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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osstem Implant CO LTD (KR 101 911 327 B1) in view of Pesach et al. (US 2017/0007377 A1).
In considering claim 1, Osstem Implant CO LTD discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed collecting surface information of teeth through a sensor and an open area at an end of a tip of an intraoral scanner is met by the scanning camera 101 and the wide-angle camera 102 which places at the tip 104 (Fig. 1, paragraph #0025 to paragraph #0028), 2) the claimed detecting an overlap between a first area and a second area based on the surface information, wherein the first area indicates a field of view of the sensor through the tip for collecting the surface information, and wherein the second area indicates a field of view of the tip for collecting the surface information is met by the data receiving unit 103 which receive the first images acquired by the scanning camera 101 and the second images acquired by the wide angle camera 102 and the image acquired from the wide-angle camera 102 can be used as a tool for reducing the registration error when matching the first images of a part of the user's teeth acquired from the scanning camera 102 (Fig. 1, paragraph #0028 to paragraph #0032), and 3) the claimed adjusting the first area relative to the second area is met by the data matching unit 123 which can match the first mesh data acquired through the scanning camera 101 using the second mesh data, if the first mesh data is matched with the second mesh data, if there is an error, the first mesh data may be reassigned (Figs. 1 and 5A-5B, paragraph #0028 to paragraph #0032 and paragraph #0052 to paragraph #0058).
However, Osstem Implant CO LTD explicitly does not disclose the newly added claimed the field of view of the tip being formed through the open area at the end of the tip and having the same size as the open area.
Pesach et al. teach that in the same field of intra-oral scanner having a sealed transparent window aligned with the FOV of the intra-oral scanner (page 25, claim 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the machine learning model as taught by Pesach et al. into Osstem Implant CO LTD ‘s system in order to protect the oral scanner.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above and further a processor, and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor is met by the computer (paragraph #0059 to paragraph #0061 of Osstem Implant CO LTD).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osstem Implant CO LTD (KR 101 911 327 B1) in view of Pesach et al. (US 2017/0007377 A1) and further in view of Dal Zotto et al. (US Patent No. 11,558,544 B1).
In considering claim 2, the combination of Osstem Implant CO LTD and Pesach et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein adjusting the first area includes cropping the first area to maintain the overlap between the first area and the second area. Dal Zotto et al. teach that in other examples, the processor may adjust a resolution of the video to enhance a quality of the video. For example, the processor may apply super resolution to the limited field of view, which is a cropped image of the unlimited field of view, so that the limited field of view is similar in quality to a resolution of the unlimited field of view (Figs. 2A-2C, col. 6, line 46 to col. 7, line 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cropping image as taught by Dal Zotto et al. into the combination of Osstem Implant CO LTD and Pesach et al. ‘s system in order to increase the quality of the images of the teeth.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claims 3-5, 9-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osstem Implant CO LTD (KR 101 911 327 B1) in view of Pesach et al. (US 2017/0007377 A1) and further in view of Levin (US Patent No. 9,724,177 B2).
In considering claim 3, the combination of Osstem Implant CO LTD and Pesach et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein adjusting the first area includes moving the first area to increase the overlap between the first area and the second area. Levin teaches that the user can reposition the field of view of the scanner within the intraoral cavity, for example, to adjust the amount of overlap between scans, verify the extent of scan coverage, and/or identify unscanned regions, for example, in response to a warning indicator alerting the user to insufficient overlap, the user can maneuver the scanner to increase the area of overlap between the current viewfinder image and the previously scanned portion of the intraoral cavity (Fig. 5A, col. 12, lines 1-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the adjusting overlapping area as taught by Levin into the combination of Osstem Implant CO LTD and Pesach et al. ‘s system in order to increase the quality of the images of the teeth.
In considering claim 4, the claimed wherein moving the first area includes moving the first area entirely into the second area is met by the area of overlap can encompass the entire viewfinder image, for example, if the second viewfinder image is completely overlapped by the first viewfinder image (Fig. 5B, col. 13, line 32 to col. 14, line 43 of Levin).
The motivation of combine references has been discussed in claim 3 above.
In considering claim 5, the claimed wherein moving the first area includes moving a center of the field of view of the sensor is met by the user can then position and orient the field of view of the scanner accordingly so as to scan targeted portions of the intraoral cavity while reducing the overlap with previously scanned areas (col. 10, lines 41-63 of Levin).
The motivation of combine references has been discussed in claim 3 above.
Claims 9-11 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 3-5, respectively.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reason as discussed in claims 3-5, respectively.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osstem Implant CO LTD (KR 101 911 327 B1) in view of Pesach et al. (US 2017/0007377 A1) and further in view of Saphier et al. (US 2024/0285379 A1).
In considering claim 6, the combination of Osstem Implant CO LTD and Pesach et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein detecting the overlap includes detecting whether the first area is at least partially outside the second area using a machine learning model. Saphier et al. teach that in some embodiments, processing logic generates an overlay showing a path for the intraoral scanner to follow to capture intraoral scans that will improve the surface quality for the region, in some embodiments, processing logic determines a classification for the region (e.g., using a trained machine learning model such as a neural network), and determines one or more suggestions for the doctor and/or patient to perform to improve a quality of the captured intraoral scans of the region based at least in part on the classification for the region (Fig. 14A, page 26, paragraph #0294 to page 27, paragraph #0298). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the machine learning model as taught by Saphier et al. into the combination of Osstem Implant CO LTD and Pesach et al. ‘s system in order to increase the accurately in detecting the overlap of the images.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
September 25, 2026
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
