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 § 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the phrase "such as" in claim 1 line 6 and claim 6 line 3, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-4 and 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saphier et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0404243 hereinafter referred as Saphier).
Regarding claim 1, Saphier discloses a 3D scanning system for scanning a dental object (see paragraph 0003 dental impressions of a subject’s intraoral three-dimensional surface; see paragraph 0006 systems and methods related to a three-dimensional intraoral scanning device; see paragraph 0843 performing intraoral scanning of dental arch), comprising:
an intraoral 3D scanning device (see paragraph 0006) comprising:
at least one projector unit configured to project a static light pattern on the dental object along a projector optical axis, wherein the static light pattern comprises more than 3000 pattern features (see figures 1, 2A, 2B, paragraphs 0499-0508, a plurality of structured light projector and a plurality of cameras coupled to a rigid structure; illuminating the object by reflection of light off a mirror; see paragraph 0537 projector ray I projecting spot j; each structured light projector projects 400-3000 spots);
one or more cameras, such as two or more cameras (see paragraph 0006), having at least partly overlapping fields of view along different camera optical axes and along the projector optical axis, each of said camera optical axes defining an angle of at least 3 degrees with the projector optical axis, each of the cameras comprising an image sensor for acquiring one or more images (see paragraph 0506 camera’s field of view overlaps; see paragraph 0508 image sensor acquiring one or more images; see paragraphs 0797 overlap between the field of illumination); and
one or more processors configured to generate a digital three-dimensional representation of the dental object based on triangulation (see paragraphs 0003, 0032, 0041 and 0531 the three-dimensional spot location of each spot is computed by triangulation).
Regarding claim 2, Saphier discloses the numerical aperture of the projector unit is between 0.0035 and 0.015 (see paragraphs 0524 and 0779).
Regarding claim 3, Saphier discloses the projector unit comprises an aperture having a predetermined size such that it provides a pupil diameter of between 0.2 mm to 0.7 mm (see paragraph 0783).
Regarding claim 4, Saphier discloses the working distance of the projector unit and/or a given camera is between 15 mm and 50 mm (see paragraph 0502).
Regarding claim 8, Saphier discloses the static light pattern is a polygonal pattern comprising a plurality of polygons, wherein the polygons are composed of edges and corners, wherein the pattern features correspond to the corners in the pattern (see paragraphs 0515, 0522-0523, 0583 and 0644).
Regarding claim 9, Saphier discloses the polygons are selected from the group of: triangles, rectangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, and/or combinations thereof, and wherein the polygons are repeated throughout the pattern in a predefined manner (see paragraphs 0522-0523 and 0644).
Regarding claim 10, Saphier discloses the pattern is a checkerboard pattern comprising alternating squares of black and white, and wherein the checkerboard pattern comprises at least 100 x 100 squares, such that the pattern comprises at least 10000 pattern features (see paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0522-0523 and 0780).
Regarding claim 11, Saphier discloses the pattern comprises a predefined number of fiducial markers (see paragraphs 0017, 0020, 0031, 0530 and 0563).
Regarding claim 12, Saphier discloses the cameras are configured to acquire one or more sets of images, wherein each set of images comprises at least one image from each camera, wherein each image includes at least a portion of the projected pattern (see paragraphs 0532 and 0534).
Regarding claim 13, Saphier discloses the images in a given set of images are acquired simultaneously, wherein each camera contribute with one image to the set of images (see paragraphs 0040 and 0127-0128).
Regarding claim 14, Saphier discloses portion includes at least one of said fiducial markers (see paragraphs 0162, 0031 and 0530-0532).
Regarding claim 15, Saphier discloses the pattern comprises at least one fiducial marker for every 100 pattern features (see paragraphs 0009, 0023 and 0530).
Regarding claim 16, Saphier discloses the fiducial markers are selected from the group of: dots, triangles, rectangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, and/or combinations thereof (see paragraphs 0523, 0530 and 0644).
Regarding claim 17, Saphier discloses the static light pattern is a checkerboard pattern comprising alternating squares of black and white, and wherein the pattern comprises at least one fiducial marker for every 100 squares in the checkerboard pattern (see paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0522-0523 and 0780).
Regarding claim 18, Saphier discloses the one or more processors comprise a first processor configured to identify the fiducial markers in the projected pattern, wherein the first processor is configured to identify the fiducial markers using a neural network (see paragraphs 0710 and 0730).
Regarding claim 19, Saphier discloses the first processor is a neural processing unit (NPU) (see paragraphs 0033, 0131, 0174 and 0710).
Regarding claim 20, Saphier discloses the one or more processors are further configured to identify one or more fiducial markers within at least one set of images among the acquired sets of images; solve a correspondence problem related to the identified fiducial markers, wherein the correspondence problem is solved such that points in 3D space are determined based on the identified fiducial markers, wherein said points form a solution to the correspondence problem; and- calibrate the scanning device by adjusting one or more parameters of a mathematical geometry model associated with the scanning device, wherein the adjustment is based on the solution to the correspondence problem (see paragraphs 0028, 0031, 0043, 0163, 0529, 0540 and 0667-0668).
Regarding claim 21, Saphier discloses the one or more parameters of the mathematical geometry model are selected from the group of: position of the camera(s), orientation of the camera(s), intrinsic parameters of the camera(s), and/or combinations thereof (see paragraphs 0667-0668 and 0766).
Regarding claim 22, Saphier discloses the one or more processors are configured to perform the calibration in real-time during scanning of the dental object (see paragraphs 0088, 1001 and 1019).
Regarding claim 23, Saphier discloses the step of calibrating the scanning device comprises the steps of: mathematically projecting one or more camera rays and projector rays together in 3D space, said rays associated with the fiducial markers; and
minimizing the distance between the camera rays and a given associated projector ray by dynamically adjusting one or more parameters of the mathematical geometry model (see paragraphs 0020, 0043, 0208, 0529, 0600 and 0609).
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0404243) in view of Hesch et al. (US PG PUB 2015/0185054 hereinafter referred as Hesch).
Regarding claim 5, although Saphier discloses the limitation of claim 1, Saphier fails to specifically disclose the projector unit is configured for sequentially turning the light source on and off at a predetermined frequency, wherein the light source is on for a predetermined time period.
In the same field of endeavor Hesch discloses the projector unit is configured for sequentially turning the light source on and off at a predetermined frequency, wherein the light source is on for a predetermined time period (see paragraph 0035 configuring IR flash to provide light source in specific duty cycle; see paragraph 0044 cameras matching IR flash; control the projector pulse synch; see paragraph 0037 IR flash and projector; see paragraph 0070 the camera operates at a frequency of 30Hz; see also figure 6).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Hesch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Saphier by configuring the projector and turning the light source on and off at a predetermined frequency in order to synchronize data received from multiple sensors, to associate the timestamp with received data, and associating data received from multiple sensors into data structure based on timestamp of the data.
Regarding claim 6, Hesch discloses the time period is between 4 milliseconds (ms) and 8 milliseconds (ms), and wherein the frequency is between 25 Hz and 35 Hz, such as approximately 30 Hz (see paragraph 0070). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Hesch discloses the image sensor is a rolling shutter image sensor (see paragraph 0030 and 0051). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 5 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, 11-15 and 18-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 19/247189 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons stated below.
Regarding claim 1, the copending application claim 1 recites a 3D scanning system for scanning a dental object, comprising: an intraoral 3D scanning device comprising: a first projector unit configured to project a first light pattern on the dental object along a projector optical axis, wherein the first light pattern comprises a first type of pattern features in a first hexagonal or triangular lattice; a second projector unit configured to project a second light pattern on the dental object, wherein the second light pattern comprises a second type of pattern features in a second hexagonal or triangular lattice; one or more cameras, each of the cameras comprising an image sensor for acquiring one or more images; and one or more processors configured to generate a digital three-dimensional representation of the dental object based on triangulation.
Regarding claim 2, the copending application claim 2 recites the feature of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the copending application claim 3 recites the feature of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the copending application claim 4 recites the feature of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the copending application claim 5 recites the feature of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the copending application claim 6 recites the feature of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the copending application claim 7 recites the feature of claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the copending application claim 8 recites the feature of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the copending application claim 9 recites the feature of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the copending application claim 10 recites the feature of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the copending application claim 11 recites the feature of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the copending application claim 12 recites the feature of claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the copending application claim 13 recites the feature of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the copending application claim 14 recites the feature of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the copending application claim 15 recites the feature of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, the copending application claim 16 recites the feature of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the copending application claim 17 recites the feature of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, the copending application claim 18 recites the feature of claim 23.
Claims 8-10 and 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19247189 in view of Saphier et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0404243.
Regarding claim 8, although the copensing application claim 1 recites the features of claim 1, the copending application fails to specifically disclose the static light pattern is a polygonal pattern comprising a plurality of polygons, wherein the polygons are composed of edges and corners, wherein the pattern features correspond to the corners in the pattern.
In the same field of endeavor Saphier discloses the static light pattern is a polygonal pattern comprising a plurality of polygons, wherein the polygons are composed of edges and corners, wherein the pattern features correspond to the corners in the pattern (see paragraphs 0515, 0522-0523, 0583 and 0644).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Saphier, 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 copending application by specifically reciting the static light pattern is a polygonal pattern comprising a plurality of polygons, wherein the polygons are composed of edges and corners, wherein the pattern features correspond to the corners in the pattern in order to capture a plurality of structured light images, to determine which portions of the projected pattern can be tracked across the images and to compare the series of images.
Regarding claim 9, Saphier discloses the polygons are selected from the group of: triangles, rectangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, and/or combinations thereof, and wherein the polygons are repeated throughout the pattern in a predefined manner (see paragraphs 0522-0523 and 0644). The motivation is discussed in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, Saphier discloses the pattern is a checkerboard pattern comprising alternating squares of black and white, and wherein the checkerboard pattern comprises at least 100 x 100 squares, such that the pattern comprises at least 10000 pattern features (see paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0522-0523 and 0780). The motivation is discussed in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 16, Saphier discloses the fiducial markers are selected from the group of: dots, triangles, rectangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons, and/or combinations thereof (see paragraphs 0523, 0530 and 0644). The motivation is discussed in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 17, Saphier discloses the static light pattern is a checkerboard pattern comprising alternating squares of black and white, and wherein the pattern comprises at least one fiducial marker for every 100 squares in the checkerboard pattern (see paragraphs 0016, 0022, 0522-0523 and 0780). The motivation is discussed in claim 8 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 January 8, 2026