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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). For purposes of examination, the drawings filed with the corresponding PCT application will be used.
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 7-13 are 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.
In claim 7, lines 2 and 3, “the intraoral scanner” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 7, lines 4-8 are unclear. The claim is drawn to a blower (lines 1-3) with the intraoral scanner tip being recited functionally, but lines 4-8 appear to be positively reciting the intraoral scanner tip in combination with the blower. If the intent is to claim both the blower and intraoral scanner tip positively, lines 1-3 should be reworded to reflect this.
In claim 7, last line, the forward slash should be deleted.
In claim 9, line 3, “the first and second inlet ends” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 9, line 9, “the compressed air outlet” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 9, line 10, “opening” should be –openings--.
In claim 9, line 11, “and aligned with an opening” is unclear.
In claim 10, line 2, “the rectilinear sections” has no prior antecedent basis.
In claim 11, lines 1-3 are unclear. Is applicant claiming a second blower having 3 cannulas, in combination with the blower already claimed in claim 7? If so, this embodiment is not disclosed in the specification. For purposes of this action, this claim will be treated as “the compressed air blower further comprising a third cannula…”.
In claim 11, line 6, “arranged in the outlet” is unclear.
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.
Claims 7,10,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babayoff et al 20180280124 (cited by applicant).
With regard to claim 7, Babayoff et al discloses a compressed air blower (see fig. 4) for dental intraoral scanner tip, for obtaining three-dimensional / two-dimensional images of an oral region of a patient; the dental intraoral scanner tip comprising a pistol portion 52 and a tip 54, the pistol portion and the tip 54 connected to a computer (see paragraph 36); the compressed air blower comprising first and second cannulas 72A,72B coupled to a body of the tip 54 of the intraoral scanner composing a region around an opening devoid of salivary flow, blood and mouth fluids, for collecting data and obtaining distortion- free three-dimensional / two-dimensional images of the oral region of the patient using air jets coming from a first and second openings of the cannulas. See fig. 4.
With regard to claim 10, it appears that the rectilinear sections of the cannulas 72a,72b are capable of varying in length (they can be removed and made smaller if desired).
With regard to claim 13, note that the pistol portion 52 and the tip 54 are connected to the computer by a cable 16. See fig. 1.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babayoff et al 20180280124.
With regard to claim 8, Babayoff et al does not explicitly disclose the region around the opening to be approximately 1cm2.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have the region around the opening of Babayoff et al to be approximately 1cm2, as the size of the region is considered to be a matter of routine optimization that depends on the size of area desired to be scanned. Furthermore, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babayoff et al 20180280124 in view of Weisenberg 20180132980.
With regard to claim 12, Babayoff et al does not disclose a third compressed air blower 206 provided for the first and second cannulas and embedded in a wall of the body of the scanner.
Weisenberg discloses a similar device, in which a third compressed air blower may be provided and embedded in a wall of the body of the scanner. See fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a third compressed air blower with the first and second cannulas of Babayoff et al, such that the third blower is embedded in a wall of the body of the scanner, as taught by Weisenberg, if one wished to increase the number of cannulas and thus increase the airflow to the tip of Babayoff et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772