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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on December 20, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 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.
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(s) is/are:
“a display configured to…”, “one or more cameras configured to…” and “communication module configured to…” in claim 1.
“a display configured to…”, “one or more light projectors configured to…”, “one or more cameras configured to…” and “communication module configured to…” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending application No. 18/991272. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are anticipated by the claims recited in the U.S. Patent.
Said claims in both applications are directed to a distributed intraoral scanning system that includes one or more components (e.g., intraoral scanner, one or more cameras, one or more light projectors & a display) that are connected via wired/wireless connection. The one or more components, in both applications, appear to perform similar functions of capturing images by the intraoral scanner, processing the images by a computing device and outputting the images to a display. While the structuring of the claim language in both applications differs but the claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Taking claims 1 and 20 in the instant application, as an exemplary to show the similarity in features being claimed in both applications, to compare to claims 1 and 15 in the copending application (see comparison table below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the same claim elements of the parent application, to construct a system as claimed in the instant application capable of performing identical functions as the copending application. The rest of the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in the copending application.
An exemplary table to show similarity among the conflicting claims.
Instant Application
Copending application 18/991272
1.An intraoral scanning system comprising:
an intraoral scanner comprising:
one or more reconfigurable buttons;
a display configured to display at least one of one or more icons or one or more texts associated with the one or more reconfigurable buttons;
one or more cameras configured to capture intraoral scan data of at least a part of a dental arch; and
a communication module configured to transmit the intraoral scan data to a first computing device.
1.An intraoral scanning system comprising:
an intraoral scanner comprising:
one or more light projectors configured to generate a light pattern to be projected onto a three-dimensional (3D) dental object during an intraoral scanning session; and
one or more cameras configured to capture two-dimensional (2D) images of the 3D dental object in response to illuminating said 3D dental object using the one or more light projectors; and
a processor configured to process the 2D images to generate intraoral scan data;
a first computing device configured to: receive the intraoral scan data from the intraoral scanner;
generate a digital 3D model of at least part of the 3D dental object based on the intraoral scan data;
generate a plurality of 2D images of the digital 3D model; and
transmit the plurality of 2D images of the digital 3D model to a second device; and
the second device, configured to: receive the plurality of 2D images; and output the plurality of 2D images to a display associated with the second device.
20. An intraoral scanner comprising:
one or more reconfigurable buttons;
a display configured to display one or more icons or texts associated with the one or more reconfigurable buttons;
one or more light projectors configured to generate a light pattern to be projected onto a three-dimensional (3D) dental object during an intraoral scanning session; and
one or more cameras configured to capture intraoral scan data of the 3D dental object in response to illuminating said 3D dental object using the one or more light projectors; and
a communication module configured to transmit the intraoral scan data to a computing device.
15. An intraoral scanning system comprising:
an intraoral scanner comprising:
one or more light projectors configured to generate a light pattern to be projected onto a three-dimensional (3D) dental object during an intraoral scanning session; and
one or more cameras configured to capture two-dimensional (2D) images of the 3D dental object in response to illuminating said 3D dental object using the one or more light projectors;
a first computing device configured to: receive the 2D images from the intraoral scanner;
determine 3D point clouds from the 2D images;
generate a digital 3D model of at least part of the 3D dental object based on the 3D point clouds;
generate a plurality of 2D images of the digital 3D model; and
transmit the plurality of 2D images of the digital 3D model to a second device; and
the second device, configured to: receive the plurality of 2D images; and
output the plurality of 2D images to a display associated with the second device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katzman et al “Katzman”, US-PGPub. No. 20210298874 in view of Di Battista “Battista”, US-PGPub. No. 20160210424.
As per claims 1 and 20, Katzman teaches an intraoral scanning system comprising an intraoral scanner (Fig. 1 – intraoral scanning site 120, Paragraph(s) [0004], [0048]) comprising:
one or more reconfigurable buttons (Paragraph(s) [0057]; the user interface 200 includes a new case button 214, which may be selected by a dental professional when a new patient arrives at the dental office during a scheduled appointment. Upon selecting the new case button 214 on the user interface 200, the dental professional may be prompted to provide additional details regarding the patient for patient intake purposes. Katzman further teaches the user interface 800 includes buttons 802 for selecting an option in which the dental professional is providing the dental aligner manufacturer with a three-dimensional (3D) representation corresponding to the patient's dentition (Fig. 8, Paragraph [0063]));
a display configured to display one or more icons or texts associated with the one or more reconfigurable buttons (Paragraph(s) [0042], [0055-0056]; the office computing devices 116 may be or include a desktop, a laptop, a mobile device, and so forth);
one or more light projectors configured to generate a light pattern to be projected onto a three-dimensional (3D) dental object during an intraoral scanning session (Paragraph(s) [0004], [0063]; conducting, using an intraoral scanner located in an office of an intake dentist or orthodontist, an intraoral scan at an intraoral scanning site, the intraoral scan generating three-dimensional data of the mouth of the patient); and
one or more cameras configured to capture intraoral scan data of the 3D dental object in response to illuminating said 3D dental object using the one or more light projectors (Fig. 7, Paragraph(s) [0062]; the dental professional may be instructed to take a photograph of a straight-on, closed view of the patient's teeth with the patient biting down fully on their back teeth with their natural bite. Once the dental professional captures the patient photographs, the dental professional may select an upload button 702 for uploading each photograph); and
a communication module configured to transmit the intraoral scan data to a computing device (Paragraph(s) [0004], [0035], [0065]; generating, by a treatment plan computing system located at a treatment plan site separate from the intraoral scanning site without the patient being present at the treatment plan site, the treatment plan for the patient based on the three-dimensional data. Katzman further teaches the treatment plan portal is configured to provide the second computing device access to a 3D model of the mouth of the patient. The 3D model is generated based on the 3D representation (Paragraph(s) [0005], [0066])).
Katzman fails to explicitly teach but Battista teaches reconfigurable/customized buttons (Paragraph(s) [0184]; at step 2604, mobile device 114 presents treatment plan form 2012 to user, treatment plan form 2012 comprising treatment options 2008 including customize button 2010 . Battista further teaches enabling a user to create custom forms comprising one or more fields, each being optional or required as appropriate given the nature of the form and the input already received, and of a variety of types, such as text fields, text boxes, radio buttons, drop down menus, combo boxes, lists, checkboxes, wheels and so forth (Paragraph(s) [0109])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Katzman and Battista because it empowers users to customize their Graphical User Interface (GUI) based on their specific input. This level of user control delivers a highly personalized experience, allowing each user to tailor the layout, tools, and visual elements to fit their individual preferences.
As per claim 2, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner further comprises:
one or more light projectors configured to generate a light pattern to be projected onto at least the part of the dental arch during an intraoral scanning session (Paragraph(s) [0004], [0063]);
wherein the one or more cameras are configured to capture the intraoral scan data in response to illuminating at least the part of the dental arch using the one or more light projectors, wherein the intraoral scan data comprises one or more two-dimensional (2D) images (Fig. 7, Paragraph(s) [0062-0063]).
As per claim 3, Katzman teaches the first computing device, configured to receive the intraoral scan data from the intraoral scanner and generate a digital 3D model of at least part of the 3D dental object based on the intraoral scan data (Paragraph(s) [0035], [0038], [0042]).
As per claim 4, Katzman teaches wherein the first computing device is further configured to generate a plurality of 2D images of the digital 3D model and transmit the plurality of 2D images to a second computing device (Paragraph(s) [0004-0005], [0065-0066]).
As per claim 5, Katzman teaches the second computing device, configured to receive the plurality of 2D images and output the plurality of 2D images to a display associated with the second computing device (Paragraph(s) [0006], [0055-0056]).
As per claim 6, Katzman teaches wherein: the intraoral scanner is configured to receive an input from the first computing device indicating a current mode of an intraoral scan application and reconfigure the one or more reconfigurable buttons based at least in part on the current mode of the intraoral scan application (Paragraph(s) [0076], [0081]).
As per claim 7, Katzman teaches wherein while the current mode is a scanning mode, the one or more reconfigurable buttons comprise at least one of a next segment button or a previous segment button (Paragraph(s) [0063]).
As per claim 8, Katzman teaches wherein while the current mode is a scanning mode, the one or more reconfigurable buttons comprise at least one of a lower dental arch segment button, an upper dental arch segment button, or a bite segment button (Paragraph(s) [0063], [0076]).
As per claim 9, Katzman teaches wherein while the current mode is a three-dimensional surface viewing mode, the one or more reconfigurable buttons comprise at least one of a rotate button, a pan button, or a zoom button (Paragraph(s) [0076]).
As per claim 10, Katzman teaches wherein the display is configured to output at least one of an icon or text responsive to receipt of a confirmation request message from the first computing device, wherein at least one of the icon or text is for at least one of a confirm button or a cancel button (Paragraph(s) [0082], [0261]).
As per claim 11, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner is further configured to change an associated action of the one or more reconfigurable buttons based on a progress or step of an intraoral scanning session (Paragraph(s) [0059]).
As per claim 12, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner is further configured to change an associated action of the one or more reconfigurable buttons based on a user selection among at least one of the one or more icons or the one or more texts (Paragraph(s) [0058]).
As per claim 13, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner is further configured to change an icon or text associated with a given reconfigurable button based on a progress or step of an intraoral scanning session (Paragraph(s) [0072]).
As per claim 14, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner is further configured to change an icon or text associated with a given reconfigurable button based on a user selection among at least one of the one or more icons or the one or more texts (Paragraph(s) [0078]).
As per claim 15, Katzman teaches wherein the display is configured to display a visualization of a dental arch during a scanning session (Paragraph(s) [0063]).
As per claim 16, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner is further configured to reconfigure the one or more reconfigurable buttons into a new purpose depending on a progress or step of a scanning session (Paragraph(s) [0077], [0081]).
As per claim 17, Katzman teaches wherein the intraoral scanner is further configured to reconfigure the one or more reconfigurable buttons into a new purpose depending on a user activation of the one or more reconfigurable buttons (Paragraph(s) [0063]).
As per claim 18, Katzman teaches wherein the display comprises a touchscreen (Paragraph(s) [0042]).
As per claim 19, Katzman teaches wherein the one or more reconfigurable buttons comprise a plurality of virtual buttons displayed by the touchscreen (Paragraph(s) [0063], [0076]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. 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.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights