DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 02/05/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-12 have been amended. Presently, Claims 1-15 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Previous objections to the Abstract are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/05/2026.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) for claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 12 are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/05/2026.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) for claim 11 directed to “completed scanning procedure” and “just or recently” are not withdrawn in view of the amendments.
“a current or a just or recently completed scanning procedure”-line 4. It is unclear if the phrase “completed scanning procedure” refers to or is separate from the “scanning procedure” recited in line 2 of claim 11. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they are the same. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
“just or recently”-line 2 & line 4 in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objection directed to Claim 10 is not withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 02/05/2026.
Previous Claim Objection in claims filed on 01/09/2025: Claim 10: “Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)”-line 3.
Claim files on 02/05/2026 amended claim 10 to recite: “Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems MEMS”-line 3. Claim 10 should recite: “Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)”-line 3. The parenthesis is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 102 with regard to Yancey et al (US 2020/0352686 A1) have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The rejection under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) over Yancey et al. is maintained for the reasons set forth below.
The Examiner notes the claim 1, recites, in the alternative, that “wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine at least one scanning procedure parameter for influencing a next scanning procedure in dependance on the stored data and/or to determine at least one scanning procedure guidance in dependance on the stored data, where the scanning procedure guidance comprises at least one automatic feedback provided to the user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure.” As written, the claim does not require comprehensive guidance through an entire scanning process, not does it require that the feedback be limited to a particular temporal separation between scans beyond what is explicitly recited. The claim broadly encompasses automatic feedback based on stored data that guides the user in initiating or perform a next scanning procedure, including feed that results in a rescan following an unacceptable scan.
With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that Yancy only teaches parameters for a current scan’s initiation and not guidance for a next scanning procedure, the Examiner disagrees. Yancey teaches subsequent scanning procedures following an initial scan (The patient can then initiate a new scan in the attempt to correct the deficiency, using the previous feedback/guidance ¶0111-0114. Automatic feedback is provided to the user to initiate or perform during scanning (i.e., next scanning procedure via feedback units such as the mobile device display and haptic motor, ¶0109, ¶0183, ¶0208.). Specifcally, if the scanning procedure is deemed “uncessfull” based on the stored data of that scan, the system provides “automatic feedback” to the user. Then displays a message an image with a “highlighted section” to indicate the specific portion of the previous scan that was deficient. This guides the user in “initiating a new scan” to correct the specific deficiency, ¶0111. These teachings meet the claim requirement of determining at least one scanning procedure parameter for influencing a next scanning procedure based on store data.
The Applicant further argues that Yancey’s feedback is merely “reactive” to a current scan or a failed scan and therefore does not constitute the claimed scanning procedure guidance. This argument is not persuasive because Claim 1 does not exclude feedback that is triggered by analysis of a prior scan, nor does it require that the guidance be generated independently of any failure or deficiency determination. The claim only requires that the guidance be provided to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure. The fact that the guidance information of Yancey’s disclosure is informed by the outcome of a prior scan does not negate it from the scope of “next scanning procedure” guidance as recited.
Applicant’s reliance on statements from the specification to narrow the meaning of “scanning procedure guidance” is directed to "That means that the scanning procedure guidance is not indicated at the end of the current scanning procedure but is automatically indicated just immediately prior to the next scanning procedure so that the user can basically benefit from such a guidance in the scanning procedure that is about to be initiated", (Page 22, lines 3-6) of the specification, are not reflected in the language of the claim.
The Applicant asserts that Yancey fails to teach guidance based on “comprehensive stored data” or “scan history” in the manner described in the Applicant’s specification, such are requirements are likewise not recited in the claims. The claim broadly recites stored data related at least to one previous scanning procedure and/or oral care activity, and Yancey teaches storing prior scan data, analyzing that data, and using the results to influence scans and provide user feedback automatically indicated just immediately prior to the scanning procedure.
For these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) is maintained.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 103 with regard to Gatzemeyer (US 2018/0137774 A1) for claim 12 have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant notes that Yancey does not disclose an oral care device different from the oral scanner that submits oral care activity to a process for storage. This deficiency is acknowledged in the Office Action, and is the reason Gatzemeyer was relied upon. The Applicant’s assertion that Yancey along does not disclose such an oral care device does not address the basis of the rejection, which is a combination of Yancey in view of Gatzemeyer.
The Applicant argues that Gatzemeyer is “primarily focused on activity (brushing) and “does not teach an oral scanner system that uses a oral care activity to influence a next scanning procedure”. However, this argument improperly imports limitations form Claim 1 into claim 12. Claim 12 does not require that the oral care activity be used to influence a scanning procedure. Instead claim 12 merely requires that an oral care device different from the oral scanner acquire oral care activity, that data be communicated to a processor, and the processor stored the acquired data in memory. As set forth in the rejection, Gatzemeyer discloses each of these elements, including a toothbrtuh that acquires brushing session data via sensors, transmits that data to a separate data processing unit, and stored the data in memory. There is no recitation in claim 12 regarding a scanning procedure. Therefore, the Applicant’s assertation that Gatzemeyer fails to teach a limitation not required by the claim and was not relied upon in the rejection is not persuasive.
Claim 12 does not require that the oral care activity data may be used for any particular purpose. Statements regarding how oral care device activity may layer be analyzed to identity locations are therefor not commensurate in the scope of claim 12 and cannot overcome the obvious rejection set forth.
The Applicant further contends that the Examiner’s stated motivation “of improving oral care” is too broad and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine a brushing system with a scanning system . This argument is conclusory and mischaracterizes the rejection set forth. The proposed combination does require modifying Gatzemeyer to influence scanning, nor modifying Yancey’s system to analyze brushing quality for scan optimizing. The combination merely supplements Yancey’s system with an oral care device known from Gatzemeyer that communicates oral care activity data to a processor for storage. The motivation articulated to improve oral care and monitoring health using multiple known data source is consistent with the teachings of Gatzemeyer regarding the collecting and brushing data and with Yancey’s teaching of maintaining historical oral related data in memory. Combining these known elements to achieve predictable results does not required an inventive steps beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Both Yancey’s and Gatzemeyer are properly combinable because they both operate in the same field of oral health systems and data-driven feedback. Thus, the Applicant’s own characterization of the prior arts is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 103 with regard to Urakabe (US 2013/0286174 A1) for claim 15 have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues Urakabe is directed to improving the quality and stability of a current image acquisition process for panoramic imaging, and therefore does not address influencing a next scanning procedure based on stored data, as allegedly required by Claim 15. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 15. Claim 15 does not require that the scanning time, scanning repetition frequency, or scanning importance be determined based on stored data, nor does it require guidance be used to influence a subsequent, scanning session. Those limitations are recited in Claim 1, not Claim 15. The Examiner brings attention to line 1 of claim 15, “wherein the at least one scanning procedure parameter [...] the at least one scanning procedure guidance”. This just specifies the nature of at least one scanning procedure parameter and/or scanning procedure guidance. The Applicant asserts the Urakabe fials to teach parameters or guidance for influencing a next scanning procedure. The Examiner did not rely on Urakabe for teaching concepts of stored historical data to influence a subsequent scan. In fact, claim 15 is not even directed to these features. Yancey was relied on for those features. As explained in the Office Action, Urakabe is relied upon solely for teaching examples of scanning procedure parameters related to scanning time and scanning procedure guidance related to scanning importance for discrete position or locations. Thus the Applicant’s arguments for Urakabe failing to disclose limitations it was not relied upon to teach is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding this asserted advantage of the specifical technical effect of the invention to proactively adapt future scanning procedures based on history of scanning and oral care activities is not reflect in claim 15. Hence, arguments directed to advantage or objects described in the specification, not recited in the claims, are not persuasive to overcome the rejection set forth.
With respect to the motivation to combine, the Applicant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to apply Urakabe teachings to Yancy in view of Gatzemeyer because Urakabe allegedly address a different technical problem. This is not persuasive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that known teachings for controlling scanning time, and highlighting import scan regions, as taught by Urakabe could be applied to other intraoral scanning systems such as Yancey’s, see MPEP 2143.
Specification
The amendment filed 02/05/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “The term “just or recently” as used herein refers to a period of time sufficient to store a certain number of past scanning procedure data, for example, for the past two, three, four, five, or ten scanning procedures”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: line 12, “[[the]]a user”-the first instance of the term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10: “Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)”-line 3. The parenthesis is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 11:
“a current or a just or recently completed scanning procedure”-line 4. It is unclear if the phrase “completed scanning procedure” refers to or is separate from the “scanning procedure” recited in line 2 of claim 11. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they are the same. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
“just or recently”-line 2 & line 4 in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yancey et al (US 2020/0352686 A1).
Claim 1: Yancey discloses, An oral scanner system (¶Abstract) comprising
an oral scanner (scanning device 102) being structured and/or arranged for performing a scanning procedure of at least a portion of an oral cavity; (¶Abstract, ¶0006, ¶0056, ¶0098-0099, ¶0108-0109, ¶0164, ¶0185, ¶0210-0211, ¶0295, ¶0298, Claim 1.)
a processor (processor 106/126) being coupled with a memory (memory 108/128, ¶0059) in which oral health sensor data and/or oral health data relating to at least one previous scanning procedure performed with the oral scanner and/or in which oral care activity data relating to at least one previous oral care activity procedure performed with an oral care device is stored as stored data;
-Yancey teaches a processor 106 being coupled with a memory 108, ¶0059. The memory stores the data acquired by the scanning device that constitutes oral heal sensor data, ¶0059-0060, ¶0091, ¶0143. Memory 108 stores various data and software used during operation of the scanning device, such as such as operating systems, applications, programs, libraries, and drivers, ¶0059. Similarly, the mobile device 122 includes a processor 126 and memory 128 coupled to the processor storing data and software for operation, ¶0065. The scanning device is operable to acquire images and physical characteristics (i.e., sensor data, ¶Abstract, ¶0060, which are used for determining oral health of a patient (e.g., detecting gum disease, cavities, cracked teeth/crowns, and other dental health concerns, ¶0143. The system anticipates subsequent scans after an initial scan, ¶0055, and the cloud server is configured to analyze data received from a plurality of mobile devices (i.e., stored scan data history), ¶0070.
wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine at least one scanning procedure parameter for influencing a next scanning procedure in dependance on the stored data and/or to determine at least one scanning procedure guidance in dependance on the stored data, where the scanning procedure guidance comprises at least one automatic feedback provided to the user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure.
-Yancey teaches, the cloud serve analyses data received from a plurality of mobile devices (i.e., stored data), ¶0070. Based on this analysis, (e.g., determining that patients must hold the scanning device within a certain angular tolerance), the cloud server provides that information to the machine learning circuit, which is coupled to the processor 106. This enables the scanning device to ensure that the patient begins the scan with the scanning device in the proper orientation. This demonstrates that the determination of the scanning procedure parameter (i.e., proper orientation/angular tolerance) based on stored data to influence the next scan, ¶0059, ¶0070-0071. Yancy teaches images previously provided to the aligner fabrication computer system 164 that if insufficient, the cloud server updates the machine learning circuit 114, and the machine learning circuit 114 then prevent similar deficiencies from being accepted for future scans, ¶0072. If the scan is determined to be unacceptable, feedback is provided (i.e., guidance, ¶0122. The mobile application which runs on the mobile device processor 126/memory 128 provides a message indicating the scan was unsuccessful, and includes an image providing a highlighted selection to indicate the specific portion of the scan was unsuccessful. The patient can then initiate a new scan in the attempt to correct the deficiency, using the previous feedback/guidance ¶0111-0114. Automatic feedback is provided to the user to initiate or perform during scanning (i.e., next scanning procedure via feedback units such as the mobile device display and haptic motor, ¶0109, ¶0183, ¶0208.
Claim 2: Yancey discloses, further comprising a position detector (¶0060, ‘the scanning circuit 110 can include a wide variety of sensors including, but not limited to, gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, inertial measurement units (“IMU”), depth sensors, and color sensors.) structured and/or arranged for creating position sensor data relating to a position or location at which the oral scanner currently performs the scanning procedure or has been performing the scanning procedure at a given time instant. (¶0060-0062, ¶0090, ¶0109-0110)
Claim 3: Yancey discloses, wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to receive the position sensor data and to process the position sensor data to determine at least one discrete position or location from at least two discrete positions or locations of the at least portion of the oral cavity at which the oral scanner is currently performing the scanning procedure or has been performing the scanning procedure at the given time instant. (¶0059-0063, ¶0096, ¶0073, ¶0100, ¶0109-0110)
Claim 4: Yancey discloses, wherein the oral scanner comprises an oral health sensor (¶0060) structured and/or arranged for acquiring the oral health sensor data from the at least portion of the oral cavity during the scanning procedure. (¶0091, ¶0134, ¶0140-0141, ¶0143 ¶0158, ¶0179, ¶0204)
Claim 5: Yancey discloses, wherein the oral health sensor data and/or the oral health data stored in the memory is discretely position-resolved or location-resolved and/or the oral care activity data stored in the memory is discretely position-resolved or location-resolved and the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine the scanning procedure parameter and/or the scanning procedure guidance in dependance on the determined discrete position or location. (¶0060-0062, ¶0072-0073, ¶0110-0111, ¶0133, ¶0136)
Claim 6: Yancey discloses, wherein the scanning procedure guidance is concerned with the at least one discrete position or location that requires scanning. (¶0073, ¶0096, ¶0099-0100, ¶0111, ¶0116-0121, ¶0129-0130, ¶0139)
Claim 7: Yancey discloses, wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine a scanning procedure progress for each of the at least two discrete positions or locations based at least on the determined discrete position or location at which the oral scanner is currently performing the scanning procedure or has been performing the scanning procedure at the given time instant. (¶0060, ¶0065, ¶0067, ¶0073, ¶0100, ¶0109-0110, ¶0112, Claim 11-13, Claim 16-17, Claim 25-27)
Claim 8: Yancey discloses, wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine the scanning procedure progress for each of the at least two discrete positions or locations in dependance on at least one from a list comprising a duration of the scanning procedure at the respective discrete position or location, a quality of motion such as a length, a velocity, an acceleration or a direction derived from the position sensor data at the respective discrete position or location, a number of oral health sensor data acquisitions, preferably image data acquisitions of a camera of preferably non-overlapping or only partially overlapping content at the respective discrete position or location, a number of sub-positions or sub-locations determined based on the position sensor data at the respective discrete position or location, or a quality assessment of the oral health sensor data, preferably a quality assessment of image data of the camera, at the respective discrete position or location. (Yancey teaches that the processor is structured to determine a scanning procedure progress for discrete positions based on a quality assessment of the acquired oral heal sensor data (i.e., images), ¶0060-0063, ¶0068, ¶0073, ¶0090, ¶0096-0097, ¶0100, ¶0109-0110, ¶0112, Claim 16-17, Claim 25)
Claim 9: Yancey discloses, wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine the scanning procedure progress for each of the at least two discrete positions or locations in dependance on the at least one scanning procedure parameter. (¶0060-0063, ¶0068, ¶0070, ¶0112, Claim 16, Claim 28)
Claim 10: Yancey discloses, wherein the position sensor comprises at least one of an accelerometer or gyroscope, preferably wherein the accelerometer or gyroscope is realized as a Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems MEMS sensor. (¶0060)
Claim 11: Yancey discloses, wherein the processor is structured and/or arranged to store the oral health sensor data acquired in a current or a just or recently completed scanning procedure and/or the oral health data derived from the oral health sensor data acquired in the current or the just or recently completed scanning procedure into the memory. (Yancey teaches that the process is structured and arranged to store oral health sensor data acquiring during a current or recently completed scanning procedure, and oral health data derived from the sensor data, into the memory, ¶0059-0060, ¶0063, ¶0065, ¶0067, ¶0109-0111, ¶0130, ¶0134, ¶0141-0143, ¶0268, ¶0270)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yancey et al (US 2020/0352686 A1), as applied to claim 11, in further view of Gatzemeyer (US 2018/0137774 A1).
Claim 12: Yancey disclose all the elements above in claim 11, Yancey fails to disclose: further comprising the oral care device different to the oral scanner that is structured and/or arranged for performing an oral care activity procedure, the oral care device comprising a device communicator and the processor being connected or coupled with a processor communicator, where the device communicator and the processor communicator are structured and/or arranged for at least uni-directional communication from the oral care device to the processor, wherein the oral care device is structured and/or arranged to submit oral care activity data acquired in the oral care activity procedure to the processor and the processor is structured and/or arranged to store the acquired the oral care activity data into the memory.
However, Gatzemeyer in the context of oral care systems and methods, discloses, further comprising the oral care device different to the oral scanner that is structured and/or arranged for performing an oral care activity procedure, the oral care device comprising a device communicator and the processor being connected or coupled with a processor communicator, where the device communicator and the processor communicator are structured and/or arranged for at least uni-directional communication from the oral care device to the processor, wherein the oral care device is structured and/or arranged to submit oral care activity data acquired in the oral care activity procedure to the processor and the processor is structured and/or arranged to store the acquired the oral care activity data into the memory. (¶Abstract, ¶0023-0024, ¶0029, ¶0030, ¶0034, ¶0047-0048, ¶0063-0065, ¶0067-0068)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify substitute the oral care device of Yancey to with the oral care device in view of the teachings of Gatzemeyer. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improving oral care, as suggested by Gatzemeyer, ¶0060, ¶0071. The modified combination would disclose the oral care device of Gatzemeyer different to the oral scanner of Yancey.
Claim 13: Yancey as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 12, Yancey discloses, wherein the feedback unit comprises a display unit. (display circuit 134 uses the display 602, ¶0065, ¶0068, ¶0105, ¶0108-0111.)
Claim 14: Yancey as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 13, Yancey discloses, wherein the feedback unit is realized as or by a separate device, preferably wherein the separate device is a computer, a notebook, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone, or a smart watch. (¶0057, Claim 3, ¶0064, ¶0065, ¶0068, ¶0109-0110)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yancey et al (US 2020/0352686 A1) in view of Gatzemeyer (US 2018/0137774 A1), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Urakabe (US 2013/0286174 A1).
Claim 15: Yancey as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Yancey fails to disclose, wherein the at least one scanning procedure parameter is related to a scanning time or a scanning repetition frequency, preferably for at least one discrete position or location from the at least two discrete positions or locations, and/or wherein the at least one scanning procedure guidance relates to a scanning importance, preferably for each of the at least two discrete positions or locations.
However, Urakabe in the context of intraoral scanning devices, discloses, wherein the at least one scanning procedure parameter is related to a scanning time, preferably for at least one discrete position or location from the at least two discrete positions or locations, and/or wherein the at least one scanning procedure guidance relates to a scanning importance, preferably for each of the at least two discrete positions or locations. (¶0033, ¶0037-0039, ¶0050-0052, ¶0143-0144, ¶0184, ¶0193-0194, ¶0331, & ¶0026, 0038-0041, Claim 4, ¶0107, ¶0144)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one scanning procedure parameter of modified Yancey such that it includes the teachings to Urakabe. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as ensuring stable capturing when operations include shaking there by providing continuous capture at high speeds, as suggested by Urakabe, ¶0193.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798