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 § 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 1,2,4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolskiy et al 20180132982 in view of Hines et al 2009008161 (newly cited) and the publication to Gjesteby et al.
With regard to claims 1,2,4,5,6,9,12, 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 regard to claim 7, 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.
With regard to claim 8, 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 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 6 of response) that the teaching of Hines does not suggest wherein a wire is embedded inside a physical dental impression tray. This is not found persuasive because Hines is not being relied upon to show a wire embedded inside a physical dental impression tray. Rather, Hines was cited to show that it is known that a similar intraoral device can have a metal wire embedded along an outside portion of the device, so that the device may be malleable. It is the combination of Nikolskiy et al and Hines that discloses an impression tray with an embedded metal wire along an outside portion thereof.
Applicant also argues that because Hines is a “retraction device” and not an “impression tray”, one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to combine Hines with Nikolskiy et al or Gjesteby et al. This is not found persuasive. The test for obviousness does not require that the combined devices be the exact same device…but rather the test for obviousness is that if one skilled in the art were aware of both references, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of one, with the teachings of the other. In this case, one skilled in the art would have recognized that Hines teaches that an embedded wire, along an outside portion thereof, and that such embedded wire could be combined with the impression tray of Nikolskiy et al, in view of the teaching of Hines that such an embedded wire makes the device more malleable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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