what these areas are. Firstly, Applicant claims a target area in the preceding line, for both visible and infrared light, while the infrared light is only for facial /tooth area. So it is not clear if they are different operations or not. Secondly, spec. ¶0053 merely describes “tooth area” but does not define what it is. Examiner notes this is different in scope from a “tooth” and could encompass any area of face in front of the face. Hence, examiner cannot ascertain scope of this term. Thirdly, the claim recites partially. It Is not understood if only small part of light is projected or small part of tooth is illuminated. For examination purpose, examiner interprets as an intraoral image using infrared. Dependent claims 2-20 includes this limitations and are rejected in view of dependency.
Applicant argues on pages 14-16 “Moreover, Fuchikami is directed to acquiring three-dimensional shape information of moving objects, rather than images containing facial information and tooth… would have no motivation to combine Fuchikami and Lu to obtain the technical problems to be solved by the present application, nor can they achieve the technical effects realized by the present application” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per MPEP 2141 “a determination of obviousness requires Identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does”. This does not that the secondary reference need to solve same problem as the primary. All steps for a 1103 rejection has been properly applied, and a motivation to combine has been provided by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu [US 20160256123 A1] in view of Fuchikami [US 20170347076 A1], and further in view of Fan [US 20200138553 A1].
As per claim 1, Lu teaches a scanner (Lu Fig 5), comprising
a projection optical system (Lu Fig 5, near infrared (NIR) light source 34, white light source 28), a first acquisition optical system (Lu Fig 5 monochrome camera 38), a second acquisition optical system (Lu Fig 5 color camera 36), and a data processing system (Lu ¶0053, control logic processor 30, ¶0078 computer and programs),
the projection optical system is configured to surface contour and color reflectance image content for the face of patient 14”)
the first acquisition optical system is configured to acquire a first image based on the infrared light, wherein the first image is an image with the stripe pattern (Lu ¶0057 “Camera 38 acquires an image of the projected line pattern through lens L1, which may be the camera 38”), and the first image comprises facial information and tooth information (Lu ¶0005, ¶0063 “Triangulation principles are employed in order to interpret the projected light pattern and compute head and facial contour”, Fig 9. Mapping of different images to create the composite image requires facial and tooth information from the infrared light images);
the second acquisition optical system is configured to acquire a second image based on the visible light (Lu ¶0056 “optional white light source 28, such as an LED or set of LEDs, provides polychromatic or “white” light for obtaining reflectance images at a color camera 36”), wherein the second image is a color texture image (Lu ¶0056 “These reflectance images provide texture and color content”); and
the data processing system is configured to perform data processing based on the first image and the second image to obtain color three-dimensional model data of a measured object (Lu ¶0067-¶0070, Fig 9, a composite 3D image 50 that includes both radiographic volume image content and contour and color reflectance image content).
Lu does not expressly teach a synchronous projection, and projecting pattern to partially to a user’s tooth area.
Fuchikami, in a related field of image projection system, teaches synchronous projection of visible and infrared (Fuchikami ¶0051).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Lu by integrating timing control so as to provide imaging where non visible light will not be hindered by visible light (Fuchikami ¶0009).
Lu in view of Fuchikami does not expressly teach projecting pattern partially to a user’s tooth area .
Fan, in a related field of intraoral scanning teaches partially to a user’s tooth area (Fans Figs 2-3, ¶0045).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus to include intraoral scanning so as to provide surface contor images of teeth for applications such as orthodontics and restorative dentistry (Fan ¶0003).
As per claim 2, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the projection optical system comprises a three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system and a texture light source projection optical system (Lu ¶0073 “Registration is the process by which color and texture image content is first mapped to facial contour information, and further how the combined facial contour and color/texture content can then be mapped to the 3-D information”);
the scanner further comprises a control system, the control system is configured to synchronously trigger the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system and the texture light source projection optical system, so that the projection optical system synchronously projects the visible light and the infrared light to the target area (Fuchikami ¶0051); and
the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system is configured to project the infrared light to the target area, and the texture light source projection optical system is configured to project the visible light to the target area (Lu Figs 7-9, projection to same area is implied. See also Fig 5).
As per claim 3, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the first acquisition optical system comprises a monochrome camera and a first filter component, and the first filter component is configured to filter out light of a preset waveband and only allow the infrared light to enter the monochrome camera (Lu Fig 5 item 38, ¶0057 filter 42); and/or the second acquisition optical system comprises a color camera and a second filter component, and the second filter component is configured to cut off the infrared light and allow the visible light to enter the color camera.
As per claim 7, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system comprises an infrared laser, a transmission plate with a stripe pattern, and an imaging lens; and after light emitted by the infrared laser passes through the transmission plate, the infrared light with the stripe pattern is projected by the imaging lens to the target area; or the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system comprises a digital light processing projector (Lu ¶0057 “Light conditioning element 46 can be a spatial light modulator, such as a Digital Light Processor (DLP) from Texas Instruments,”).
As per claim 8, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the stripe pattern comprises a plurality of bright and dark alternating stripes; and a value of a stripe duty cycle ranges from 10% to 50% (In view of applicant spec. ¶0061, Fuchikami Fig 2).
As per claims 9, 17-18, are directed to method of claims 1-3 and is rejected for same reasons as above.
As per claim 11, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the second image is configured to color the first image (Lu ¶0068 “image content from contour and color imaging steps S110 and S120 is then mapped to the volume image content in reconstruction step S140 to provide a composite image”).
As per claim 12 Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan does not expressly teach wherein a value of a stripe line width ranges from 10 μm to 20 μm. However, as per MPEP2144.05 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”
In the instant case, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to perform routine experimentation to find an appropriate linewidth for the stripes, so as to achieve good resolution, or accuracy or both.
As per claim 13, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the control system comprises a timing control circuit, and output ends of the timing circuit are connected to the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system and the texture light source projection optical system, respectively, to achieve synchronous triggering and synchronously project the infrared light and the visible light to the target area (Fuchikami ¶0051, circuit implied)
As per claim 14, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the control system is connected to the first acquisition optical system and the second acquisition optical system (Lu ¶0067 “shows a sequence of processing tasks that can provide combined CBCT, contour image, and color image content”, implies connection between modules and processor).
As per claim 15, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the monochrome camera and the color camera need to be subjected to position calibration before scanning to enable texture map to correspond to three-dimensional data (Lu ¶0074 “With respect to the camera(s) used to capture reflectance image content, it is useful to have calibration information … An initial calibration of the camera can be performed to identify optical characteristics, such as using a set of targets and executing an imaging sequence that captures image data from representative angles”).
Claims 4, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan as applied to claims 2, 17 above, and further in view of Reinhold [US 20120253201 A1].
As per claims 4, 19, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches comprising
Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan does not expressly teach a support plate.
Reinhold, in a related field of monitoring and assessing physical activity by capturing images, teaches a support plate (Reinhold ¶0045, camera bar 402 for cameras and light projectors).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan by utilizing a camera bar as in Reinhold, for supporting image acquisition components. One motivation would be to correctly mounting and positioning components on a stand (Reinhold ¶0065).
Claims 5, 16, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan as applied to claims 2, 17 above, and further in view of Li [US 20060091772 A1].
As per claims 5, 16, 20, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan does not expressly recite a heat dissipation system, wherein, the heat dissipation system is configured to dissipate heat at least for the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system, wherein the heat dissipation system is used to dissipate heat for the control system, the first acquisition optical system, and the second acquisition optical system, or the heat dissipation system is used to dissipate heat for at least one of the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system, the texture light source projection optical system, the first acquisition optical system, the second acquisition optical system, the data processing system, and the control system.
Li in a field of LED light sources, teaches the heat dissipation system is configured to dissipate heat at least for the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system (Li Figs 2-4, ¶0020 “infrared light base 22, heat-conduction base 23… hereby the lampshade 25 can form a part of the outer shell of the light source for protecting the LEDs therein and can absorbing the heat within the heat-conduction base 23”), wherein the heat dissipation system is used to dissipate heat for the control system, the first acquisition optical system, and the second acquisition optical system, or the heat dissipation system is used to dissipate heat for at least one of the three-dimensional reconstruction projection optical system (Examiner chooses this. Heat dissipation for infrared LED as in Li), the texture light source projection optical system, the first acquisition optical system, the second acquisition optical system, the data processing system, and the control system.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan by integrating heat dissipation devices as in Li for the LEDs used in projection. As per MPEP 2143.I.F, known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, Li discloses heat dissipation mechanism for a sensing system so as to increasing the power capacity of a chip (Li abstract, ¶0004). In view of the MPEP section recited above, this known work in Li may prompt variations of it, for use in a different one, like imaging apparatus Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan, since the result of low lower heat loss and increased power capacity is predictable.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Katoh [US 4847734 A].
As per claim 6, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan does not expressly teach wherein the texture light source projection optical system comprises an LED array and a uniform light plate; and the uniform light plate is arranged on a light emitting side of the LED array, and the uniform light plate is configured to uniform the light emitted by the LED array and project the light towards the target area.
Katoh, in a field of light emitting element array, teaches an LED array and a uniform light plate; and the uniform light plate is arranged on a light emitting side of the LED array, and the uniform light plate is configured to uniform the light emitted by the LED array and project the light towards the target area (Katoh Figs 4-6, Col 1 lines 24-37).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan by utilizing reflective plates as in Katoh. The motivation would be to achieve uniform irradiation with reduced number of LEDs (Katoh Col 1 line 30-33).
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang [US 20160037082 A1].
As per claim 10, Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan further teaches wherein the performing data processing based on the first image and the second image to obtain color three-dimensional model data of the measured object comprises: determining a stripe sequence based on the first image, mapping the texture map onto the three-dimensional data to determine the color three-dimensional model data of the measured object (Lu ¶0067-¶0070, Fig 9, a composite 3D image 50 that includes both radiographic volume image content and contour and color reflectance image content).
Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan does not expressly teach performing stitching and fusing.
Wang in a related field of image reconstruction from images teaches performing stitching and fusing (Wang ¶0051 “Image stitching can be performed on individual image sequence first. The two stitched composite images can then be fused to form a wide stitched composite image.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Lu in view of Fuchikami and Fan by utilizing 3D techniques as in Wang, so as to combine images as a large picture that can take advantage of the high-resolution large-screen display device to allow a user to visualize more information at the same time (Wang ¶0009).
Conclusion
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 OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797