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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Foged
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Foged et al.(USPubN 2022/0087519; hereinafter Foged).
As per claim 1, Foged teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
a tool detachably coupled to one end of a scanner body(“a scanning system 1 with a scanning device 2 configured with a manufacturer-detachable-scanning tip 43 mounted to the scanner body in such a way that during normal operation of the scanner” in Para.[0186], Fig. 15);
the scanner body having one end to which the tool is coupled(“a scanning system 1 with a scanning device 2 configured with a manufacturer-detachable-scanning tip 43 mounted to the scanner body in such a way that during normal operation of the scanner” in Para.[0186], Fig. 15); and
a control unit configured to control an operation of the scanner body in response to the tool(“The identification-number is forwarded to the controller 8 located on the externally connected computer 11 Based on the scanner-tip identification-number 17, the controller 8 instructs the processor 7 on the scanner device 2 to process a continuous sequence of 2D-images 15 recorded with an infrared-light illumination on the object.” In Para.[0121]).
As per claim 3, Foged teaches wherein the scanner body comprises: an attachment/detachment detection sensor formed on at least a portion of the scanner body and configured to identify whether the tool is attached to or detached from an attachment/detachment surface which couples the tool to the scanner body(“The tip interface of the scanning device is configured with a service connector interface 46 and proximity sensors (for example hall sensors) 47 to enable detection of which sleeve type is used over the scanner when the scan head is mounted.” in Para.[0188]);
a projector configured to emit a predetermined output light toward the tool(“The PCB may also contain a multiplexer for individual IR led control. These IR LEDs 37 may be located in two arrays of 3 IR LEDs located on each side of the scan head 43” in Para.[0190]); and
at least one camera configured to receive reflection light generated by reflection of the output light and acquire at least one piece of image data from the reflection light(“wherein the optical element is configured for receiving the white light as back-reflected from the teeth, such that when the optical element receives the white light from teeth, the scanning-tip provides the white light to a first image sensor in the scanning device” in Para.[0038]).
As per claim 4, Foged teaches wherein the projector is configured to, when attachment or detachment of the tool is identified by the attachment/detachment detection sensor, emit the output light(“an optical element located at the distal end of the scanning-tip with a reflective surface inside the scanning-tip such that when the optical element receives light from a white light source located in the scanning device, the scanning tip provides white light to the teeth, wherein the optical element is configured for receiving the white light as back-reflected from the teeth, such that when the optical element receives the white light from teeth, the scanning-tip provides the white light to a first image sensor in the scanning device” in Para.[0038]).
As per claim 13, Foged teaches an image processing method using an image processing apparatus, the method comprising:
a tool attachment operation in which a user attaches a predetermined tool to a scanner body(“a scanning system 1 with a scanning device 2 configured with a manufacturer-detachable-scanning tip 43 mounted to the scanner body in such a way that during normal operation of the scanner” in Para.[0186], Fig. 15);
a tool attachment/detachment identification operation in which a control unit determines attachment/detachment of the tool to/from the scanner body(“The tip interface of the scanning device is configured with a service connector interface 46 and proximity sensors (for example hall sensors) 47 to enable detection of which sleeve type is used over the scanner when the scan head is mounted.” in Para.[0188]);
a tool distinguishing operation in which the control unit distinguishes a type of the tool(“By having a scanner device that can replaceably mount the scanning-tip, the scanner device will be more versatile. Other types of scanning-tips may be employed, and he replaceable scanning-tip may be changed for each new patient, and/or be autoclaveable. This allows for a more hygienic scanning system” in Para.[0092]); and
a scanner control operation in which the control unit controls an operation of the scanner body in response to the type of the tool(“The identification-number is forwarded to the controller 8 located on the externally connected computer 11 Based on the scanner-tip identification-number 17, the controller 8 instructs the processor 7 on the scanner device 2 to process a continuous sequence of 2D-images 15 recorded with an infrared-light illumination on the object.” In Para.[0121]).
As per claim 14, Foged teaches wherein in the tool attachment/detachment identification operation, the attachment/detachment of the tool is identified by an attachment/detachment detection sensor formed on an attachment/detachment surface which is formed on at least a portion of the scanner body and configured to couple the tool to the scanner body(“The tip interface of the scanning device is configured with a service connector interface 46 and proximity sensors (for example hall sensors) 47 to enable detection of which sleeve type is used over the scanner when the scan head is mounted.” in Para.[0188]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Foged in view of Pesach
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foged et al.(USPubN 2022/0087519; hereinafter Foged) in view of Pesach et al.(USPubN 2020/0359777; hereinafter Pesach).
As per claim 2, Foged teaches all of limitation of claim 1.
Foged teaches a scanning tool formed into a shape with one side open(“The scan head may be detached from the main body 2 and replaced with another scan head by a technical skilled person following a specific operational procedure.” In Para.[0186], The scanner body is opened for detachable scanning tips/heads.).
Foged is silent about wherein the tool comprises: a calibration tool formed into a shape with one side closed and configured to calibrate the scanner body.
Pesach teaches wherein the tool comprises: a calibration tool formed into a shape with one side closed and configured to calibrate the scanner body(“a dental device 802 connected to a calibration attachment” in Para.[0305], Fig. 7C and 8A, The dental device can be interpreted as the scanner body. One side of calibration attachment is closed as Fig. 7C and 8A.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Foged with the above teachings of Pesach in order to improve potential performance.
Foged in view of Saphier
Claims 9, 10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foged et al.(USPubN 2022/0087519; hereinafter Foged) in view of Saphier et al.(USPubN 2020/0404243; hereinafter Saphier).
As per claim 9, Foged teaches all of limitation of claim 1.
Foged is silent about wherein the control unit is configured to, when the tool is determined as a calibration tool, automatically execute a calibration application to be displayed on a display unit.
Saphier teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, when the tool is determined as a calibration tool, automatically execute a calibration application to be displayed on a display unit(“automatic calibration or manual calibration may be scheduled for that future date/time. In an example, processing logic assesses a state of calibration through time (e.g., by comparing states of calibration at multiple different points in time), and from such a comparison determines a rate of drift. From the rate of drift, the processing logic can predict when calibration should be performed based on the trend data.” in Para.[0028], “Processing logic then outputs an indication associated with the assessed calibration. The indication may be output to a display and/or to a user.” In Para.[0603]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Foged with the above teachings of Saphier in order to improve potential performance.
As per claim 10, Foged and Saphier teach all of limitation of claim 9.
Foged is silent about wherein the control unit is configured to, when the tool is determined as a manual calibration tool among the calibration tool, control a guide message to be output on the display unit to guide a user to operate the manual calibration tool.
Saphier teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, when the tool is determined as a manual calibration tool among the calibration tool, control a guide message to be output on the display unit to guide a user to operate the manual calibration tool(“automatic calibration or manual calibration may be scheduled for that future date/time. In an example, processing logic assesses a state of calibration through time (e.g., by comparing states of calibration at multiple different points in time), and from such a comparison determines a rate of drift. From the rate of drift, the processing logic can predict when calibration should be performed based on the trend data.” in Para.[0028], “Processing logic then outputs an indication associated with the assessed calibration. The indication may be output to a display and/or to a user.” In Para.[0603]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Foged with the above teachings of Saphier in order to improve potential performance.
As per claim 18, Foged teaches all of limitation of claim 13.
Foged is silent about further comprising a calibration application execution operation in which the control unit is configured to, when the control unit determines the tool as a calibration tool, automatically execute a calibration application to be displayed on a display unit.
Saphier teaches further comprising a calibration application execution operation in which the control unit is configured to, when the control unit determines the tool as a calibration tool, automatically execute a calibration application to be displayed on a display unit (“automatic calibration or manual calibration may be scheduled for that future date/time. In an example, processing logic assesses a state of calibration through time (e.g., by comparing states of calibration at multiple different points in time), and from such a comparison determines a rate of drift. From the rate of drift, the processing logic can predict when calibration should be performed based on the trend data.” in Para.[0028], “Processing logic then outputs an indication associated with the assessed calibration. The indication may be output to a display and/or to a user.” In Para.[0603]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Foged with the above teachings of Saphier in order to improve potential performance.
As per claim 19, Foged teaches all of limitation of claim 13.
Foged is silent about wherein the control unit is configured to, when the control unit distinguishes a type of the tool as a manual calibration tool among the calibration tool, control a guide message to be output on a display unit to guide the user to operate the manual calibration tool in the scanner control operation.
Saphier teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, when the control unit distinguishes a type of the tool as a manual calibration tool among the calibration tool, control a guide message to be output on a display unit to guide the user to operate the manual calibration tool in the scanner control operation (“automatic calibration or manual calibration may be scheduled for that future date/time. In an example, processing logic assesses a state of calibration through time (e.g., by comparing states of calibration at multiple different points in time), and from such a comparison determines a rate of drift. From the rate of drift, the processing logic can predict when calibration should be performed based on the trend data.” in Para.[0028], “Processing logic then outputs an indication associated with the assessed calibration. The indication may be output to a display and/or to a user.” In Para.[0603]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Foged with the above teachings of Saphier in order to improve potential performance.
As per claim 20, Foged teaches all of limitation of claim 13.
Foged is silent about wherein the control unit is configured to, when the control unit distinguishes a type of the tool as an auto-calibration tool among the calibration tool, control at least one selected from the group of the scanner body and the auto-calibration tool so that a calibration operation is automatically performed in the scanner control operation.
Saphier teaches wherein the control unit is configured to, when the control unit distinguishes a type of the tool as an auto-calibration tool among the calibration tool, control at least one selected from the group of the scanner body and the auto-calibration tool so that a calibration operation is automatically performed in the scanner control operation (“automatic calibration or manual calibration may be scheduled for that future date/time. In an example, processing logic assesses a state of calibration through time (e.g., by comparing states of calibration at multiple different points in time), and from such a comparison determines a rate of drift. From the rate of drift, the processing logic can predict when calibration should be performed based on the trend data.” in Para.[0028], “Processing logic then outputs an indication associated with the assessed calibration. The indication may be output to a display and/or to a user.” In Para.[0603]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Foged with the above teachings of Saphier in order to improve potential performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11, 12 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 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, THAI Q TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7382. 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.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484