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 .
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 6-9, 12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6, 7 and 8 each recites the limitation "as the identification states in the second state" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claims 1-3 recite only “identification points” having “state information”. One of ordinary skill would not know if the instant claim limitations refer to the previously recited phrases or to new items.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "determining whether the various identification points in a registered general-purpose models match identification points in the database" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, “a registered general-purpose models” is improper grammar and one would not know whether there are a plurality of models or a single model.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "calculating a percentage of successfully matched identification points relative to a total number of identification points in the same scanned are stored in the database". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the general-purpose model comprises three-dimensional models of other scanning rods". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein the scanning rods in the standard database comprises scanning rods that has the same shape with the scanning rod in the scanning scene". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "wherein before the aligning the various identification points with the general-purpose model in the general-purpose database to obtain the target model, the method further comprises…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "in the scanning scene, identify identification points of the scanning rod". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHENG et al. (CN 111833392 A) in view of CHANG et al. (US 20210401550 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, ZHENG discloses an electronic device and method of using, comprising providing a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and runnable on the processor (marking point multi-angle scanning device comprising processor and memory with executable program code; [0029-0030]), when the computer program is executed, causes the processor to:
in a scanning scene, identify identification points of a scanner instrument (acquire marking point data of the scanning marking point at different viewing angles and reconstruct the marking point data; [0044]), and
determine state information of various identification points (during scanning at different angles, the number of times the center of the scanner instrument falls into each angle is calculated, as well as each time the number meets the preset threshold; [0011, 0046, 0049]); and
display the various identification points based on the state information of the various identification points (after calculating the number of times the center of the scanner instrument falls into each angle the corresponding colors are configured for the different point qualities of the marked points in each angle area; [0017, 0019, 0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 4 of ZHENG shows the marking point multi-angle scanning device and method.
ZHENG does not disclose the scanning scene is a scanning scene with a scanning rod, or that the identification points are identification points of the scanning rod. ZHENG’s marker points are affixed to a scanned object in the industrial measurement field. In the same field of 3D mapping of a scanning scene using marking technology, CHANG discloses an intraoral 3D scanning of a scanbody (scanning rod) ([0007]), wherein the invention identifies identification points of the scanning rod in an intraoral scanning scene ([0067, 0087, 0091]), with the benefit of intraoral 3D rendering of a patient. In light of the teachings of CHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of ZHENG.
PNG
media_image2.png
550
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 12 of CHANG shows the intraoral marker point system and method.
Regarding claim 2, ZHENG discloses wherein the state information comprises a first state and a second state; and the displaying the various identification points based on the state information of the various identification points comprises: displaying the identification points in the first state based on a first display mode, and displaying the identification points in the second state based on a second display mode, the first display mode and the second display mode are different (marker points are displayed in different colors based scan quantity and reaching the termination threshold; [0060, 0062]).
Regarding claim 3, ZHENG discloses wherein the determining state information of the various identification points comprises: determining whether the various identification points meet a scanning requirement, determining identification points that meet the scanning requirement as the identification points in the first state, and determining identification points that do not meet the scanning requirement as the identification points in the second state (a scanning count is measured and determined for each marker point, wherein a threshold count determines a new qualification which is marked in a unique color; [0046, 0049]).
Regarding claim 4, ZHENG discloses wherein the determining whether the various identification points meet the scanning requirement, determining identification points that meet the scanning requirement as the identification points in the first state, and determining identification points that do not meet the scanning requirement as the identification points in the second state comprises: determining whether numbers of scanning times of the various identification points satisfy a number-of-scanning-times threshold; determining identification points that satisfy the number-of-scanning-times threshold as the identification points in the first state; and determining identification points that do not satisfy the number-of-scanning-times threshold as the identification points in the second state (a scanning count is measured and determined for each marker point, wherein a threshold count determines a new qualification, which is marked in a unique color; [0046, 0049]).
Regarding claim 5, ZHENG does not disclose determining whether identification points whose scanning count has reached the threshold are matched with identification points in a database, or determining the first state as those points that both reach the threshold and are successfully matched, and the second state as points that are unsuccessfully matched or that do not reach the threshold. CHANG discloses comparing the shape information of the image data with shape information of a 3D model 36 of the reference data from the library ([0088]), with the benefit of more robust modeling. In light of the teachings of CHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of ZHENG.
Regarding claim 7, CHANG discloses determining whether the various identification points are matched with identification points in a database; determining identification points that are successfully matched as the identification points in the first state; and determining identification points that are unsuccessfully matched as the identification states in the second state ([0067, 0074, 0076, 0088, 0089]).
Regarding claim 9, CHANG discloses performing registering operations between the various identification points and a general-purpose model corresponding to the various identification points at preset time intervals or after a preset scanning number; determining whether the various identification points in a registered general-purpose models match identification points in the database; determine matched identification points as identification points in the first state, and determining unmatched identification points as identification points in the second state (comparison and alignment of the scanbody’s features points with the 3D library model are performed iteratively in real time as image data is acquired; with a matched condition indicated by a check and unmatched requiring manual alignment; [0078, 0089, 0091]).
Regarding claim 13, ZHENG discloses the method further comprises: changing the display mode of a target identification point in a case that the state information of the target identification point is changed (color changing from light to dark; [0062, 0063]).
Regarding claim 14, ZHENG discloses displaying the identification points of a successfully matched scanning rod in the standard database, but is silent regarding matching the various identification points with identification points of the scanning rods in a standard database. CHANG discloses the step of database matching of identification points ([0067, 0074, 0088, 0089]) with the benefit of more robust imaging. In light of the teachings of CHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of ZHENG.
Regarding claim 15, ZHENG does not aligning the various identification points with a general-purpose model in a general-purpose database to obtain a target model; and displaying the target model. CHANG discloses loading from a library a ready-made scanbody and abutment products ([0065-0066, 0082-0083]), reference data whose feature points re used to compare and align image data and the reference data for the structure ([0067]), where scanned data and reference data may be coupled and formed as corrected data 34 and displaying the result ([0076, 0077, 0088]), with the benefit of displaying a corrected model. In light of the teachings of CHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of ZHENG.
Regarding claim 17, CHANG discloses wherein the scanning rods in the standard database comprises scanning rods that has the same shape with the scanning rod in the scanning scene (scanbody has predetermined shape and dimensions with reference data as 3D CAD data of the structure; [0007, 0067, 0083]).
Claims 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHENG et al. (CN 111833392 A) in view of CHANG et al. (US 20210401550 A1), further in view of SONG et al. (US 20220392066 A1).
Regarding claim 6, ZHENG in view of CHANG discloses determining whether the numbers of scanning times of the identification points satisfy a scanning times threshold and whether the points reaching that threshold are matched with identification points in a database, but does not specify further determining whether the identification points are located in a scanning box, with the first state limited to points that are located in the box successfully matched and at the threshold, and the second state including points located outside the box or unsuccessfully matched, regardless of threshold status. In the same field of endeavor, SONG discloses a method comprising a scan box 930 expressing the location currently being scanned ([0069]), with the presentation of an identification point providing a scan status. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to require all three conditions presented by the combination of references, thereby displaying as complete for an operator that the point has been scanned enough times, recognized against a library, and presently within a scan window, with the predictable combination of the three known state criteria.
Regarding claim 8, ZHENG and CHANG do not disclose determining whether the various identification points are located in a scanning box; determining identification points that are located in the scanning box as the identification points in the first state; and determining identification points that are located outside the scanning box as the identification states in the second state. In the same field of endeavor, SONG discloses a method of scanning, wherein acquired scan data 300 can be displayed in real time, and that a scan box 930 displayed in geometric shapes may express a location of the scan data corresponding to a location of the object being scanned, wherein portions inside the box are scanned and portions outside the window is not ([0069]; FIG 6), with the benefit real time feedback. In light of the teachings of SONG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the other combined teachings.
Regarding claim 10, ZHENG teaches assigning more than two display states to the marker points according to their scan progress (colors configured for different point quantities at each angle area and termination colors for completion; [0060, 0063]). SONG discloses classifying areas of the scan data by whether their reliability meets a threshold and marking them with a reliability evaluation value (FIG 2, step S120; [0073, 0088]), with the benefit of improved usability through status identification of a marker point. In light of the teachings of SONG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the other combined teachings.
Regarding claim 11, ZHENG does not disclose the three states of claim 10 or the scanning rod. CHANG and SONG teach these features and the combination is obvious for the reasons given above in claims 1 and 10. To the extent that CHANG discloses displaying a scanbody during scanning ([0087]), CHANG further teaches that limiting what is formed/displayed during scan reduces processing burden ([0072]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to display only state-colored identification points, as ZHENG does, and not the scanbody models, while points are being displaying during scanning, in order to reduce the processing burden and reduce clutter in a display, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, CHANG disclose determining whether identification points are matched in a database ([0067, 0078, 0088]). ZHENG and CHANG do not disclose calculating a percentage of successfully matched points relative to a total number of points in the same scanned area stored in the database, adding a guiding indicator for that area when the percentage is less than a threshold, or displaying that area in a fourth state. SONG teaches a reliability indicator that is determined by a ratio of the are 110 satisfying a threshold among the plurality of areas ([0073, 0084, 0085, 0088, 0093]), with the benefit of providing a visual identification of a scan status and completeness. In light of the teachings of SONG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of ZHENG and CHANG.
Regarding claim 16, CHANG discloses wherein the scanning rods in the standard database comprises scanning rods that has the same shape with the scanning rod in the scanning scene (scanbody has predetermined shape and dimensions with reference data as 3D CAD data of the structure; [0007, 0067, 0083]).
Regarding claim 18, ZHENG does not aligning the various identification points with a general-purpose model in a general-purpose database to obtain a target model; and displaying the target model. CHANG discloses loading from a library a ready-made scanbody and abutment products ([0065-0066, 0082-0083]), reference data whose feature points re used to compare and align image data and the reference data for the structure ([0067]), where scanned data and reference data may be coupled and formed as corrected data 34 and displaying the result ([0076, 0077, 0088]), with the benefit of displaying a corrected model. In light of the teachings of CHANG, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of ZHENG.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P 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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights