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 Official Action
The response filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 10 and 15 have been amended. Claim 25 and 26 are newly added. Claims 1 – 26 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submitted Replacement Drawings and Amendments to the Specification have overcome the abstract and drawing objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 8, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and presented arguments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the objections and rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 13 – 17 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Guillaume, "Digital Impression-taking: Fundamentals and Benefits in Orthodontics", International Orthodontics, April 11, 2016, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 184-194, XP055916739 (See IDS filed on August 28, 2024) in view of Saphier et al. (US 2021/0321872 A1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below:
Applicant argues on page 15 that “Applicant's claims include generating a digital 3D model based on scan data, and further generating a plurality of digital 2D images of the digital 3D model. Guillaume, however, merely discloses making a digital 3D model from raw 2D images or scan data, but does not disclose or suggest generating digital 2D images of the digital 3D model”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that independent claims 1 and 18 recite “receive the scan data and/or receive the raw 2D images from the scanning device” and “generate a digital 3D model of at least part of the dental object based on the scan data”. The claims merely require either receiving scan data or receiving raw 2D images, not both as recited by the “or” term. Furthermore, the digital 3D model of part of the dental object is generated based on the scan data. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Guillaume teaches generate a plurality of digital 2D image of the digital 3D model on Page 189, under the section “the making of computerized images”, where multiple views (i.e. 2D images) are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface. Guillaume further describes on page 189 that “The images (i.e. 2d images) from each take are partially superimposed on one another in order to obtain a full and precise reconstruction of the model scanned”. These multiple views are generated, i.e. digital 2D images, are of the digital 3D model. Accordingly, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches the limitations as claimed.
Applicant further argues on page 16 and 17 that “Regarding the features in claims 1 and 18 of encoding the digital 2D images, transmitting the encoded images, and decoding the encoded images” and “In other words, the claimed encoded images being transmitted and decoded correspond to the digital 2D images that are encoded in a video encoding format”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., correspond to the digital 2D images) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Guillaume teaches in the Summary on page 184 that “record impressions and the occlusion in a digital format file, where this file can then be used to make set-ups and manufacture orthodontic devices” and further on Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files in a free format such as .stl, in order to make them readable by all types of 3D software.
Applicant argues on page 17 that “a digital 3D model may be shared in the form of digital 2D images to other processing devices beyond the first processing device”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., may be shared in the form of digital 2D images) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches the limitations as claimed.
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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, 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 - 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume, "Digital Impression-taking: Fundamentals and Benefits in Orthodontics", International Orthodontics, April 11, 2016, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 184-194, XP055916739 (See IDS filed on August 28, 2024) referred to as Guillaume hereinafter, and in view of Saphier et al. (US 2021/0321872 A1) referred to as Saphier hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Guillaume teaches a dental scanning system for acquiring scan data of a physical three dimensional dental object during a scanning session (Fig. 2, Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, Impressions (i.e. scan data) are taken using an intraoral camera (i.e. dental scanning system) which performs optical digitization by scanning a light beam onto tooth surfaces (i.e. three dimensional dental object) and neighboring soft tissues, where 3D technology is available at chairside (See Introduction)), the dental scanning system comprising:
- a scanning device (Page 185,Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, intraoral camera), wherein the scanning device is a handheld intraoral scanner (Page. 185, Col. 1 1st paragraph, intraoral surface scanner) for acquiring images during the scanning session (Page 185 Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, the handpiece used to acquire the imaging) within an intraoral cavity of a subject (Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, insert the tip into the molar areas of the mouth of patients, where 3D technology is available at chairside (See introduction)), said scanning device comprising:
- one or more light projectors configured to generate an illumination pattern (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, by projecting fringes (i.e. light patterns) of light, The AFI scanner is equipped with filters through which a pattern of light is projected in the form of light fringes (See page 187, Col. 1, 1st paragraph) to be projected on a three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, Impressions are taken using an intraoral camera (i.e. dental scanning system) which performs optical digitization by scanning a light beam (i.e. one light projectors) onto tooth surfaces (i.e. three dimensional dental object) and neighboring soft tissues); and
- one or more images sensors (Page 186 Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, CCD or CMOS
photo sensor) configured to acquire raw 2D images of the dental object in response to illuminating said object using the one or more light projectors (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, the reflected beam is dependent on the reflectivity of the surfaces being digitized (i.e. raw 2D images), i.e. the ability of the surfaces to bounce back the emitted light signal to the sensor (i.e. one image sensor));
- a processor configured to generate scan data by processing the raw 2D images, the scan data comprising depth information of the dental object (Page 189, Col. 1, 5th paragraph, the making of computerized images, every point on the surface struck by the light beam is registered by the camera and the X-Y-Z tridimensional coordinates (i.e. depth) are stored in the memory of the computer running the scanner, Fig. 5, tooth surfaces (i.e. dental object))
- a first processing device (Page 189, Col. 1, 5th paragraph computer running the scanner) configured to
- receive the scan data and/or receive the raw 2D images from the scanning device and subsequently generate scan data by processing the raw 2D images (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, Impressions (i.e. scan data) are taken using an intraoral camera which performs optical digitization (i.e. processing scan data) by scanning a light beam onto tooth surfaces and neighboring soft tissues);
- generate a digital 3D model of at least part of the dental object based on the scan data (Fig. 5, Page 189, the making of computerized images, every point on the surface struck by the light beam is registered by the camera and the X-Y-Z tridimensional coordinates are stored in the memory of the computer running the scanner. Multiple views are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface. The images from each take are partially superimposed on one another in order to obtain a full and precise reconstruction of the model scanned (i.e. 3D model)) ;
- generate a plurality of digital 2D images of the digital 3D model (Page 189, the making of computerized images, Multiple views (i.e. 2D images) are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface);
- encode the digital 2D images in a video encoding format (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable by all types of 3D software); and
- transmit the encoded images to one or more second processing devices (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable (i.e. transmit) by all types of 3D software (i.e. second processing device));
- one or more second processing devices (Page 189, Col. 1, 5th paragraph computer running the scanner) configured to:
- receive and decode the encoded images (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl, in order to make them readable (i.e. receive) by all types of 3D software); and
- display the decoded images connected to or integrated in the second processing device(s) (Page 192, Virtual casts can also be uploaded (i.e. display) to patients, who simply open the file (i.e. receive and decoded images) using 3D visualization software (i.e. second processing device)).
Guillaume does not specifically teach a monitor. Accordingly, Guillaume fails to explicitly teach display the decoded images on a monitor.
However, Saphier teaches display the decoded images on a monitor (Fig. 1, Par. [0204] - [0209], A system 100 for performing intraoral scanning and/or generating a virtual three-dimensional model of an intraoral site. System 100 includes a dental office 108 and optionally one or more dental lab 110. Send the 3D model (i.e. decoded images as described in Par. [0369] in machine learning model) to the selected lab. The dental office 108 and the dental lab 110 each include a computing device 105, 106, where the computing devices 105, 106 may be connected to one another via a network 180. Computing device 105 and computing device 106 may each include one or more processing devices, memory, secondary storage, one or more input devices (e.g., such as a keyboard, mouse, tablet, touchscreen, microphone, camera, and so on), one or more output devices (e.g., a display (i.e. monitor), printer, touchscreen, speakers, etc.), and/or other hardware components, Fig. 42 Par. [0711], The computing device 4200 also may include a video display unit 4210 (i.e. monitor) (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT))).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying displaying images on a monitor as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to display the 3D models to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a user interface (See Saphier, Par. [0230]).
Regarding Claim 2, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. Guillaume further teaches wherein the first processing device is a remote server connected to the scanning device (page 194 Col. 1, 3rd paragraph, files can be stored in a dedicated "Cloud"-type space (i.e. remote server) made available by the camera (i.e. scanning device)), wherein said connection is a wired connection, a wireless connection, and/or combinations thereof (Page 185, Col. 1 4th paragraph, a standalone, mobile cart (i.e. wireless connection) (Trios by 3Shape, True Definition® by 3 M)). Saphier also teaches a remote server connected to the scanning device (Par. [0211] Computing device 105 and/or data store 125 may be located at dental office 108 (as shown), at dental lab 110, or at one or more other locations such as a server farm that provides a cloud computing service. Computing device 105 may be connected to a remote server, where some operations of intraoral scan application 115 are performed on computing device 105 and some operations of intraoral scan application 115 are performed on the remote server), wherein said connection is a wired connection, a wireless connection, and/or combinations thereof (Par. [0212], computing devices may be physically connected to the computing device 105 via a wired connection. Some additional computing devices may be wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless connection, which may be a direct wireless connection or a wireless connection via a wireless network).
Regarding Claim 3, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. Guillaume further teaches wherein the first processing device is provided as a cloud-based service accessible (page 194 Col. 1, 3rd paragraph, files can be stored in a dedicated "Cloud"-type space (i.e. remote server) made available by the camera (i.e. scanning device)). Guillaume does not specifically teach internet. Therefore, Guillaume fails to explicitly teach a cloud-based service accessible through an internet connection.
However, Saphier teaches a cloud-based service accessible (Par. [0211] Computing device 105 and/or data store 125 may be located at dental office 108 (as shown), at dental lab 110, or at one or more other locations such as a server farm that provides a cloud computing service) through an internet connection (Par. [0208], The dental office 108 and the dental lab 110 each include a computing device 105, 106, where the computing devices 105, 106 may be connected to one another via a network 180. The network 180 may be a local area network (LAN), a public wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet), a private WAN (e.g., an intranet), or a combination thereof).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying cloud service through internet as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Regarding Claim 4, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. While Guillaume teaches on page 192 communication with the lab will be transformed and information will be exchanged more speedily and interactively, Guillaume does not specifically teach peer-to-peer connection.
However, Saphier teaches the first and second processing device(s) are configured to connect to each other using a peer-to-peer connection (Fig. 42, Par. [0708], The machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying peer-to-peer connection as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network environment (See Saphier, Par. [0708]).
Regarding Claim 6, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. Guillaume further teaches wherein the second processing device(s) are configured to run a second computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the second processing device(s), cause the second processing device(s) to carry out the step (page 192 that virtual casts can also be uploaded to patients, who simply open the file (i.e. carry out steps) using 3D visualization software (i.e. second computer program)). Guillaume does not specifically teach a graphical user interface. Therefore, Guillaume fails to explicitly teach the second processing device(s) to carry out the step of generating a graphical user interface for receiving user input.
However, Saphier teaches the second processing device(s) to carry out the step of generating a graphical user interface (Par. [0250], Intraoral scan application 115 may provide feedback (i.e. carry out steps) via a graphical user interface (GUI) to show (i.e. generating) that the system understands where it is) for receiving user input (Par. [0230] Intraoral scan application 115 may generate one or more 3D models from intraoral scans, and may display the 3D models to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a user interface. The doctor can virtually manipulate the 3D models via the user interface with respect to up to six degrees of freedom (i.e., translated and/or rotated with respect to one or more of three mutually orthogonal axes) using suitable user controls (i.e. user input) (hardware and/or virtual) to enable viewing of the 3D model from any desired direction).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying user interface for receiving user input as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to manipulate the 3D models (See Saphier, Par. [0230]).
Regarding Claim 7, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 6. Saphier further teaches wherein the decoded images are displayed within the graphical user interface provided by the second processing device(s) (Par. [0230] Intraoral scan application 115 may generate one or more 3D models from intraoral scans, and may display the 3D models (i.e. decoded images) to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a user interface).
Regarding Claim 9, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 6. Saphier further teaches wherein the digital 3D model on the first processing device may be manipulated or updated through one or more user manipulations of the model via the graphical user interface (Par. [0230] Intraoral scan application 115 may generate one or more 3D models from intraoral scans, and may display the 3D models to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a user interface. The doctor can virtually manipulate the 3D models via the user interface with respect to up to six degrees of freedom (i.e., translated and/or rotated with respect to one or more of three mutually orthogonal axes) using suitable user controls (i.e. user manipulations) (hardware and/or virtual) to enable viewing of the 3D model from any desired direction).
Regarding Claim 10, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 9. Saphier further teaches wherein the user manipulations include operations that change the digital 3D representation, wherein the first processing device is configured to re-generate the digital 3D representation based on said manipulations/changes (Par. [0230] The doctor can virtually manipulate the 3D models via the user interface with respect to up to six degrees of freedom (i.e., translated and/or rotated with respect to one or more of three mutually orthogonal axes) using suitable user controls (hardware and/or virtual) to enable viewing of the 3D model from any desired direction (i.e. change representation regenerates the 3D representation)).
Regarding Claim 12, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. While Guillaume teaches a dedicated "Cloud"-type space on page 194, Guillaume does not specifically teach a wireless local area network. Therefore, Guillaume fails to explicitly teach the scanning device further comprises a wireless network module configured to wirelessly connect the scanning device to a wireless local area network (WLAN).
However, Saphier teaches the scanning device further comprises a wireless network module configured to wirelessly connect the scanning device (Par. [0209], scanner 150 is wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless network) to a wireless local area network (WLAN) (Fig. 1, Par. [0208], The network may be a local area network (LAN), a public wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet), a private WAN (e.g., an intranet), or a combination thereof).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying wireless local area network connection as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Regarding Claim 13, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. Guillaume does not specifically teach Bluetooth. However, Saphier teaches the scanning device is configured to establish a Bluetooth connection between the scanning device and the first or second processing device (Par. [0209] scanner 150 is wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless network, the wireless network is a Bluetooth network).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying Bluetooth connection as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Regarding Claim 15, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. While Guillaume teaches a dedicated "Cloud"-type space on page 194, Guillaume does not specifically teach internet connection. However, Saphier teaches the scanning device and the second processing device(s) are connected via one or more local area network(s) or wireless local area network(s), and wherein the first processing device is connected to the second processing device(s) via the internet (Fig. 1, Par. [0208], the computing devices 105, 106 may be connected to one another via a network 180. The network 180 may be a local area network (LAN), a public wide area network (WAN) (e.g., the Internet), a private WAN (e.g., an intranet), or a combination thereof ) or wireless local area network(s) (Par. [0209], scanner 150 is wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless network).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying internet connection as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Regarding Claim 18, Guillaume teaches a method of transmitting digital images during a scanning session (Page 191, How it works in the office) to one or more external processing devices (Fig. 6, Page 192, digital impressions (i.e. digital images) create a digital information flow which will transit within the office and outwards towards the partner laboratories (i.e. external processing devices) in a totally dematerialized fashion until delivery of the end product, whether casts, removable appliances, vestibular or lingual indirect bonding devices, aligners, splints, etc.), the method comprising the steps of:
- connecting a scanning device (Page 185,Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, intraoral camera) to a wireless network (page 185, a standalone, mobile cart (Trios by 3Shape, True Definition® by 3 M), page 194 Col. 1 (i.e. a wireless connection), 3rd paragraph, files can be stored in a dedicated "Cloud"-type space (i.e. network) made available by the camera (i.e. scanning device)), the scanning device being configured to acquire scan data from a three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session (Page 185, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, the handpiece used to acquire the imaging insert the tip into the molar areas (i.e. dental object) of the mouth of patients, where 3D technology is available at chairside (See introduction));
- continuously acquiring scan data from the three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session using the scanning device (Page, 189, Every point on the surface struck by the light beam is registered by the camera and the X-Y-Z tridimensional coordinates are stored in the memory of the computer running the scanner. Multiple views (i.e. continuously) are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface), the scan data comprising a plurality of two-dimensional images (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, the reflected beam is dependent on the reflectivity of the surfaces being digitized (i.e. raw 2D images), i.e. the ability of the surfaces to bounce back the emitted light signal to the sensor (i.e. one image sensor));
- continuously transmitting the scan data (Page 189, The images from each take (i.e. continuous) are partially superimposed on one another in order to obtain a full and precise reconstruction of the model scanned) to a first processing device via the wireless network (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable (i.e. transmit) by all types of 3D software (i.e. first processing device));
- continuously generating and/or updating a digital 3D model of at least part of the dental object based on the received scan data (Page 189, The images from each take (i.e. continuous) are partially superimposed on one another in order to obtain a full and precise reconstruction of the model scanned), wherein the generation of the digital 3D model is performed by the first processing device (Fig. 5, Page 189, the making of computerized images, every point on the surface struck by the light beam is registered by the camera and the X-Y-Z tridimensional coordinates are stored in the memory of the computer running the scanner. Multiple views are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface. The images from each take are partially superimposed on one another in order to obtain a full and precise reconstruction of the model scanned (i.e. 3D model));
- continuously generating a plurality of digital 2D images of the digital 3D model using the first processing device (Page 189, the making of computerized images, Multiple views (i.e. 2D images) are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface);
- continuously encoding the digital 2D images in a video encoding format using the first processing device (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable by all types of 3D software);
- continuously transmitting the encoded images to one or more second processing devices (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl, in order to make them readable (i.e. transmitting) by all types of 3D software); and
- continuously decoding and displaying the images using the one or more second processing devices (Page 192, Virtual casts can also be uploaded (i.e. display) to patients, who simply open the file (i.e. receive and decoded images) using 3D visualization software (i.e. second processing device)).
While Guillaume teaches on page 185 “systems offer a standalone, mobile cart, where functional tactile screen helps the user monitor the acquisition process” and further on page 190 “The camera's built-in software is also responsible for extrapolating the non-registered zones, i.e. those which are inaccessible or which are not scanned by the practitioner. After registration, the final screen shows a complete image with no gaps, which have been filled in by the software”, Guillaume fails to explicitly teach real-time displaying the images.
However, Saphier teaches displaying the images in real time (Par. [0224] During intraoral scanning, intraoral scan application 115 may register and stitch together two or more intraoral scans generated from the intraoral scan session. As each new intraoral scan is captured and registered to previous intraoral scans and/or a 3D surface, the one or more 3D surfaces may be updated, and the updated 3D surface(s) may be output to the display. This process may be performed in real time or near-real time).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying displaying images in real time as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to provide an updated view of the captured 3D surfaces during the intraoral scanning process (See Saphier, Par. [0224]).
Regarding Claim 19, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 18. Guillaume does not specifically teach Bluetooth. However, Saphier teaches the step of connecting the scanning device comprises the step of establishing a Bluetooth connection (Par. [0209] scanner 150 is wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless network, the wireless network is a Bluetooth network) between the scanning device and an electronic device (Fig. 42, Par. [0708] The computing device 4200 may correspond, for example, to computing device 105 and/or computing device 106 of FIG. 1. The machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The machine may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet computer, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone (i.e. examples of electronic devices)).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying Bluetooth connection as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Regarding Claim 21, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 19. Saphier further teaches wherein the electronic device is the first or second processing device (Fig. 42, Par. [0708] The computing device 4200 may correspond, for example, to computing device 105 and/or computing device 106 (i.e. first or second processing device) of FIG. 1. The machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The machine may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet computer, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone (i.e. examples of electronic devices)).
Regarding Claim 24, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 18.Guillaume further teaches wherein the method is performed by a dental scanning system for acquiring scan data of a physical three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session (Fig. 2, Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, Impressions (i.e. scan data) are taken (i.e. method is performed) using an intraoral camera (i.e. dental scanning system) which performs optical digitization by scanning a light beam onto tooth surfaces (i.e. physical three dimensional dental object) and neighboring soft tissues, where 3D technology is available at chairside (See Introduction)), the dental scanning system comprising:
- a scanning device (Page 185,Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, intraoral camera), wherein the scanning device is a handheld intraoral scanner (Page. 185, Col. 1 1st paragraph, intraoral surface scanner) for acquiring images during the scanning session (Page 185 Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, the handpiece used to acquire the imaging) within an intraoral cavity of a subject (Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, insert the tip into the molar areas of the mouth of patients, where 3D technology is available at chairside (See introduction)), said scanning device comprising:
- one or more light projectors configured to generate an illumination pattern (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, by projecting fringes (i.e. light patterns) of light, The AFI scanner is equipped with filters through which a pattern of light is projected in the form of light fringes (See page 187, Col. 1, 1st paragraph) to be projected on a three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, Impressions are taken using an intraoral camera (i.e. dental scanning system) which performs optical digitization by scanning a light beam (i.e. one light projectors) onto tooth surfaces (i.e. three dimensional dental object) and neighboring soft tissues); and
- one or more images sensors (Page 186 Col. 1, 2nd paragraph, CCD or CMOS
photo sensor) configured to acquire raw 2D images of the dental object in response to illuminating said object using the one or more light projectors (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, the reflected beam is dependent on the reflectivity of the surfaces being digitized (i.e. raw 2D images), i.e. the ability of the surfaces to bounce back the emitted light signal to the sensor (i.e. one image sensor));
- a processor configured to generate scan data by processing the raw 2D images, the scan data comprising depth information of the dental object (Page 189, Col. 1, 5th paragraph, the making of computerized images, every point on the surface struck by the light beam is registered by the camera and the X-Y-Z tridimensional coordinates (i.e. depth) are stored in the memory of the computer running the scanner, Fig. 5, tooth surfaces (i.e. dental object))
- a first processing device (Page 189, Col. 1, 5th paragraph computer running the scanner) configured to:
- receive the scan data and/or receive the raw 2D images from the scanning device and subsequently generate scan data by processing the raw 2D images (Page 186 Col. 1, 1st paragraph, Impressions (i.e. scan data) are taken using an intraoral camera which performs optical digitization (i.e. processing scan data) by scanning a light beam onto tooth surfaces and neighboring soft tissues);
- generate a digital 3D model of at least part of the dental object based on the scan data (Fig. 5, Page 189, the making of computerized images, every point on the surface struck by the light beam is registered by the camera and the X-Y-Z tridimensional coordinates are stored in the memory of the computer running the scanner. Multiple views are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface. The images from each take are partially superimposed on one another in order to obtain a full and precise reconstruction of the model scanned (i.e. 3D model)) ;
- generate a plurality of digital 2D images of the digital 3D model (Page 189, the making of computerized images, Multiple views (i.e. 2D images) are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface);
- encode the digital 2D images in a video encoding format (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable by all types of 3D software); and
- transmit the encoded images to one or more second processing devices (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable (i.e. transmit) by all types of 3D software (i.e. second processing device));
- one or more second processing devices (Page 189, Col. 1, 5th paragraph computer running the scanner) configured to:
- receive and decode the encoded images (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl, in order to make them readable (i.e. receive) by all types of 3D software); and
- display the decoded images connected to or integrated in the second processing device(s) (Page 192, Virtual casts can also be uploaded (i.e. display) to patients, who simply open the file (i.e. receive and decoded images) using 3D visualization software (i.e. second processing device).
Guillaume does not specifically teach a monitor. Accordingly, Guillaume fails to explicitly teach display the decoded images on a monitor.
However, Saphier teaches display the decoded images on a monitor (Fig. 1, Par. [0204] - [0209], A system 100 for performing intraoral scanning and/or generating a virtual three-dimensional model of an intraoral site. System 100 includes a dental office 108 and optionally one or more dental lab 110. Send the 3D model (i.e. decoded images as described in Par. [0369] in machine learning model) to the selected lab. The dental office 108 and the dental lab 110 each include a computing device 105, 106, where the computing devices 105, 106 may be connected to one another via a network 180. Computing device 105 and computing device 106 may each include one or more processing devices, memory, secondary storage, one or more input devices (e.g., such as a keyboard, mouse, tablet, touchscreen, microphone, camera, and so on), one or more output devices (e.g., a display (i.e. monitor), printer, touchscreen, speakers, etc.), and/or other hardware components, Fig. 42 Par. [0711], The computing device 4200 also may include a video display unit 4210 (i.e. monitor) (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT))).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying displaying images on a monitor as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to display the 3D models to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a user interface (See Saphier, Par. [0230]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Holmberg et al. (US 2019/0306540 A1) referred to as Holmberg hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 5, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 4. While Saphier teaches peer- to-peer connection (Par. [0708], The machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a client-server network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment), Guillaume in view of Saphier does not specifically teach latency of connection. Therefore, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach the latency of the peer- to-peer connection is below 150 ms.
However, Holmberg teaches the latency of the peer- to-peer connection is below 150 ms (Par. [0103], the non-negligible peer-to-peer communications latency is at least about 30-100 ms).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Holmberg are considered to be analogous art because they relate to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying peer-to-peer connection with latency below 150 ms as suggested by Holmberg in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to manage latencies and the captured audiovisual content (See Holmberg, Par. [0009]).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Sant et al. (US 10,932,890 B1) referred to as Sant hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 8, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 6. Saphier further teaches wherein the first processing device is configured to run a first computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by the first processing device(s), cause the first processing device(s) to carry out the step of generating or updating the digital 3D model from the scan data (Fig. 2A, Par. [0404] When scanning of a segment (e.g., upper or lower dental arch) is complete, 3D model generator 276 performs a more accurate registration and stitching of intraoral scans 248 from input data 262 to generate a 3D model 278 of the completed segment), wherein the first and second computer programs are configured to communicate with each other (Par. [0405] Once 3D models of the upper and lower dental arches are complete, and scanning of a bite role is complete, post processor 283 may automatically perform one or more post-processing operations).
While Saphier teaches in Par. [0230], The doctor can virtually manipulate the 3D models via the user interface with respect to up to six degrees of freedom (i.e., translated and/or rotated with respect to one or more of three mutually orthogonal axes) using suitable user controls (hardware and/or virtual) to enable viewing of the 3D model from any desired direction, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach application programming interface (API).
However, Sant teaches the first and second computer programs are configured to communicate with each other via an application programming interface (API) (Fig. 1A, Col. 5:31-39 The user device 110 may optionally provide information to the margin determination system 100 via a network (e.g., the internet). The system 100 may respond to application program interface (API) calls or endpoints. Thus, the user device 110 may provide the intraoral scan 112 via an API call or endpoint).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Sant are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying communication via an application programming interface as suggested by Sant in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order for the user devices in communication with the system (See Sant, Col. 4:2-3).
Regarding Claim 11, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 9. Saphier further teaches wherein the first processing device is associated with the user manipulations (Par. [0230] The doctor can virtually manipulate the 3D models via the user interface with respect to up to six degrees of freedom (i.e., translated and/or rotated with respect to one or more of three mutually orthogonal axes) using suitable user controls (hardware and/or virtual) to enable viewing of the 3D model from any desired direction). Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach application programming interface (API).
However, Sant teaches receive commands via one or more application programming interface (API) calls (Col. 5:36-39, the system 100 may respond to application program interface (API) calls (i.e. commands) or endpoints. Thus, the user device 110 may provide the intraoral scan 112 via an API call or endpoint).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Sant are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying communication via an application programming interface as suggested by Sant in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order for the user devices in communication with the system (See Sant, Col. 4:2-3).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 11,343,676 B1) referred to as Zhang hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 14, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 13. Saphier further teaches the dental scanning system is configured to connect the scanning device to a wireless local area network via the Bluetooth connection (Par. [0209] scanner 150 is wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless network, the wireless network is a Bluetooth network). Guillaume in view of Saphier does not teach transferring network credentials. Therefore, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach connect the device to a wireless local area network by transferring network credentials associated with said wireless network via the Bluetooth connection.
However, Zhang teaches connect the scanning device to a wireless local area network by transferring network credentials associated with said wireless network via the Bluetooth connection (Col. 6:47-55, a user may input network credentials into a user interface included on the device 202, or for devices 202 that do not include a user interface, a user may input network credentials into a user interface on a secondary device (e.g., a mobile device) and the secondary device may transfer the network credentials to the device 202 via a wired connection (e.g., universal serial bus (USB) connection) or a wireless connection (e.g., BLUETOOTH, NFC, RFID or WI-FI Direct)).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Zhang are considered to be analogous art because they relate to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying transferring network credentials as suggested by Zhang in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to register a device with a provisioning service (See Zhang, Col. 1:41).
Regarding Claim 20, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 19. Saphier further teaches the wireless network is transferred to the scanning device via the Bluetooth connection, whereby the scanning device is connected to the wireless network (Par. [0209] scanner 150 is wirelessly connected to computing device 105 via a wireless network, the wireless network is a Bluetooth network). Guillaume in view of Saphier does not teach transferring network credentials. Therefore, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach network credentials and/or a network certificate associated with the wireless network is transferred to the scanning device via the Bluetooth connection.
However, Zhang teaches network credentials and/or a network certificate associated with the wireless network is transferred to the scanning device via the Bluetooth connection (Col. 6:47-55, a user may input network credentials into a user interface included on the device 202, or for devices 202 that do not include a user interface, a user may input network credentials into a user interface on a secondary device (e.g., a mobile device) and the secondary device may transfer the network credentials to the device 202 via a wired connection (e.g., universal serial bus (USB) connection) or a wireless connection (e.g., BLUETOOTH, NFC, RFID or WI-FI Direct)).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Zhang are considered to be analogous art because they relate to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying transferring network credentials as suggested by Zhang in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to register a device with a provisioning service (See Zhang, Col. 1:41).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Miller et al. (US 2014/0272764 A1) referred to as Miller hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 16, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. While Guillaume teaches the video encoding format (Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable by all types of 3D software), Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach the video encoding format is selected among the group of: H.264, H.265, and VP8.
However, Miller teaches the video encoding format is selected among the group of: H.264, H.265, and VP8 (Par. [0077], 2D Video: MPEG 1/2/4, H.264, MJPEG, VC1, WMV, Real Video format video, up to a maximum of 1080P, 3D Video: Left and Right 3D video format, H.264, AVI or other mainstream encoding formats).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Miller are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying the encoding format as suggested by Miller in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order that processing and displaying can be done on a 3D processing systems with appropriate specifications, such as a 3D tablet processor (See Miller, Par. [0077]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Parker et al. (US 2004/0094627 A1) referred to as Parker hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 17, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. While Guillaume teaches the encoded 2D images are transmitted on Page 194, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, encode the files (i.e. 2D images) in a free format such as .stl (i.e. video encoding format), in order to make them readable (i.e. transmit) by all types of 3D software), Guillaume in view of Saphier does not specifically teach a frame rate. Therefore, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach the encoded 2D images are transmitted at a frame rate of at least 30 frames per second.
However, Parker teaches the encoded 2D images are transmitted at a frame rate of at least 30 frames per second (Par. [0084], After the reader (i.e. scanner) has been initialized, the processor proceeds to blocks 625 and 627, Fig. 6A, which calls for it to capture and attempt to decode an image of the target symbol. Included among these steps are a scanning subroutine which specifies the address space or spaces in which scan data (i.e. encoded 2D images) will be stored and whether scanning is to be continuous (e.g., at a full video rate, such as 30 frames per second)).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Parker are considered to be analogous art because they relate to scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying frame rate as suggested by Parker in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to govern the parameters which control the codes which are enabled for processing as a part of the auto discrimination process, whether decoding is to be continuous or discontinuous, etc. (See Parker, Par. [0021]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Keser et al. (US 10,574,810 B1) referred to as Keser hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 22, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 18. Guillaume does not specifically teach Wi-Fi networks. However, Saphier further teaches wherein the step of connecting the scanning device to the wireless network comprises Wi-Fi networks by the scanning device (Par. [0209], Intraoral scanner 150 may include a wireless module such as a Wi-Fi module, and via the wireless module may join the wireless network via the wireless access point/router) and a monitor (Fig. 42 Par. [0711], The computing device 4200 also may include a video display unit 4210 (i.e. monitor) (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD) or a cathode ray tube (CRT))).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying wi-fi connection as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Guillaume in view of Saphier does not specifically teach a list of Wi-Fi networks. Therefore, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach displaying a list of Wi-Fi networks visible on a monitor.
However, Keser teaches displaying a list of Wi-Fi networks visible on a monitor (Col. 9:31-36 FIG. 4 shows an example of a “connect to Wi-Fi” graphical user interface (GUI) that can be displayed by a typical UE (i.e. monitor). The connect to Wi-Fi GUI 400 can display a prompt to a user to select a Wi-Fi network for the UE to connect (e.g., Wi-Fi selection prompt 410), along with a displayed list of Wi-Fi networks (Wi-Fi networks list 420)).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Keser are considered to be analogous art because they relate to network connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying listing the Wi-Fi networks as suggested by Keser in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to provide the user with an option to connect to a Wi-Fi network (See Keser, Col. 9:7-8).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of KIM et al. (US 2014/0118767 A1) referred to as KIM hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 23, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 18. Guillaume further teaches the step of connecting the scanning device to the wireless network (page 185, a standalone, mobile cart (Trios by 3Shape, True Definition® by 3 M), page 194 Col. 1 (i.e. a wireless connection), 3rd paragraph, files can be stored in a dedicated "Cloud"-type space (i.e. network) made available by the camera (i.e. scanning device). Guillaume does not specifically teach network access point. However, Saphier further teaches the step of connecting the scanning device to the wireless network comprises the steps of hosting a network access point from the scanning device (Par. [0209], multiple scanners 150 in dental office 108 wirelessly connect to computing device 105. Computing device 105 may be physically connected (i.e. hosting) to one or more wireless access points and/or wireless routers (e.g., Wi-Fi access points/routers)), and selecting the scanning device (Par. [0209], Intraoral scanner 150 may include a wireless module such as a Wi-Fi module, and via the wireless module may join (i.e. the scanning device is selected) the wireless network via the wireless access point/router).
References Guillaume and Saphier are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying network access point as suggested by Saphier in the invention of Guillaume in order to connect to the network (See Saphier, Par. [0212]).
Guillaume in view of Saphier does not specifically teach selecting the scanning device. Therefore, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach the step of hosting a network access point from the scanning device, and selecting on a display connected to the first or second processing device, the scanning device.
However, KIM teaches the step of hosting a network access point from the scanning device, and selecting on a display connected to the first or second processing device (Par. [0067] The user can select a scanner to be used from the scanner list displayed on the display through the inputter), the scanning device (Par. [0066], one scanner (i.e. scanning device) is shared between the host devices connected through the network (i.e. host network access point), a list of scanners which are connected to the remote host device locally or by wire/wirelessly, is displayed to the user through the display).
References Guillaume, Saphier and KIM are considered to be analogous art because they relate to network connections. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying selecting the scanning device as suggested by KIM in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to make the corresponding scanner perform the scan operation (See KIM, Par. [0067]).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillaume in view of Saphier (US 2021/0321872 A1), and in further view of Wu et al. (US 2017/0103569 A1) referred to as Wu hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 25, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. Guillaume further teaches the first processing device generates the plurality of digital 2D images (Page 189, the making of computerized images, Multiple views (i.e. 2D images) are taken from different angles in order to cover the entire surface).
Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach generates digital 2D images based on the generated digital 3D model.
However, Wu teaches generates digital 2D images based on the generated digital 3D model (Fig. 10, Abstract, The 2D image is generated and displayed using the 3D surface model. Par. [0059] a 2D index image generation step S420 then generates an index image, also termed a panorama image, using the mesh parameterization and reflectance image data from the camera corresponding to a tooth surface 156 from the surface model).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Wu are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying generating 2D images based on generated 3D images as suggested by Wu in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order to identify and render the region of interest (See Wu, Par. [0012]).
Regarding Claim 26, Guillaume in view of Saphier teaches Claim 1. Guillaume further teaches display images (Page 185 How do intraoral 3D cameras operate, paragraph 2 tactile screen helps the user monitor the acquisition process, Page 192, Virtual casts can also be uploaded (i.e. display) to patients, who simply open the file using 3D visualization software). Saphier further teaches display images (Fig. 1, Par. [0204] - [0209], A system 100 for performing intraoral scanning and/or generating a virtual three-dimensional model of an intraoral site. System 100 includes a dental office 108 and optionally one or more dental lab 110. Send the 3D model to the selected lab. The dental office 108 and the dental lab 110 each include a computing device 105, 106, where the computing devices 105, 106 may be connected to one another via a network 180. Computing device 105 and computing device 106 may each include one or more processing devices, memory, secondary storage, one or more input devices (e.g., such as a keyboard, mouse, tablet, touchscreen, microphone, camera, and so on), one or more output devices (e.g., a display, printer, touchscreen, speakers, etc.), and/or other hardware components, Par. [0230] Intraoral scan application 115 may generate one or more 3D models from intraoral scans, and may display the 3D models to a user (e.g., a doctor) via a user interface.
However, Guillaume in view of Saphier fails to explicitly teach the displayed images are 2D images.
However, Wu teaches the displayed images are 2D images (Par. [0059] FIG. 9 shows a 2D index image 160 corresponding to a tooth surface 156 from the surface model M0, as shown in FIG. 7. A display step S430 displays the 2D index image. Par. [0060] shown in FIG. 10, 2D index image 160 displays on one part of the display).
References Guillaume, Saphier and Wu are considered to be analogous art because they relate to intraoral scanners. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying generating 2D images based on generated 3D images as suggested by Wu in the inventions of Guillaume and Saphier in order that the viewer can specify the ROI from index image 160 using any of a number of pointer controls, including a computer mouse pointer or a pointing mechanism provided as part of the operator interface for the imaging system (See Wu, Par. [0060]).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights