DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025 and 04/01/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0404243), hereinafter referred to as Saphier, in view of Pulido et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0181815), hereinafter referred to as Pulido.
In regard to claim 1, Saphier teaches an intraoral scanner (Saphier Fig. 1 and paragraph 499 noting an intraoral scanner with probe that enters the oral cavity of a subject) comprising:
a rigid structure coupling with a plurality of structured light projectors and a plurality of cameras (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors), wherein:
a corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps a respective field of view of a corresponding neighboring camera of the plurality of cameras (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors),
the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps a corresponding field of illumination of a corresponding neighboring structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors);
each structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors (Saphier paragraph 524 and Figs. 3 and 5A-B noting schematic illustrations of a structured light projector 22) comprises: a light source configured to generate light (Saphier paragraph 524 and Figs. 3 and 5A-B noting laser diode 36 transmits light; and Saphier paragraph 9 noting each of the structured light projectors transmits light using a light source, such as a laser diode); one or more projector lenses to receive the light generated from the light source (Saphier paragraph 524 noting beam shaping optical element 40 is a collimating lens 130. Collimating lens 130 may be configured to have a focal length of less than 2 mm. Optionally, the focal length may be at least at least 1.2 mm. For some applications, an additional optical element 42, disposed between beam shaping optical element 40 and pattern generating optical element 38, e.g., DOE 39); one or more projector lens frames configured to secure the one or more projector lenses relative to the light source (Saphier Figs. 3 and 5A-B showing the lens 40 being secured within the structured light projector 22 relative to the light source 36); and a pattern generating optical element configured to receive the light and generate a pattern of light along a projector axis onto an intraoral surface (Saphier paragraph 524 noting pattern generating optical element 38; and Saphier Figs. 3 and 5A-B; and Saphier paragraph 9 noting pattern generating optical element may utilize diffraction and/or refraction to generate a light pattern); and
each of the plurality of cameras comprises: an image sensor (Saphier paragraph 9 noting Each of the cameras includes a camera sensor and objective optics including one or more lenses) configured to capture a plurality of images along an optical axis that depict at least a portion of the pattern of light projected on the intraoral surface by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector (Saphier paragraph 23 noting the structured light scanner using a projected pattern (e.g., of unconnected spots) described above, a processor may be used to compare a series of images (e.g., a plurality of consecutive images) captured by each camera to determine which features of the projected pattern (e.g., which of the projected spots) can be tracked across the series of images (e.g., across the plurality of consecutive images)); and one or more camera lenses (Saphier paragraph 9 noting Each of the cameras includes a camera sensor and objective optics including one or more lenses).
However, Saphier does not expressly disclose a structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors is secured to a metallic frame at an opening of the metallic frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Pulido teaches a structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors is secured to a metallic frame at an opening of the metallic frame (Pulido Fig. 7 showing light transmitter 703 secured to a frame 702, positioned at an opening of the frame, as it is shown to be attached through an opening at the end of the frame arm, which may be an indentation in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8A, or a through-hole as shown in Fig. 7; and Pulido paragraph 100 noting that the scanner probe heads can comprise metal material).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido because both disclosures relate to the field of intraoral scanners that scan targets with a probe head consisting of light sources and camera receivers, and perform a process of projecting structured light onto a target and cameras to capture the image based on the light reflected off the target. Both disclosures include probe head apparatuses that have positioned transmitters and receivers and are situated in specific positions to achieve this goal. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Pulido, the teachings of Saphier include all of the limitations presented in claim 1.
In regard to claim 4, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the rigid structure is configured to maintain stable structural integrity and positioning of the plurality of structured light projectors and the plurality of cameras with respect to each other (Saphier paragraph 507 noting rigid structure 26 may be a non-flexible structure to which structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled so as to provide structural stability to the optics within probe 28. Coupling all the projectors and all the cameras to a common rigid structure helps maintain geometric integrity of the optics of each structured light projector 22 and each camera 24 under varying ambient conditions, e.g., under mechanical stress as may be induced by the subject's mouth. Additionally, rigid structure 26 helps maintain stable structural integrity and positioning of structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 with respect to each other. As further described hereinbelow, controlling the temperature of rigid structure 26 may help enable maintaining geometrical integrity of the optics through a large range of ambient temperatures as probe 28 enters and exits a subject's oral cavity or as the subject breathes during a scan).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the rigid structure is configured to maintain geometric integrity of optics of each of the plurality of structured light projectors and each of the plurality of cameras under varying ambient conditions (Saphier paragraph 507 noting rigid structure 26 may be a non-flexible structure to which structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled so as to provide structural stability to the optics within probe 28. Coupling all the projectors and all the cameras to a common rigid structure helps maintain geometric integrity of the optics of each structured light projector 22 and each camera 24 under varying ambient conditions, e.g., under mechanical stress as may be induced by the subject's mouth. Additionally, rigid structure 26 helps maintain stable structural integrity and positioning of structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 with respect to each other. As further described hereinbelow, controlling the temperature of rigid structure 26 may help enable maintaining geometrical integrity of the optics through a large range of ambient temperatures as probe 28 enters and exits a subject's oral cavity or as the subject breathes during a scan).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 6, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps with at least 50% of a pattern projected by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector at an object focal plane that is located at least 4 mm from a camera lens that is farthest from a camera sensor (Saphier paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors. Optionally, at least 20%, e.g., at least 50%, e.g., at least 75% of the projected pattern of light are in the field of view of at least one of the cameras at an object focal plane 50 that is located at least 4 mm from the lens that is farthest from the camera sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 7, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps with at least 75% of the pattern projected by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector at the object focal plane that is located at least 4 mm from the camera lens that is farthest from the camera sensor (Saphier paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors. Optionally, at least 20%, e.g., at least 50%, e.g., at least 75% of the projected pattern of light are in the field of view of at least one of the cameras at an object focal plane 50 that is located at least 4 mm from the lens that is farthest from the camera sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 8, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the plurality of cameras are configured to capture the plurality of images at a frame rate of at least 30 frames per second (Saphier paragraph 502 noting cameras 24 may capture images at a frame rate of at least 30 frames per second, e.g., at a frame of at least 75 frames per second, e.g., at least 100 frames per second. In some applications, the frame rate may be less than 200 frames per second).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 9, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the plurality of cameras are configured to capture the plurality of images at the frame rate of at least 75 frames per second (Saphier paragraph 502 noting cameras 24 may capture images at a frame rate of at least 30 frames per second, e.g., at a frame of at least 75 frames per second, e.g., at least 100 frames per second. In some applications, the frame rate may be less than 200 frames per second).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 10, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein each of the plurality of structured light projectors is configured to collimate the light from the light source (Saphier paragraph 524 noting schematic illustrations of a structured light projector 22, including beam shaping optical element 40 and an additional optical element disposed between beam shaping optical element 40 and pattern generating optical element 38. Optionally, beam shaping optical element 40 is a collimating lens 130. Collimating lens 130 may be configured to have a focal length of less than 2 mm).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 11, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein each of the plurality of structured light projectors is configured to collimate the light from the light source using a lens (Saphier paragraph 524 noting schematic illustrations of a structured light projector 22, including beam shaping optical element 40 and an additional optical element disposed between beam shaping optical element 40 and pattern generating optical element 38. Optionally, beam shaping optical element 40 is a collimating lens 130. Collimating lens 130 may be configured to have a focal length of less than 2 mm).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 12, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein optical axes of adjacent cameras of the plurality of cameras are non-parallel (Saphier paragraph 508 noting as is shown in FIG. 2A, a plurality of cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 such that an angle A (theta) between two respective optical axes 46 of at least two cameras 24 is 90 degrees or less, e.g., 35 degrees or less. Similarly, for some applications, such as is shown in FIG. 2B, a plurality of structured light projectors 22 are coupled to rigid structure 26 such that an angle φ (phi) between two respective optical axes 48 of at least two structured light projectors 22 is 90 degrees or less, e.g., 35 degrees or less).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 13, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein an angle between the optical axes of the adjacent cameras is 90 degrees or less (Saphier paragraph 508 noting as is shown in FIG. 2A, a plurality of cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 such that an angle A (theta) between two respective optical axes 46 of at least two cameras 24 is 90 degrees or less, e.g., 35 degrees or less. Similarly, for some applications, such as is shown in FIG. 2B, a plurality of structured light projectors 22 are coupled to rigid structure 26 such that an angle φ (phi) between two respective optical axes 48 of at least two structured light projectors 22 is 90 degrees or less, e.g., 35 degrees or less).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 14, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein an angle between the optical axes of the adjacent cameras is 35 degrees or less (Saphier paragraph 508 noting as is shown in FIG. 2A, a plurality of cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 such that an angle A (theta) between two respective optical axes 46 of at least two cameras 24 is 90 degrees or less, e.g., 35 degrees or less. Similarly, for some applications, such as is shown in FIG. 2B, a plurality of structured light projectors 22 are coupled to rigid structure 26 such that an angle φ (phi) between two respective optical axes 48 of at least two structured light projectors 22 is 90 degrees or less, e.g., 35 degrees or less).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 15, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the structured light projector is positioned within the metallic frame via a flange (Saphier Fig. 1 showing the structured light projectors 22 positioned within the rigid structure 26, and showing that they are inset deeper into the face of the structure 26 than the cameras 24, showing that there would be an indentation that the projectors 22 sit in, which would have protruded sides. Based on the Merriam-Webster definition of a ‘flange,’ which is that of a rim for strength, for guiding, or for attachment; or a projecting edge, this structure could be described as being positioned within a flange).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 16, Saphier teaches an intraoral scanner (Saphier Fig. 1 and paragraph 499 noting an intraoral scanner with probe that enters the oral cavity of a subject) comprising:
a means for coupling with a plurality of structured light projectors and a plurality of cameras (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors); wherein:
a corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps a respective field of view of a corresponding neighboring camera of the plurality of cameras (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors);
the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps a corresponding field of illumination of a corresponding neighboring structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors);
each structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors (Saphier paragraph 524 and Figs. 3 and 5A-B noting schematic illustrations of a structured light projector 22) comprises: a light source configured to generate light (Saphier paragraph 524 and Figs. 3 and 5A-B noting laser diode 36 transmits light; and Saphier paragraph 9 noting each of the structured light projectors transmits light using a light source, such as a laser diode); one or more projector lenses to receive the light generated from the light source (Saphier paragraph 524 noting beam shaping optical element 40 is a collimating lens 130. Collimating lens 130 may be configured to have a focal length of less than 2 mm. Optionally, the focal length may be at least at least 1.2 mm. For some applications, an additional optical element 42, disposed between beam shaping optical element 40 and pattern generating optical element 38, e.g., DOE 39); one or more projector lens frames configured to secure the one or more projector lenses relative to the light source (Saphier Figs. 3 and 5A-B showing the lens 40 being secured within the structured light projector 22 relative to the light source 36); and a pattern generating optical element configured to receive the light and generate a pattern of light along a projector axis onto an intraoral surface (Saphier paragraph 524 noting pattern generating optical element 38; and Saphier Figs. 3 and 5A-B; and Saphier paragraph 9 noting pattern generating optical element may utilize diffraction and/or refraction to generate a light pattern); and
each of the plurality of cameras comprises: an image sensor (Saphier paragraph 9 noting Each of the cameras includes a camera sensor and objective optics including one or more lenses) configured to capture a plurality of images along an optical axis that depict at least a portion of the pattern of light projected on the intraoral surface by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector (Saphier paragraph 23 noting the structured light scanner using a projected pattern (e.g., of unconnected spots) described above, a processor may be used to compare a series of images (e.g., a plurality of consecutive images) captured by each camera to determine which features of the projected pattern (e.g., which of the projected spots) can be tracked across the series of images (e.g., across the plurality of consecutive images)); and one or more camera lenses (Saphier paragraph 9 noting Each of the cameras includes a camera sensor and objective optics including one or more lenses).
However, Saphier does not expressly disclose a means for securing a structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors at an opening of the means for securing the structured light projector.
In the same field of endeavor, Pulido teaches a means for securing a structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors at an opening of the means for securing the structured light projector (Pulido Fig. 7 showing light transmitter 703 secured to a frame 702, positioned at an opening of the frame, as it is shown to be attached through an opening at the end of the frame arm, which may be an indentation in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8A, or a through-hole as shown in Fig. 7; and Pulido paragraph 100 noting that the scanner probe heads can comprise metal material).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 17, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches further comprising a means for securing the plurality of cameras (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 18, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps with at least 50% of a pattern projected by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector at an object focal plane that is located at least 4 mm from a camera lens that is farthest from a camera sensor (Saphier paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors. Optionally, at least 20%, e.g., at least 50%, e.g., at least 75% of the projected pattern of light are in the field of view of at least one of the cameras at an object focal plane 50 that is located at least 4 mm from the lens that is farthest from the camera sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 19, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 18 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps with at least 75% of the pattern projected by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector at the object focal plane that is located at least 4 mm from the camera lens that is farthest from the camera sensor (Saphier paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors. Optionally, at least 20%, e.g., at least 50%, e.g., at least 75% of the projected pattern of light are in the field of view of at least one of the cameras at an object focal plane 50 that is located at least 4 mm from the lens that is farthest from the camera sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0404243), hereinafter referred to as Saphier, in view of Pulido et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0181815), hereinafter referred to as Pulido, in further view of Hansen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0218149), hereinafter referred to as Hansen.
In regard to claim 2, Saphier and Pulido teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Saphier does not expressly disclose wherein the structured light projector is attached to the metallic frame by a cured adhesive.
In the same field of endeavor, Hansen teaches wherein the structured light projector is attached to the metallic frame by a cured adhesive (Hansen paragraph 111 noting in response to receiving electrical power to generate the light, the light source also generates heat that is transferred, through the connection component, to the secondary optical component in the sleeve by way of thermal conduction; and Hansen paragraph 48 noting transfer of the generated heat from the heating unit to the secondary optical component through thermal conduction includes arranging a conductive material between the connection component and the secondary optical component. The conductive material may include a thermal adhesive or thermal paste or other conductive material; and Hansen paragraph 37 noting the connection component is usually made up of metal such as Aluminum but other solid material like metals or alloys thereof having high thermal conductivity may also be used).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 1. Additionally, it would have been obvious to combine these teachings with the teachings of Hansen, because the teachings of Saphier include that of including temperature control units to maintain specific temperatures in the probe, for at least the purpose of maintaining structural integrity and geometry of the probe to prevent changes due to thermal expansion and temperature variation, and additionally to reduce fogging. The teachings of Hansen include that of an intraoral scanner that includes thermal control units also for purposes such as defogging, and includes details regarding thermal connections between components, and using adhesives to manage heat transfer while securing optical components in place in the frame. As such, the specifics regarding thermal connections and management taught by Hansen would benefit the teachings of Saphier by providing beneficial details on how to secure components together and manage temperatures in units similar to those described in the embodiments of Saphier. As such, modified to incorporate the teachings of Pulido and Hansen, the teachings of Saphier include all of the limitations of claim 2.
In regard to claim 3, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, Hansen teaches wherein the cured adhesive is a thermally conductive adhesive that improves thermal connection of the structured light projector to the metallic frame (Hansen paragraph 111 noting in response to receiving electrical power to generate the light, the light source also generates heat that is transferred, through the connection component, to the secondary optical component in the sleeve by way of thermal conduction; and Hansen paragraph 48 noting transfer of the generated heat from the heating unit to the secondary optical component through thermal conduction includes arranging a conductive material between the connection component and the secondary optical component. The conductive material may include a thermal adhesive or thermal paste or other conductive material; and Hansen paragraph 37 noting the connection component is usually made up of metal such as Aluminum but other solid material like metals or alloys thereof having high thermal conductivity may also be used).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 20, Saphier teaches a method of manufacturing an intraoral scanner (Saphier paragraph 34 noting intraoral scanners, methods of manufacturing them, and methods of overcoming manufacturing deviations), the method comprising:
coupling a plurality of structured light projectors and a plurality of cameras to a rigid structure (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors) so that a corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps a respective field of view of a corresponding neighboring camera of the plurality of cameras and so that the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps a corresponding field of illumination of a corresponding neighboring structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors), wherein:
each structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors (Saphier paragraph 524 and Figs. 3 and 5A-B noting schematic illustrations of a structured light projector 22) comprises: a light source configured to generate light (Saphier paragraph 524 and Figs. 3 and 5A-B noting laser diode 36 transmits light; and Saphier paragraph 9 noting each of the structured light projectors transmits light using a light source, such as a laser diode); one or more projector lenses to receive the light generated from the light source (Saphier paragraph 524 noting beam shaping optical element 40 is a collimating lens 130. Collimating lens 130 may be configured to have a focal length of less than 2 mm. Optionally, the focal length may be at least at least 1.2 mm. For some applications, an additional optical element 42, disposed between beam shaping optical element 40 and pattern generating optical element 38, e.g., DOE 39); one or more projector lens frames configured to secure the one or more projector lenses relative to the light source (Saphier Figs. 3 and 5A-B showing the lens 40 being secured within the structured light projector 22 relative to the light source 36); and a pattern generating optical element configured to receive the light and generate a pattern of light along a projector axis onto an intraoral surface (Saphier paragraph 524 noting pattern generating optical element 38; and Saphier Figs. 3 and 5A-B; and Saphier paragraph 9 noting pattern generating optical element may utilize diffraction and/or refraction to generate a light pattern); and
each of the plurality of cameras comprises: an image sensor (Saphier paragraph 9 noting Each of the cameras includes a camera sensor and objective optics including one or more lenses) configured to capture a plurality of images along an optical axis that depict at least a portion of the pattern of light projected on the intraoral surface by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector (Saphier paragraph 23 noting the structured light scanner using a projected pattern (e.g., of unconnected spots) described above, a processor may be used to compare a series of images (e.g., a plurality of consecutive images) captured by each camera to determine which features of the projected pattern (e.g., which of the projected spots) can be tracked across the series of images (e.g., across the plurality of consecutive images)); and one or more camera lenses (Saphier paragraph 9 noting Each of the cameras includes a camera sensor and objective optics including one or more lenses).
However, Saphier does not expressly disclose coupling the plurality of structured light projectors to the rigid structure comprises securing a structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors to a metallic frame by positioning the structured light projector into a dedicated projector opening of the metallic frame with adhesive and attaching the structured light projector to the metallic frame by curing the adhesive.
In the same field of endeavor, Pulido teaches securing a structured light projector of the plurality of structured light projectors to a metallic frame by positioning the structured light projector into a dedicated projector opening of the metallic frame (Pulido Fig. 7 showing light transmitter 703 secured to a frame 702, positioned at an opening of the frame, as it is shown to be attached through an opening at the end of the frame arm, which may be an indentation in the embodiment shown in Fig. 8A, or a through-hole as shown in Fig. 7; and Pulido paragraph 100 noting that the scanner probe heads can comprise metal material).
However, Pulido does not expressly disclose with adhesive and attaching the structured light projector to the metallic frame by curing the adhesive.
In the same field of endeavor, Hansen teaches with adhesive and attaching the structured light projector to the metallic frame by curing the adhesive (Hansen paragraph 111 noting in response to receiving electrical power to generate the light, the light source also generates heat that is transferred, through the connection component, to the secondary optical component in the sleeve by way of thermal conduction; and Hansen paragraph 48 noting transfer of the generated heat from the heating unit to the secondary optical component through thermal conduction includes arranging a conductive material between the connection component and the secondary optical component. The conductive material may include a thermal adhesive or thermal paste or other conductive material; and Hansen paragraph 37 noting the connection component is usually made up of metal such as Aluminum but other solid material like metals or alloys thereof having high thermal conductivity may also be used).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 21, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. In addition, Hansen teaches wherein the adhesive is a thermally conductive adhesive that improves thermal connection of the structured light projector and the metallic frame (Hansen paragraph 111 noting in response to receiving electrical power to generate the light, the light source also generates heat that is transferred, through the connection component, to the secondary optical component in the sleeve by way of thermal conduction; and Hansen paragraph 48 noting transfer of the generated heat from the heating unit to the secondary optical component through thermal conduction includes arranging a conductive material between the connection component and the secondary optical component. The conductive material may include a thermal adhesive or thermal paste or other conductive material; and Hansen paragraph 37 noting the connection component is usually made up of metal such as Aluminum but other solid material like metals or alloys thereof having high thermal conductivity may also be used).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 22, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. In addition, Hansen teaches wherein the structured light projector fits within the dedicated projector opening of the metallic frame without an air gap to cause heat to be dissipated from the structured light projector through the metallic frame (Hansen paragraph 111 noting in response to receiving electrical power to generate the light, the light source also generates heat that is transferred, through the connection component, to the secondary optical component in the sleeve by way of thermal conduction; and Hansen paragraph 48 noting transfer of the generated heat from the heating unit to the secondary optical component through thermal conduction includes arranging a conductive material between the connection component and the secondary optical component. The conductive material may include a thermal adhesive or thermal paste or other conductive material; and Hansen paragraph 37 noting the connection component is usually made up of metal such as Aluminum but other solid material like metals or alloys thereof having high thermal conductivity may also be used).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 23, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein coupling the plurality of cameras to the rigid structure comprises securing the plurality of cameras with the metallic frame (Saphier Fig. 1, and paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion; and Saphier paragraph 507 noting rigid structure 26 may be a non-flexible structure to which structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled so as to provide structural stability to the optics within probe 28).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 24, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 23 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein securing the plurality of cameras with the metallic frame comprises securing the plurality of cameras with a camera frame (Saphier Fig. 1 showing plurality of cameras 24 which are secured to the rigid structure 26, and Saphier Fig. 2E showing cameras 24 being attached to different component parts (some of which unlabeled with numeric notations) that form a casing around the camera. These different components could be described as a camera frame. Saphier Figs. 1 and 2D shows casing components around the light projectors).
Additionally, Figs. 1, 2A-B, and 2D-E show that there are different embodiments and components that can be used to mount the cameras and projectors to the rigid structure, and ultimately to mount them inside the probe 28. Whether these components are described as separate frame components or as the same frame component is a matter of design choice, and a matter of naming convention, as it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions by means of fastening (In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973)). Additionally, constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179), it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice (In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951)). As such, it can be seen that parts fastened together could be considered one component or separate components, and combining separate components into one component, or separating one component into separate components are all within routine skill in the art, and as such, would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Thus, It can be seen that the rigid structure of Saphier, and the frame portions that surround the camera and projector components can be described as camera frames and projector frames, and these components could be separate or not as a matter of routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 25, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the metallic frame is a projector frame, wherein the camera frame and the projector frame are separate components, and wherein securing the plurality of cameras with the metallic frame further comprises securing the camera frame with the projector frame (Saphier Fig. 1 showing plurality of cameras 24 which are secured to the rigid structure 26, and Saphier Fig. 2E showing cameras 24 being attached to different component parts (some of which unlabeled with numeric notations) that form a casing around the camera. These different components could be described as a camera frame. Saphier Figs. 1 and 2D shows casing components around the light projectors).
Additionally, Figs. 1, 2A-B, and 2D-E show that there are different embodiments and components that can be used to mount the cameras and projectors to the rigid structure, and ultimately to mount them inside the probe 28. Whether these components are described as separate frame components or as the same frame component is a matter of design choice, and a matter of naming convention, as it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions by means of fastening (In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973)). Additionally, constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179), it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice (In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951)). As such, it can be seen that parts fastened together could be considered one component or separate components, and combining separate components into one component, or separating one component into separate components are all within routine skill in the art, and as such, would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Thus, It can be seen that the rigid structure of Saphier, and the frame portions that surround the camera and projector components can be described as camera frames and projector frames, and these components could be separate or not as a matter of routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 26, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 24 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the metallic frame is a projector frame, wherein the camera frame and the projector frame are not separate components (Saphier Fig. 1 showing plurality of cameras 24 which are secured to the rigid structure 26, and Saphier Fig. 2E showing cameras 24 being attached to different component parts (some of which unlabeled with numeric notations) that form a casing around the camera. These different components could be described as a camera frame. Saphier Figs. 1 and 2D shows casing components around the light projectors).
Additionally, Figs. 1, 2A-B, and 2D-E show that there are different embodiments and components that can be used to mount the cameras and projectors to the rigid structure, and ultimately to mount them inside the probe 28. Whether these components are described as separate frame components or as the same frame component is a matter of design choice, and a matter of naming convention, as it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions by means of fastening (In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973)). Additionally, constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art (Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179), it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice (In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951)). As such, it can be seen that parts fastened together could be considered one component or separate components, and combining separate components into one component, or separating one component into separate components are all within routine skill in the art, and as such, would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. Thus, It can be seen that the rigid structure of Saphier, and the frame portions that surround the camera and projector components can be described as camera frames and projector frames, and these components could be separate or not as a matter of routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 27, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 20 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the plurality of structured light projectors and the plurality of cameras are coupled to the rigid structure such that the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps with at least 50% of a pattern projected by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector at an object focal plane that is located at least 4 mm from a camera lens that is farthest from a camera sensor (Saphier paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors. Optionally, at least 20%, e.g., at least 50%, e.g., at least 75% of the projected pattern of light are in the field of view of at least one of the cameras at an object focal plane 50 that is located at least 4 mm from the lens that is farthest from the camera sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
In regard to claim 28, Saphier, Pulido, and Hansen teach all of the limitations of claim 27 as discussed above. In addition, Saphier teaches wherein the plurality of structured light projectors and the plurality of cameras are coupled to the rigid structure such that the corresponding field of view of each camera of the plurality of cameras overlaps with at least 75% of the pattern projected by the corresponding neighboring structured light projector at the object focal plane that is located at least 4 mm from the camera lens that is farthest from the camera sensor (Saphier paragraph 506 noting structured light projectors 22 and cameras 24 are coupled to rigid structure 26 in a closely packed and/or alternating fashion, such that (a) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of view of neighboring cameras, and (b) a substantial part of each camera's field of view overlaps the field of illumination of neighboring projectors. Optionally, at least 20%, e.g., at least 50%, e.g., at least 75% of the projected pattern of light are in the field of view of at least one of the cameras at an object focal plane 50 that is located at least 4 mm from the lens that is farthest from the camera sensor).
It would have been obvious, for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Saphier with the teachings of Pulido and Hansen for the same reasons as discussed above in regard to claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pesach et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2020/0060550
Describes an intraoral scanner and methods for intraoral scanning, including the use of a scanner head with light projectors and imagers that are attached to a rigid or flexible PCB.
Lee et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2019/0317390
Describes the construction of structured light projectors, including how components are connected to one another, and describes thermal adhesives that are cured to install components onto surfaces
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER B EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2738. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/TYLER B. EDWARDS/
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights