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 .
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.
This action is in response to the correspondence filed 12/12/2024.
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-5 and 8-15 do not contain legends (I.e. scanning device 2, client device 10, communication link 21, linking request/message 411 … ) which are necessary for understanding the drawing (See 37 CFR 1.84). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “processing unit configured to…” in claims 1, 3 and 9-13.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15 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.
As to claims 1, 3 and 9-13, the claim limitation “processing unit configured to…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As to claims 2-13 and 15, the claims recite the limitation "A handheld intraoral scanning device according to…" and “A method according to…” (claim 15) in the first line of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Because these claims depend upon previous claims, they should read “The handheld intraoral scanning device according to…” and “The method according to…” (claim 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220233284 A1 to Fridman et al. (hereinafter Fridman) in view of US 20170006029 A1 to Pedersen et al. (hereinafter Pedersen).
As to claims 1 and 14, Fridman teaches a handheld intraoral scanning device (FIG. 1 and paragraph 118, one or more handheld intraoral scanner 150) configured to acquire intraoral scan data from a three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session (paragraph 126, Intraoral scanner 150 may generate intraoral scans, which may be or include color or monochrome 3D information, and send the intraoral scans to local server computing device 105 via the wireless connection), the intraoral scanning device comprising; a processing unit configured to process intraoral scan data of a patient and provide 3D image data (paragraph 268, processor 1330 may be a processor integrated into the intraoral scanner 1300); a wireless interface configured to transmit the 3D image data (paragraphs 259 and 267, intraoral scanner 1300 may include a wireless module; The wireless communication module may wirelessly send the intraoral scan data to a local server computing device in embodiments); and a memory unit (paragraph 123, Intraoral scanner 150 may additionally include a memory and/or a processing device (e.g., a controller)), wherein the processing unit is configured to: receive a linking request for a session via the wireless interface, and wherein the session corresponds to accessing the memory unit of the handheld intraoral scanning device (FIG. 9A and paragraph 215, connection request sent to intraoral scanner); and transmit, via the wireless interface, a linking response (FIG. 9A and paragraph 215, The intraoral scanner 150 may send a connection response at block 912).
Fridman does not explicitly teach the processing unit being configured to: obtain a session identifier; transmit, via the wireless interface, a linking response comprising an intraoral scanning device identifier and the session identifier; receive, via the wireless interface, an authentication message comprising an authentication key identifier and client device data; select an intraoral scanning device key from a plurality of intraoral scanning device keys in the memory unit based on the authentication key identifier; verify the client device data based on the selected intraoral scanning device key; and terminate the session if the verification fails.
However, Pedersen teaches a processing unit configured to: obtain a session identifier (FIG. 5 and paragraph 133, obtaining a session identifier); transmit, via the wireless interface, a linking response comprising an intraoral scanning device identifier and the session identifier (FIG. 5 and paragraph 134, transmitting S3 via the interface 8 a connection response comprising a hearing device identifier 112 and the session identifier 180); receive, via the wireless interface, an authentication message comprising an authentication key identifier and client device data (FIG. 5 and paragraph 135, receiving S4, via the interface 8, an authentication message. The authentication message comprises an authentication key identifier 166 and client device data 109); select an intraoral scanning device key from a plurality of intraoral scanning device keys in the memory unit based on the authentication key identifier (FIG. 5 and paragraph 136, selecting S5 a hearing device key from a plurality of hearing device keys (e.g. within or amongst a first set of hearing device keys 115, second set of hearing device keys 116 etc.) in the memory unit 6 based on the authentication key identifier 166); verify the client device data based on the selected intraoral scanning device key (FIG. 5 and paragraph 137, verifying S6 the client device data 109 based on the selected hearing device key); and terminate the session if the verification fails (FIG. 5 and paragraph 137, terminating S7 the session if verification fails).
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 method of transmitting intraoral scan data as taught by Fridman with the method of secure communication as taught by Pedersen in order to provide improved secure communication robust against security threats, vulnerabilities and attacks by implementing appropriate safeguards and countermeasures, such as security mechanisms, to protect against threats and attacks via the use of identifiers and keying material to verify the content and source of the communication (paragraphs 31 and 33).
As to claims 2 and 15, Pedersen teaches wherein the authentication message comprises an authentication type identifier, and wherein to select an intraoral scanning device key from a plurality of intraoral scanning device keys is based on the authentication type identifier (paragraph 36, a client device type; paragraph 40, authentication type identifier).
As to claim 3, Pedersen teaches wherein the client device data comprises an encrypted client device certificate; and wherein the processing unit is configured to generate a certificate key based on a common secret (paragraphs 39 and 40, client device certificate encrypted); and wherein to verify the client device data comprises to decrypt the encrypted client device certificate with the certificate key to obtain a decrypted version of the encrypted client device certificate (paragraph 12, decrypting the encrypted client device certificate).
As to claim 4, Pedersen teaches wherein the common secret is based on the selected intraoral scanning device key and/or the session identifier (paragraph 13, the common secret is based on the selected hearing device key and/or the session identifier).
As to claim 5, Pedersen teaches wherein to verify the client device data comprises to determine if the authentication key identifier matches a client device key identifier of the client device certificate, and wherein verification fails if no match is determined (paragraph 54, verify the client device data comprises to determine if the authentication key identifier matches a client device key identifier of the client device certificate).
As to claim 6, Pedersen teaches wherein to verify the client device data comprises to determine if a client device type identifier of the client device certificate is valid and wherein verification fails if the client device type identifier of the client device certificate is not valid (paragraph 56, determine if a client device type identifier of the client device certificate is valid and verification fails if the client device type identifier of the client device certificate is not valid).
As to claim 7, Pedersen teaches wherein to verify the client device data comprises to verify a digital signature of the client device certificate, and wherein verification fails if the digital signature is not verified (paragraph 58, verify a digital signature of the client device certificate, and verification fails if the digital signature is not verified).
As to claim 8, Pedersen teaches wherein the client device certificate comprises a signing device identifier and/or a client device identifier, and wherein to verify the client device data comprises to determine if the signing device identifier and/or the client device identifier is valid and wherein verification fails if the client device identifier of the client device and/or the signing device identifier is not valid (paragraph 59, the client device certificate comprises a signing device identifier and/or a client device identifier … determining if the signing device identifier and/or the client device identifier are valid).
As to claim 9, Pedersen teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to receive an additional authentication message comprising client device data and an authentication device identifier (paragraph 60, receive an additional authentication message. The additional authentication message may comprise client device data and/or an authentication device identifier), wherein the processing unit may be configured to obtain, from the memory unit, the common secret based on the authentication device identifier (paragraph 60, obtain a common secret based on the authentication device identifier from the memory unit); generate an additional certificate key from the common secret; and verify the client device data based on the additional certificate key (paragraph 60, generate the additional certificate key by computing a hash value based on the common secret and a certificate value).
As to claim 10, Pedersen teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to generate an offline session key based on the common secret and the session identifier (paragraph 61, generate an offline session key based on the common secret and the session identifier), and wherein the processing unit is configured to communicate with the client device using the offline session key (paragraph 61, offline session key may be used to secure offline communication between the hearing device and a client device).
As to claim 11, Pedersen teaches wherein the authentication message comprises an authentication token identifier, and wherein the processing unit is configured to store the authentication token identifier in the memory unit and to link the authentication token identifier with the common secret (paragraph 62, the authentication message comprises an authentication token identifier, and the processing unit is configured to store the authentication token identifier in the memory unit and to link the authentication token identifier with the common secret).
As to claim 12, Pedersen teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to receive further authentication message comprising client device data, an authentication type identifier, an authentication key identifier and/or an authentication session token identifier (paragraph 63, , receive a further authentication message comprising client device data, an authentication type identifier, an authentication key identifier and/or an authentication session token identifier), wherein the processing unit is configured to obtain a common secret based on the authentication type identifier (paragraph 63, obtain a common secret based on the authentication type identifier); generate a token key based on the common secret (paragraph 63, generate a token key based on the common secret); generate a session token identifier based on the token key and the session identifier (paragraph 63, generate a session token identifier based on the token key and the session identifier); and verify the authentication session token identifier based on the session token identifier (paragraph 63, verify the authentication session token identifier based on the session token identifier).
As to claim 13, Pedersen teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to generate a session key based on the session identifier and the intraoral scanning device key (paragraph 64, generate a session key based on the session identifier and the hearing device key), and wherein the processing unit is configured to receive and authenticate session data based on the session key (paragraph 64, the processing unit is configured to receive and authenticate session data based on the session key).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM CRIBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-1566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930a-330p; 430p-630p.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at (571)272-3867. 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.
MALCOLM . CRIBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/MALCOLM CRIBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
