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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1,3,9,10,12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the bullet points should be removed.
In claim 3, lines 4 and 5, --structure—should be inserted after “coating”.
In claim 9, line 3, --the—should be inserted after “includes”.
In claim 10, line 3, “coated” should be changed to –made—to agree with the recitation in claim 3.
In claim 12, line 1, --to—should be inserted after “according”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 is unclear. Specifically, claim 2 recites that the “transparent part” is configured to diffuse the emitted light. However, as shown in figure 8, the emitted light is diffused when it passes through side wall 11 of the housing 1, and then the diffused light passes through transparent part 6. Therefore, it is unlcear as to how the transparent part diffuses the emitted light, since transparent materials do not diffuse light themselves. For purposes of this action, this limitation will be treated as –wherein the material of a side wall of the housing is configured to diffuse the emitted light…--.
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 1,2,4-8,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaka WO 2013001462.
With regard to claim 1, Chaka discloses an intraoral scanning device 1100 (see fig. 11) for acquiring intraoral scan data from a three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session, the intraoral scanning device comprising: a processing unit (PCB, see paragraph 56) configured to process intraoral scan data of a patient and provide 2D image data and/or 3D image data; a wireless interface 506 (see fig. 5) configured to transmit the 2D image data and/or the 3D image data (see paragraphs 22 and 56); a battery 1110 configured to power at least the processing unit and the wireless interface 506; a housing (fig. 11) configured to accommodate at least the processing unit, the wireless interface 506 and at least partially the battery 1110; and a plurality of LEDs 908/910 (see fig. 9) accommodated by the housing, and the plurality of LEDs 908/910 is configured to emit light through a transparent part 904 of the housing made of a material that is configured to emit the light that passes through the material (see paragraph 69), and wherein the emitted light indicates a status of the battery and/or the wireless interface, and/or indicates a mode of the intraoral scanning device (the LED’s 908/910, when activated, indicate a scanning mode of the device, see paragraph 70).
With regard to claim 2, note that the material of a sidewall of the housing (see housing in fig. 11) is configured to diffuse the emitted light that passes through the material. This is inherent, as any light from LED’s 908/910 that does not pass through transparent part 904, inherently is diffused by the material of the housing.
With regard to claim 4, note that the plurality of LEDs 908/910 is arranged circumferentially to the housing. See fig. 9.
With regard to claim 5, note that the plurality of LEDs 908/910 includes at least three different colour spectra. See paragraph 69 which discloses that the LEDs may include white, blue and UV color spectra.
With regard to claim 6, note that the processing unit (PCB, see paragraph 56) is configured to generate at least one control signal to control power delivered to one or more of the plurality of LEDs 908/910. See paragraph 56.
With regard to claim 7, note that the processing unit (PCB, paragraph 56) is further configured to change at least the one control signal over time so that the plurality of LEDs 908/910 emits at least one static or dynamic lighting effect. When the LED’s are activated, this is considered to be a “static” lighting effect.
With regard to claim 8, note that the device comprises a user interface (switch 406, see paragraph 54) adapted to receive a user input to control operation of the processing unit so as to facilitate a change in the colour that is a combination of the at least three different colour spectra. When any particular LED is activated, this inherently facilitates a change in the color that is a combination of the at least three different color spectra (white, blue, UV).
With regard to claim 13, note that the plurality of LEDs 908/910 is arranged below (beneath/behind) the transparent part 904 of the housing. See fig. 9.
With regard to claim 14, note the light blocker arranged on a first side of the plurality of LEDs 908/910 (see fig. 9) that prevents light from emerging on a front side of the LEDs.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Front of scanner)][AltContent: textbox (Light blocker on a first side of LEDs prevents light from emerging on a front side (front of the scanner) of the plurality of LEDs (light cannot emerge from the front of the scanner))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
577
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1,6,7,13,14,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gebhardt 20140313299.
With regard to claim 1, Gebhardt discloses an intraoral scanning device 10 (see fig. 1 and 4) for acquiring intraoral scan data from a three-dimensional dental object during a scanning session, the intraoral scanning device comprising: a processing unit (control electronics, see paragraph 61) configured to process intraoral scan data of a patient and provide 2D image data and/or 3D image data; a wireless interface (see paragraph 51) configured to transmit the 2D image data and/or the 3D image data; a battery (inherent, see fig. 7 and paragraph 61 which disclose that a power supply is contained therein, and also shows a wireless connection, therefore a battery (self contained power supply is inherent) configured to power at least the processing unit and the wireless interface; a housing 12/14 configured to accommodate at least the processing unit, the wireless interface and at least partially the battery (see paragraph 61); and a plurality of LEDs 26a/26b (see fig. 4) accommodated by the housing, and the plurality of LEDs 26a/26b is configured to emit light through a transparent part 24a/24b of the housing made of a material that is configured to emit the light that passes through the material (see paragraph 48 “light exit windows”), and wherein the emitted light indicates a status of the battery and/or the wireless interface, and/or indicates a mode of the intraoral scanning device (the LED’s 26a/26b, when activated, indicate a scanning mode of the device).
With regard to claim 6, note that the processing unit (control electronics, see paragraph 61) is configured to generate at least one control signal to control power delivered to one or more of the plurality of LEDs 26a/26b.
With regard to claim 7, note that the processing unit (control electronics, see paragraph 61) is further configured to change at least the one control signal over time so that the plurality of LEDs 26a/26b emits at least one static or dynamic lighting effect. When the LED’s are activated, this is considered to be a “static” lighting effect.
With regard to claim 13, note that the plurality of LEDs 26a/26b are arranged below the transparent portion 24a/24b of the housing.
With regard to claim 14, note light blocker 60 (see fig. 4 and paragraph 54) on a first side of the LEDs 26a/26b preventing the emitted light from the LEDs 26a/26b from emerging on a front side of the plurality of LEDs.
[AltContent: textbox (Front side of each LED. Blocking portion 60 prevents light from emerging toward optics 20.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
460
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, note optical sensor 20/43 arranged in a vicinity of LEDs 26a/26b, with sensor blocker 60 arranged between the optical sensor 20/43 and the LEDs 26a/26b for preventing emitted light from the LEDs 26a/26b to be captured by the optical sensor 20/43.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaka WO 2013001462 in view of Martin 10542946.
With regard to claim 12, although Chaka discloses a shell (see fig. 9, which discloses the head of the device that accommodates the LEDs) that comprises a light guiding path configured to guide the light of the plurality of LEDs to the transparent part 904 of the housing, Chaka does not disclose the shell to be a plastic shell.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Martin discloses an intraoral scanning device in which the housing of the device comprises plastic. See col. 10, lines 54-56.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the housing of the Chaka intraoral scanner out of plastic, in view of the teaching of Martin that plastic may be used for an intraoral scanner housing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhardt 20140313299.
in view of Martin 10542946.
With regard to claim 12, although Gebhardt discloses a shell 12 (see fig. 4) that comprises a light guiding path configured to guide the light of the plurality of LEDs 26a/26b to the transparent part 24a/24b of the housing, Chaka does not disclose the shell 12 to be a plastic shell.
Martin discloses an intraoral scanning device in which the housing of the device comprises plastic. See col. 10, lines 54-56.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the housing of the Gebhardt intraoral scanner out of plastic, in view of the teaching of Martin that plastic may be used for an intraoral scanner housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,9,10,11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
