Status under America Invents Act
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 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.
Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 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 9 and 19 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 regard to claim 9, the “essentially” limitation is not understood. Clarification is required.
In claim 19, there is no antecedent basis for “the visually recognizable Identification feature.” It appears claim 19 was intended to depend from claim 18.
Rejections based on Prior Art
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2023/0397804).
Lee et al disclose an oral scanner system comprised of a handle 310; a head at the distal end of the handle 310; and an oral scanner attachment 320 being detachably connected to the head (note Figure 3). The Lee scanner device further includes a sensor/first interacting element 315 in the head and a second interacting element (inner wall) in the oral scanner attachment 320. The sensor/first interacting element 315 provides a signal that is transmitted to a data processing apparatus/processor that is indicative of the attachment state of the oral scanner attachment (see paragraph [0086]).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2023/0397804) in view of Dillon (US 2012/0062557).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al disclose an oral scanner system comprised of a handle 310; a head at the distal end of the handle 310; a camera within the handle (paragraph [0073]) that receives light through an inlet in the head; a spacer attachment 320 enabling a constant distance between the object being scanned and the camera that is detachably connected to the head (note Figure 3, paragraph [0074]); and a processor/data processing apparatus [0079] that receives a signal from the camera and determines an attachment state of the spacer attachment (“the intraoral scanner 300 may identify the mirror area and identify a fastening direction of the tip 320 based on a shape of the mirror area” paragraph [0082]). The Lee et al oral scanner discloses all the limitations of claim, except for those related to the “camera comprising a light-sensitive sensor element array.” One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have readily recognized that digital cameras, as that specified by Lee et al, are typically comprised of an electronic chip with an array of semi-conductor light sensors arranged on a surface (e.g. a CCD (charge coupled diode)). For example, in a dental scanning device very similar to that of Lee et al, Dillon et al discloses the use of a CCD comprised an array photodetector elements (paragraph [0029]) for the dental scanner camera element. To have used a conventional digital camera comprising an array of photosensitive elements for the camera of Lee et al as taught by Dillon et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 2, note Lee et al Figure 1 and paragraph [0054].
In regard to claims 3-5, Lee et al disclose the use of the camera and processor to determine the direction in which the spacer attachment 320 is attached (paragraph [0082]) and/or the size of the particular spacer attachment used (paragraph [0087]), but does not appear to disclose preventing the use of the scanner unless it is first determined that the spacer attachment 320 is properly attached. One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have readily found such operation of the device to have been obvious in order to ensure that an accurate scan of the patient’s teeth was being made.
In regard to claim 6, the distal tip of the Lee et al spacer attachment assembly 320 is configured to contact a surface of the patient’s mouth. In regard to claim 7, the Lee et al spacer attachment assembly inherently/implicitly includes an aperture (maybe covered by window) at its distal end through which light passes to the camera in the handle 310.
In regard to claims 8 and 9, the Lee et al connection between the spacer attachment 320 and the head at the distal end of handle 310 is oval shaped like applicant’s disclosed connection and includes “U-shaped portions”.
In regard to claim 10, Lee et al does not appear to disclose any buttons on the handle 310 for controlling the operation of the scanner (e.g. on/off button). One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have readily appreciated that such buttons are conventional and would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention.
In regard to claims 11-16, Lee et al disclose with respect to Figures 11-14 how the field of view of the camera/photosensor array is limited by the size and shape of the spacer attachment assembly (see e.g. paragraph [0252]). It is implicit in the Lee et al/Dillon et al disclosure that the photosensors in the ccd array of the camera at the edges of the array would image the portion of the spacer attachment assembly that is limiting the field of view and the photosensors in the center of the array would image the patient’s teeth.
In regard to 17, Lee et al disclose the use of the camera and processor to determine the direction in which the spacer attachment 320 is attached (paragraph [0082]), but doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose that the determination is made by comparing the sensed data/signal with a threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have found the use of a threshold value in making the determination obvious, if not inherent.
In regard to claims 18 and 19, Lee et al disclose providing different attachment spacers with different colors so that the size of the tip may be automatically determined (e.g. paragraph [0139]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques 571 270-5614. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/RALPH A LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712
Prosecution Insights