DETAILED ACTION
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,4,5,6,9,10,11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 14, “wherein the transverse axis is parallel to the axis of rotation” appears to be redundant, as this limitation is already recited in line 3.
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 1,4-6,9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolskiy et al 20180132982 in view of Hines et al 2009008161 and the publication to Gjesteby et al.
With regard to claims 1,4,5,6,9,12, Nikolskiy et al disclose a method of CT scanning a physical dental impression comprising arranging a physical dental impression 122 (fig 2) comprising a higher radiodensity material (the frame 102 holding the impression material 122, has a higher radiodensity than the impression material) in a CT scanner 140 (fig. 3).
Nikolskiy et al do not disclose the higher radiodensity material (the frame) comprising a wire embedded inside, and along an outside portion of the physical dental impression tray.
Hines et al discloses a similar dental device, where the frame of the device may comprise a metal wire, which allows the device to be malleable. See for example, paragraphs 9,68,76,77, and figure 21B, element 2106 where the wire frame is embedded and along an outside portion of the device.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a steel wire with the frame of Nikolskiy et al, as taught by Hines et al, if one wished for the frame with the Nikolskiy et al impression device to be malleable.
While Nikolskiy et al/Hines et al disclose that the impression is rotated during scanning (paragraph 30 of Nikolskiy), Nikolskiy et al/Hines et al do not disclose that the transverse axis of the physical dental impression 122 is non-perpendicular with respect to an axis of rotation of the impression.
Gjesteby et al disclose methods of reducing artifacts during CT scanning. On page 5831, first column, lines 18-21, Gjesteby et al disclose that unwanted artifacts may be reduced during CT scanning by altering the angle of acquisition of the image.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to alter the angle of the transverse axis of the physical dental impression of Nikolskiy et al/Hines et al, such that the transverse axis is non- perpendicular with respect to, or parallel with, the axis of rotation, in view of the teaching of Gjesteby et al that altering the angle of acquisition in a CT scanning process may help reduce the appearance of artifacts. With further regard to claim 1, the altering of the angle of the transverse axis of the physical dental impression of Nikolskiy et al/Hines et al (as taught by Gjesteby et al) will inherently minimize the number of intersection points between x-ray paths and the higher density radiation material of the frame 102 of Nikolskiy et al/Hines et al, as well as inherently minimize the x-rays/x-ray paths intersecting the wire more than once.
With further regard to claim 1, note that the higher radiodensity material (the frame 102) has a curved region (fig. 1) and a longer side 108 and shorter side 110 on either side of the curved region. However, although Nikolskiy et al/Hines et al/Gjesteby et al do not disclose the shorter side 110 above the longer side 108, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrange the impression with the frame shorter side above the frame longer side, if one wished to try additional orientations to try to minimize artifacts produced by the frame of the impression device.
With regard to claims 10 and 11, see fig. 3 of Nikolskiy et al which discloses x-ray paths 144 that are not parallel to the axis of rotation of the impression 146. Note the middle x-ray which appears to be perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the impression 146.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6 of response) that the Gjesteby et al reference does not provide any direction of the specific arrangement recited in claim 1, because Gjesteby et al does not disclose a physical dental impression tray having all of the features recited in claim 1, with the physical dental impression being arranged in the CT scanner with the shorter side above the longer side. This argument is not found persuasive because the Gjesteby et al reference was only cited to show that it is known that unwanted artifacts may be reduced during CT scanning by altering the angle of acquisition of the image.
Applicant also argues (page 6 of response) that Gjesteby et al does not provide a basis for the examiner’s assertion that altering the angle of the transverse axis of the physical dental impression will inherently minimize the number of intersection points between x-ray paths and the wire of the frame intersecting the frame more than once. This is not found persuasive. It is the examiner’s position that one skilled in the art, based on the teaching of Gjesteby et al, would alter the angle of the transverse axis of the physical dental impression to minimize the occurrence of artifacts. A minimization of the occurrence of artifacts would necessarily involve finding an angle which would provide such a minimum, and this minimum would include a minimum number of times that the x-rays intersect the wire more than once.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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