DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 05/14/2026. Claims 1, & 10-11 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Previous claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 05/14/2026.
Previous objections to the Specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 05/14/2026.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) for claim 11 directed to “completed scanning procedure” and “recently” are not withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Claim 11:
“a current or recently completed scanning procedure”-lines 2-3. 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.
“recently”-line 3 and 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 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.
Yancey teaches determining scanning procedure parameters and/or scanning procedure guidance based on stored data from prior scans to include a subsequent scanning procedure, as required by the claim. Specifically, Yancey discloses analyzing a plurality of previous scan data to determine operational requirements, such as angular tolerance and deficiencies associated with prior scans, and using those determinations to guide the future scans and prevent recurrence of deficiencies, ¶0057-0072, ¶0111-0114.
The Applicant argues that Yancey is “purely reactive” and limited to a “fail-and-retry loop” within a single ongoing scan task. The Applicant relies heavily on a narrower interpretation that is not commensurate within the scope of the claims. Yancey teaches evaluating scan deficiencies from the computed scan attempt and then providing feedback and updating scanning requirements for a subsequent scan attempt, see Yancey, ¶0070-0072, ¶0111-0114. The rescan or subsequent scan attempted following the unacceptable scan taught by Yancey still constitutes a “next scanning procedure” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Nothing in claim 1 excludes iterative rescanning within an ongoing workflow. In fact, Yancey teachings of the system are a proactive and continuous system that utilizes historical data across multiple separate scanning procedures to optimize future usage, see ¶0069-0072.
Specifically, Yancey disclose a proactive system that utilizes stored data from previous scans to guide a user immediately before a subsequent scanning procedure. The cloud server is configured to analyze, “a plurality of scan data from various scans” to determine operational parameters such as a required “angular tolerance”, ¶0069-0072. Yancey further teaches providing this information to a machine learning circuit to proactively “ensure the patient begins the scan with the scanning device in the proper orientation”, ¶0070. Furthermore, Yancey further teaches that when previous scans are deemed insufficient, the system logs the error and the cloud server updates the machine learning circuit to proactively prevent “similar deficiencies from being accepted in future scans”, ¶0072. Hence, the Applicant reliance on this “fail-and-retry loop” directly contradicts Yancey’s teachings because Yancey analysis of historical scan data to set operational limits and provide proper device orientation before a new scan even begins, meets the limitations of determining guidance in dependence on stored data to guide a user immediately before the next scanning procedure.
The Applicants argues the claim invention is “proactive” guidance and “learns from a history of user activities (scanning and/or oral care) to influence a new, subsequent scanning procedure from its inception.”. However, these characterizations are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. This argument is relying on features and advantages not reflected in the claims. Claim 1 does not require guidance based on extended user history, separate clinical visits, or any predictive behavioral modeling. The claim does not go into any specifics or provide any criticality for this determination. In fact, there are no details provided in the claim to preclude Yancey’s analysis of prior scan deficiencies and subsequent guided rescanning, under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Rather, the claim broadly requires determining scanning guidance for a next scanning procedure based on stored data from at least one previous scanning procedure, which is taught by Yancey’s analysis of prior scan deficiencies and subsequent guided rescanning, under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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.
Applicant argues Yancey and Gatzemeyer solve different problems because Yancey is directed to orthodontic aligner modeling while Gatzemeyer is direct to brushing coaching. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 12 does not require that oral care device be used for orthodontic treatment planning, does not require that oral care activities data solves the same problems as Yancey, and primarily does not exclude an oral care device used for daily hygiene coaching. The claim is broad. The claim broadly recites an oral care device different from the oral scanner, communcaiton from that device’ to the processor, submission of oral care activity data, and storage of that data in memory. Getzemeyer is relied upon for those limitations, and the Applicant does not show that Gatzemeyer fails to teach them.
The Applicant also argues that there is no teaching that Gatzemeyer brushing succession should be integrated into Yancey’s system to influence a subsequent scan. However, this argument improperly imports limitations from Claim 1 into claim 12. The argument doesn’t address the rejection as made. The rejection relies on Yancey for determining a scanning procedure parameter and/or a scanning procedure guidance based on stored scan-related data, including guidance such as a device orientation/angular tolerance and feedback for unsuccessful scans followed by subsequent scans. As established in the previous Final Action, Gatzemeyer was not relied upon to teach the scanning parameter or scanning guidance limitation. Rather Gatzemeyer is relied upon to teach the addition oral care device, communicator, transmission-session data, and storage of acquired oral care activity data. Thus, the Applicant is attacking Gatzemeyer for a limitation it was not relied upon to teach.
The Applicant’s characterization that the claim invention “uses oral activity data to proactively influence a scanning procedure” pg 9, is also broader than, and not fully reflect in, claim 12. Claim 12 requires that the oral care device submits oral care activity data to the processor and that the processor stores that acquired oral care activity in memory. Claim 12 does not separately require that the oral care device itself be used to change or control a subsequent scanning procedure. The Applicant’s heavy reliance on features not recited in the claims in attempt to distinguish the claim from the prior art is not persuasive.
The motivation to combine remains proper. Both the references are in the field of oral care systems involving user operated oral devices, sensors, processors, communication modules, and stored oral related dat. Incorporating Gatzemeyer known oral care device and communication of brushing session data into Yancey’s oral scanner system would have predictably provided additional oral care activity information to the processor/memory of an oral care system. The combination does not require bodily information Gatzemeyer’s brushing-couching routine into Yancey, nor does it require changing Yancey’s orthodontic modeling purpose. It merely uses Gatzemeyer’s known oral care device communication and storage teaching of Yancey’s oral scanning environment.
The 35 USC § 103 rejection is properly maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on 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) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new grounds of rejection now relies on Yancey et al (US 2020/0352686 A1) in view of Gatzemeyer (US 2018/0137774 A1), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Sabina et al (US 20190231491 A1).
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: Line 11, “wherein the at least one scanning procedure guidance”.
Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: recites:
“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 a user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure.”
The above rejection to claim 1 applies to claims 3, 5, 7-9, & 15 for substantially identical claim limitations recited in the claim.
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
These limitations are computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitation as it is directed to a processor-controlled algorithm configured to determine a location. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., “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 a user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure”, in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for a lack of written description. Proper written description cannot be identified in the specification, claims, and drawings directed to the processor operations for how the determination of at least one scanning procedure parameter for influencing a next scanning procedure and/or how the determination of at least one scanning procedure guidance comprises automatic feedback to provide a user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or perform immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure. The specification does not provide details regarding and algorithmic flow, weights, step-by-step flow charts, or the exact algorithmic operations for determining scanning procedure parameters and guidance for the next procedure. Instead the specification describes this process in a more generalized manner tantamount to a black box of inputs and outputs, paired with conceptual examples. The same applies to claims 3, 5, 7-9, 15 which describe the processor’s functions in a generalized, functional manner, tantamount to a black-box without providing step-by-step charts, algorithmic flow, internal logic, specific weights, or exact algorithmic flow. Specifically, these claims 3, 5, 7-9, & 15 just narrow down what data the processor inputs, the specification does not provide how it computes the outputs from these inputs, because the specification only provides a generalized functional manner, tantamount to a black-box without providing step-by-step charts, algorithmic flow, internal logic, specific weights, or exact algorithmic flow.
The specification describes how this processor analyzes historical data (i.e., input) to adapt the next scan (i.e., output), the specification relies on broad machine learning categories and basic threshold logic rather than specific mathematical formulas or flow charts. The specification notes that the processor might use a classifier, algorithm, listing of operations like linear classifiers, support vector machines, decision trees, neural networks, and generic programming, but it does not detail the weights, network architecture, or step-by step operations for any of these, see ¶0055. The processor may classify oral health data by comparing given features against threshold values, which are asserted as being provided by expert opinion or general machine learning, see ¶0053-0054, rather than actually providing the values themselves. Regarding the internal operations, the specification describes these using conceptual scenarios rather than providing algorithmic constrains. For instance, if the processor analyzes the stored data and identifies the last scanning procedure was incomplete, it outputs a guidance parameter to motivate the user to perform a complete scan, ¶0069-0070. But this doesn’t describe how it analyzes the stored data and identification. Similarly, if the stored data shows a specific segment was brushed for less than a recommended time or with too much pressure, the processor just simply identifies the specific segment as a location that needs to be scanned, rather than detailing how the processor identifies or segments a location, zero operational weights or algorithmic flow is provided.
Therefore, the specification and drawings are directed to mere examples of methods tantamount to a black box, rather than showing procession of a particular implementation of how the processor computes these outputs from the stored inputs. The generalized functional descriptions provided in the specification are not sufficient. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the described process without disclosure of a particular implementation. In addition, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventors’ actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve the aforementioned step. Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps for performing the determination of the flux measurements, the aforementioned claims fail to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
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 recently completed scanning procedure”-lines 2-3. 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.
“recently”-line 3 and 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, ¶0056-0058, ¶0098-0099, ¶0108-0109, ¶0164, ¶0185, ¶0210-0211, ¶0295, ¶0298, Claim 1.)
-The system disclosed by Yancey teaches scanning teeth and includes the scanning device 102, a mobile device 122, cloud server 142, and an aligned fabrications center 162, ¶0057. This scanning device 102 is structured to be operatable by a user to scan their teeth to acquire images either intraorally or extraorally, ¶0004, ¶0056-0057.
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 a “processor being coupled with a memory” by teaching the internal electronic architecture of the scanning device. The scanning device 102 comprises a processing circuit (104) that includes both a processor (106/126) and a memory (108/128), Yancey teaches at ¶0059, “The processing circuit 104 is further shown to include a processor 106 and a memory 108. The processor 106 can be any type of processor capable of performing the functions described herein. The processor 106 may be a single or multi-core processor(s), digital signal processor, microcontroller, or other processor or processing/controlling circuit. Similarly, the memory 108 can be any type of volatile or non-volatile memory or data storage capable of performing the functions described herein. In operation, the memory 108 may store various data and software used during operation of the scanning device 102, such as operating systems, applications, programs, libraries, and drivers. The memory 108 is communicatively coupled to the processor 106 such that the processor 106 can execute files located in the memory 108.” The memory is “communicatively coupled to the processor 106”, ¶0059 so that the processor can execute files stored within the memory. This memory is utilized to store varies data and software required during the operation of the scanning device, ¶0059-0060.
-Yancey teaches the generically broad recitation that the memory stores “oral health sensor data and/or oral health data relating to at least one previous scanning procedure”, as required by the claim. Yancey teaches a machine learning circuit and a cloud server that analyze historical scan data. During operation, the scanning device uses sensors and cameras to gather images and physical characteristics of the patient’s teeth, which constitutes oral health sensor data, ¶0059-0060. The system of Yancey includes a cloud server configured to receive this scan data from a plurality of mobile devices connected to separate scanning devices, ¶0069. The cloud sever is “configured to analyze the data received from the plurality of mobile devices [...] and provide the output of the analysis to the machine learning circuit”, ¶0070. Specifically, the cloud server evaluates, “a plurality of scan data from various scans”, ¶0070, to make determinations such as establishing that the patient must hold the scanning device within a specific angular tolerance to achieve accurate results. The server system also reviews previous scans to identify if images where insufficient to generate viable dental aligners; if a deficiency is found, the server updates the machine learning circuit so that the device can prevent similar deficiencies from being accepted in future scans, ¶0072. Because the system evaluates and learns from “a plurality of scan data from various scans” to adjust parameters for future scanning procedures, the system requires that the oral health sensor data relating to previous scanning procedures be retained as stored data, ¶0070-0072.
-Additionally, Yancey confirms that the data being captured and stored is “oral health data” by describing that scanning device’s teledentistry applications. The scanning device is capable of capturing images to determine the oral health of a patient, including finding and diagnosing dental conditions such as cavities, cracked teeth, broken crown, and gingivitis, ¶0134, ¶0143.
-Note, the claim requires utilizing “and/or” regarding the stored data, Yancey compressively teaches a processor and memory arrangement that store historical scan data to train a machine learning circuit and improve the accuracy of subsequent scanning procedures, ¶0059-0060, ¶0070-0072, (i.e., “a processor being coupled with a memory in which oral health sensor data and/or oral health data relating to at least one previous scanning procedure performed with the oral scanner [...] is stored as stored data;”), as required by the claim.
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 a user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure.
-Yancey discloses, that the processor is structured and/or arranged to determine a “scanning procedure parameter” and “scanning procedure guidance” in dependence on stored data. Yancey details that the system architecture includes the cloud server and a machine learning circuit housed within the scanning device, ¶0057-0059. The cloud server actively evaluates a plurality of scan data collected from various previous scans, which constitutes the stored data, ¶0070. By analyzing the stored historical information, the server system determines specific operational rules and limits for the device, which aligns precisely with the concept of determining a scanning procedure parameter, as broadly required by the claim, ¶0070. Yancey provides a direct example too, at ¶0070, the cloud server evaluates past scans to determine a specific “angular tolerance” at which the user must hold the scanning device to achieve accurate results, ¶0070. Furthermore, if the historical stored data scans contained deficiencies that made them insufficient for generating viable aligners, the cloud serve logs these errors, ¶0072. The cloud server provides the output of this analysis (i.e., the angular tolerances and known deficiencies) to the machine learning circuit, ¶0070-0072. The machine learning circuit uses these parameters to establish scanning procedures guidance to influence the next scanning procedure by continuously training the device to recognize and prevent similar deficiencies from being accepted in future scans, ¶0072.
-Yancey explicitly teaches that this scanning procedure guidance comprises “automatic feedback provided to a user by a feedback unit to guide the user in initiating or performing immediately before and/or during the next scanning procedure.” Yancey teaches this by describing how the system guide the user at both stages. Yancey teaches, the cloud server 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, ¶0270-0271. 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, ¶0270-0271.
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.
Gatzemeyer describes an oral care system that includes an oral care device in the form of a toothbrush which performed the activity of a brushing session to clean teeth, ¶0023-0027. Gatzemeyer does disclose using an optical imaging subsystem I.e., the smartphone camera) to detect oral characteristics which functions separately from the toothbrush and constitutes as an oral scanner, ¶0039, ¶0044-0045. The claim does not preclude this interpretation. Hence, Gatzemeyer established an oral care device different to an oral care scanner that is structured and arranged from performing an oral care activity procedure.
Gatzemeyer teaches that both the toothbrush and a separate processing deice have communication, ¶0029-0033, ¶0064-0065. Specifically, the toothbrush contains electronic circuitry 351 that includes a communication module 359 equipped with an antenna to enable wireless transmitting, ¶0064-0065. In addition, the system includes a separate data processing unit 105 containing a programmable processor 169 which is communicably coupled to its own communicator module, ¶0029-0033. Regarding the uni-directional communication to submit activity data, Gatzemeyer teaches that these communication modules are structed for the toothbrush to submit activity data to the processor. Specifically, data processing unit’s communication module is configured to receive data related to the brushing session directly from the toothbrush, ¶0034. During a brushing session, sensors within the tooth brush detect “brushing session data” (i.e., the toothbrush’s position, motion, and pressure against the teeth) and communicate this data to the toothbrushes communication module for transmission, ¶0064. Wherein Gatzemeyer outlines that the data processing unit’s programmable processor is communicably coupled to a memory, ¶0029. The brushing session data that was collected is transmitted by the toothbrush is saved in memory of the data processing unit or in the memory of a server, for later use, ¶0047, ¶0067.
See also (¶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 the system of Yancey to include the oral care device of Gatzemeyer 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 Sabina et al (US 20190231491 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, Sabina in the context of diagnostic intraoral tracking for diagnosis, 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.
-Sabina discloses, dynamically modifying the scanning procedures and parameters for specific, discrete locations on a patient’s dental arch. When a specific location (i.e., marked region/flagged region/ROI) is identified as having potential defects like cracks or caries, the system can alter how that specific are is scanned in the future, ¶0009, ¶0130-0131, ¶0136. To capture these locations the system modifies parameters directly related to scanning time & scanning repetition frequency. The system adjust the time spent scanning a discrete location by changing the scan dwell time or increasing the dwell time in this region, ¶0133-0134, ¶0139. The system can alter the repetition frequency by increasing the scan time utilizing a greater scanning frequency or specifically require a user to scan this region multiple times, ¶0130-0134, ¶0139. These parameter changes are applied to the positions nothing that flagged region is scanned at a higher resolution than un-flagged regions, ¶0023.
-Sabina further discloses, providing direct guidance to the operator based on the importance of these discrete locations. The system uses markers and flags to specifically focus attention on the ROI, ¶0130-0131. Thes regions are flagged as important, and then the system provides scanning procedure guidance to the user to ensure the areas are adequately captures, ¶0139, ¶0169, ¶0229,
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 scanning procedure parameter and scanning procedure guidance of modified Yancey in view of the teachings of Sabina. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as providing real-time user guidance to improve detection of high important areas with greater detail as suggested by Sabina, ¶0131.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights