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 .
Examiner’s Note
The previous rejections presented in the prior office action have been modified due to a new interpretation of the applied references. A new non-final rejection follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1,4,5,7-10,13,14,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 215078275 (disclosed by applicant, hereafter CN 275).
With regard to claim 1, CN 275 discloses a scanning head (see fig. 2) with a reinforced adhesive-bonding structure for scanning an oral cavity, comprising: a plastic base layer 1 (CN 275 clearly discloses that element 1 is formed via injection molding (paragraph 35 of translation), therefore it is inherent that element 1 of CN 275 is plastic). A window is formed at a tip portion thereof (see fig. 2), an adhesive-bonding layer applied to an entire or partial surface of a region of the plastic base layer directly facing the window; and a reflector layer 3 disposed within the window to be bonded to the plastic base layer 1 by the adhesive-bonding layer (glue, see paragraph 36 of translation), wherein the adhesive-bonding layer is configured to enhance an embedding force with the plastic base layer by a reinforcing structure 2 (see paragraph 36) so as to be strongly bonded to the reflector layer 3 (the reflector layer 3 is glued to reinforcing structure 2, and reinforcing structure 2 is glued to the plastic base layer 1).
With regard to claim 10, note that CN 275 inherently discloses an intraoral scanner (the scanner is included in the use of the scanning head disclosed, see paragraph 16) and is detachably connected thereto.
With regard to claims 7-9,16-18, these claims only positively recite a “modified layer”. The layer of CN 275 that includes the reinforcing structure 2 (circular apertures, see paragraph 11 and fig. 4), is considered to be a “modified layer” since the property of the layer has been changed (via circular apertures, see paragraph 11 and fig. 4). The remaining limitations in these claims that are drawn to the method of forming the modified layer, and thus have not been given structural weight because they are considered to be product by process limitations. Since the structural product required by these claims is disclosed by CN 275, then the reference is considered to meet these claims.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, note that the adhesive bonding layer (see paragraphs 11 and 36) is applied to both the reflector 3 and the plastic base 1. Therefore, since the adhesive contacts both surfaces, the adhesive layer inherently comprises an inner adhesive layer and an outer adhesive layer, and the inner adhesive layer is coated on an adhesive-bonding surface of the reflector layer, the outer adhesive layer is coated on an enclosing region (region of the plastic base layer that is occupied by the reflector) of the plastic base layer with respect to the inner adhesive layer, and the enclosing region is positioned on the region of the plastic base layer directly facing the window.
With regard to claims 5 and 14, note that CN 275 discloses that the adhesive bonding layer is glue (paragraphs 11 and 36). Therefore, the inner adhesive layer is a liquid (prior to drying/curing) and the outer adhesive layer is a solid adhesive layer (after drying/curing).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2,3,11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 275 in view of Alauddin et al 20170086947.
CN 275 does not disclose the reinforcing structure to comprise at least one metal mesh integrally formed with the plastic base layer.
Alauddin et al discloses a dental apparatus that includes a bonding surface with a reinforcing metal mesh 44 integrally formed therewith. See fig. 2 and paragraphs 51 and 61.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the reinforcing structure of CN 275 to include a metal mesh, integrally formed with the plastic base layer of CN 275, in view of the teaching of Alauddin et al that such a reinforcing metal mesh facilitates bonding with an adhesive.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 275.
With regard to claims 6 and 15, CN 275 does not specifically disclose that the inner adhesive layer is coated on a center region of the adhesive-bonding surface of the reflector layer, the outer adhesive layer is coated on a peripheral edge of the region of the plastic base layer directly facing the window, and the inner adhesive layer and the outer adhesive layer cover entirely the reflector layer when the reflector layer is bonded to the plastic base layer. However, CN 275 clearly discloses that the glue (paragraph 36) is used to bond the reflector to the plastic base layer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to coat the inner adhesive layer on a center region of the adhesive-bonding surface of the reflector layer, the outer adhesive layer on a peripheral edge of the region of the plastic base layer directly facing the window, and to have the inner adhesive layer and the outer adhesive layer cover entirely the reflector layer when the reflector layer is bonded to the plastic base layer, in the scanning head/systems of CN 275, if one wished for the disclosed adhesive (glue) to securely attach the reflector to the plastic base layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (page 3 of response) assert that element 2 of CN 275 is formed of an aluminum alloy, as opposed to plastic. This is correct, however, see the modified grounds of rejection above in which element 1 of CN 275 has been equated to the claimed “plastic base layer”. CN 275 clearly discloses that element 1 is formed via injection molding (paragraph 35 of translation), therefore it is inherent that element 1 of CN 275 is plastic.
Applicant also argues (page 4 of response) that the circular apertures on element 2 of CN 275 are not analogous to the claimed reinforcing structure. This is not found persuasive, in view of the modified grounds of rejection above, based on a different interpretation of CN 275. As outlined in the modified rejection, element 2 is considered to be the “reinforcing structure”.
Applicant also argues (page 5 of response) that CN 275 does not disclose a “modified layer” because the surface characteristics of element 1 are not altered at all. This is not found persuasive, as the instant claims require that the “reinforcing structure” includes the “modified layer”, not the base layer 1. It is clear that the reinforcing structure 2 of CN 275 has a modified layer, due to the inclusion of the apertures (see fig. 4) that are utilized to accommodate adhesive.
Applicant also argues (page 7 of response), that the teaching of the mesh of Alauddin et al cannot be combined with the scanning head of CN 275 because the bracket of Alauddin et al is formed of metal and therefore cannot be equated with the plastic base layer as recited in the instant claims and therefore does not encounter the same issues as a plastic base layer due to differing surface energies. This is not found persuasive because the Alauddin et al reference has been cited solely for its teaching of a reinforcing mesh used between a substrate and an adhesive. Therefore, the fact that the substrate of Alauddin et al is not plastic, does not demonstrate nonobviousness with regard to the teaching of a mesh material being suitable for use between a substrate and an adhesive. See paragraph 10 of Alauddin et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights