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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A (pages 2-3) under Patentability of the Independent Claims:
Applicant asserts that none of the cited refences, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest combining a scan of a partial physical impression of a region of interest with a 3D digital model of the dental arch of a patient obtained via intraoral scan to create a modified 3D digital model. Applicant further submits that the Office Action fails to properly combine the references in an effort to arrive at such teachings.
Reply: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant asserts that “Rubbert teaches only the use of an intraoral scan of a patient's dentition.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rubbert teaches that the scanner “suitable for scanning a plaster model of the teeth or even an impression of the teeth” (Rubbert [0046]). Therefore, the scanner as disclosed by Rubbert teaches a scanner that can be used for scanning anatomical structures in the mouth, for scanning a plaster model of the teeth, or even impressions of the teeth (Rubbert [0046]) and not only for intraoral scan of the patient.
The applicant asserts that “Fisker teaches only the scanning of a physical impression” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fisker teaches “systems may be used for other types of scans of the mouth region such as traditional 3D scans of gypsum models, directly in the mouth scans, CT, MR or x-ray scans.“ (Fisker [0163]). Therefor Fisker does not teaches away from intraoral scanner, and is not limited to the scanning of physical impression.
Argument B (page 3) under Patentability of the Independent Claims:
Fisker teaches in paragraphs [0106]-[0109] scanning a physical impression and identifying issues with the scan of the physical impression (see [0107]). The three issues identified in the depicted example of FIGS. l0a-e, and then poured as three separate gypsum models as illustrated in FIG. I la. These three models are then scanned, and the scans are aligned and merged as described in [0109].
The alleged "modifying the 3D digital model" of Fisker is to modify a scan of a physical impression with re-pours of the physical impression. This is clearly distinct from modifying "a 3D digital model of a first surface contour of the dental arch of the patient dentition that includes the region of interest" acquired through an intraoral scan with a scan of a partial physical impression of the region of interest.
Fisker and Rubbert are thus directed to two different issues. Rubbert teaches generating an intraoral scan. Fisker teaches generating a scan of a physical impression and correcting the scan of the physical impression through re-pouring of gypsum models and re-scanning
Reply: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant asserts that Fisker teaches scanning the physical impression and if an issue occurs, separate gypsum models are poured and scanned. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Primary art Rubbert teaches the intraoral scan and the forming of the 3D model of the patient’s dental arch (Rubbert [0155], [0247], and [0255]). Fisker teaches the scanning of the physical impression of the patient’s dental arch (Fisker [0009]). Fisker also teaches “the aligned scan are combined, e.g. by replacing the impression scan parts with corresponding parts of the model scan or region of interest scan or both and merging the common surface of the scans.” (Fisker [0109]), which highlights the modification of the scan model using multiple scans as claimed. Furthermore, Fisker teaches “systems may be used for other types of scans of the mouth region such as traditional 3D scans of gypsum models, directly in the mouth scans, CT, MR or x-ray scans.“ (Fisker [0163]). Therefor Fisker does not teaches away from intraoral scanner, and is not limited to the scanning of physical impression.
Argument C (pages 3- 5) under Patentability of the Independent Claims:
The Office Action alleges that "it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort" citing to paragraph [0097] of Fisker. However, the stated motivation is flawed. Fisker, in cited paragraph [0097] recites: …
Fisker teaches improving scans of physical impressions. Fisker teaches improving scans of physical impressions using additional physical impressions. There is nothing within Fisker or Rubbert that provides the alleged motivation to combine the references
…
And the mere possibility that Rubbert and Fisker might be combined is not sufficient to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) absent some articulate rationale based upon the content of the prior art determined at the time the invention was made by the Applicant and based upon the prior art references being in analogous fields of endeavor. Accord In re Robinson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Ex parte Skinner, 2 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See also KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 330, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Office Action fails to provide such rationale based upon the content of the prior art. As such, Applicant submits that the combination of Rubbert and Fisker is improper and that the rejections of currently pending independent Claims 1, 11, and 12 are traversed.
Reply: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to do so is found in the references themselves. Rubbert identifies the deficiency due to undercuts and shadowing “prevent capture of the pattern and subsequent three-dimensional analysis of those portions of the surface” (Rubbert [0147]), and a “lack of data will always occur in the spaces between teeth” (Rubbert [0355]). Rubbert cures the deficient regions by substituting surface data from a second source (Rubbert [0355]), which establishes repairing a deficient region with surface data from a second source. Rubbert further teaches that the second source can be a model or an impression (Rubbert [0159]). Fisker teaches scanning the impression and generating a 3d scan (Fisker [0009]). Fisker further teaches “aligning and combining said area of interest scan and impression scan thereby obtaining a three-dimensional mode” (Fisker [0059]). Fisker highlights the same issue indicated by Rubbert by teaching that low quality impressions and poor preparations are two of the largest quality issues for the final restoration for improved quality (Fisker [0097]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Argument D (page 5) under Patentability of the Independent Claims:
Notwithstanding the above, Applicant asserts that even if one were to combine Rubbert with Fisker, albeit improperly, the combination would not result in the claimed invention. There is no teaching within either reference to combine an intraoral scan with a scan of a physical impression, as recited in the claims. Rubbert teaches only an intraoral scan, while Fisker teaches only a scan of a physical impression. There is nothing within either reference that suggests combining an intraoral scan with a scan of a region of interest of a physical impression.
Reply: The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Rubbert teaches that the scanner “suitable for scanning a plaster model of the teeth or even an impression of the teeth” (Rubbert [0046]). Therefore, the scanner as disclosed by Rubbert teaches a scanner that can be used for scanning anatomical structures in the mouth, for scanning a plaster model of the teeth, or even impressions of the teeth (Rubbert [0046]) and not only for intraoral scan of the patient. Fisker teaches “systems may be used for other types of scans of the mouth region such as traditional 3D scans of gypsum models, directly in the mouth scans, CT, MR or x-ray scans.“ (Fisker [0163]). Therefor Fisker does not teaches away from intraoral scanner, and is not limited to the scanning of physical impression. Both Fisker and Rubbert teach the scanning of both a physical impression and the intraoral scan.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4- 7, 9- 12, and 23- 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudger Rubbert (US 20050089214 A1) (hereinafter Rubbert) in view of Rune Fisker (US 20090220916 A1) (hereinafter (Fisker) further in view of Sascha Schneider (US 20130302752 A1) (hereinafter Schneider):
Regarding Claim 1, Rubbert teaches a method for imaging a region of interest of patient dentition ([0018] teaches a method for imaging), the method executed at least in part by a computer system ([0043] teaches the method executed by a computer) and comprising:
acquiring an intraoral scan of a dental arch of patient dentition and forming a 3D digital model of a first surface contour of the dental arch of the patient dentition that includes the region of interest ([0155], [0247], and [0255] teach intraoral scan of the dental arch including the area of interest. The images are used to create the 3D digital model);
and
displaying the modified digital model ([0247] teaches displaying the modified model).
Rubbert does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Fisker teaches
scanning the partial physical impression and generating a second surface contour of the region of interest ([0009] teaches scanning the imprison and generating a 3d scan);
modifying the 3D digital model by replacing a portion of the first surface contour with the region of interest with the second surface contour to obtain a modified digital model ([0109] teaches modifying a scan based model by combining scans through replacing section to generate the modified 3d model).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Fisker does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Schneider teaches
acquiring a partial physical impression that includes at least the region of interest, wherein the physical impression covers only a portion of the dental arch corresponding to the region of interest ([0044] teaches obtaining a partial impression of the patient that includes the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to further add the partial impressions of the region of interest as disclosed by Schneider to decrease the complexity of production of dental impressions (Schneider [0015]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. Fisker further teaches automatically detecting the region of interest ([0102] teaches automatically detecting the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Regarding Claim 5, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 4. Fisker further teaches the region of interest is defined according to one or more boundaries of the physical impression ([0007] teaches the margin lines on the physical impression that define the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Regarding Claim 6, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 4. Rubbert further teaches scanning the physical impression comprises using an intraoral scanner ([0138], and [0154] teaches scanning the physical impression using an intraoral scanner).
Regarding Claim 7, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. Fisker further teaches wherein scanning the physical impression comprises using a desktop scanner ([0101] teaches the scanning using a desktop scanner).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Regarding Claim 9, Rubbert in view of Fisker, and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. Rubbert further teaches forming the 3D digital model comprises forming a mesh ([0100]- [0101], and [0252] teaches forming a mesh model in the process of 3d model).
Regarding Claim 10, Rubbert in view of Fisker, and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. Fisker further teaches substituting one or more points of the 3D digital model with corresponding points of the second surface contour ([0107], and [0109] teaches replacing corresponding scan with new scan section including the points).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Regarding Claim 11, Rubbert teaches A method for imaging a region of interest of a dental arch ([0018] teaches a method for imaging), the method executed at least in part by a computer system ([0043] teaches the method executed by a computer) and comprising:
acquiring an intraoral scan and forming a 3D digital model of a first surface contour of the dental arch that includes the region of interest ([0155], [0247], and [0255] teach intraoral scan of the dental arch including the area of interest. The images are used to create the 3D digital model);
and
displaying the modified digital model ([0247] teaches displaying the modified model).
Rubbert does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Fisker teaches
scanning the partial impression and generating, from the partial impression, a second surface contour of the region of interest ([0009] teaches scanning the imprison and generating a 3d scan);
modifying the 3D digital model by replacing a portion of the first surface contour within the region of interest with the second surface contour to generate a modified digital model ([0109] teaches modifying a scan based model by combining scans through replacing section to generate the modified 3d model).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Fisker does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Schneider teaches
acquiring a partial impression of a portion of the dental arch that defines the region of interest, wherein the partial impression is configured to capture surface details of the region of interest with higher accuracy than the intraoral scan ([0044] teaches obtaining a partial impression of the patient that includes the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to further add the partial impressions of the region of interest as disclosed by Schneider to decrease the complexity of production of dental impressions (Schneider [0015]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rubbert teaches an imaging apparatus for imaging a dental arch of a patient ([0066] teaches a system for imaging dental structures) comprising:
a scanner that is energizable to acquire a sequence of reflectance images of a patient dental arch ([0247] teaches a scanner that captures a sequence of images of the dental arch) and of a partial impression obtained from a portion of the patient dental arch ([0156] teaches scanning a dental impression of the patient);
a logic processor that is programmed with instructions ([0041] teaches a processor that takes instructions):
to acquire the sequence of reflectance images of the patient dental arch ([0155], [0247], and [0255] teach intraoral scan of the dental arch including the area of interest. The images are used to create the 3D digital model, and captures a sequence of image);
to form a first 3D digital model of a first surface contour of the patient dental arch that includes a region of interest ([0255] teaches forming a 3D model of the patient’s dental arch);
a display that is in signal communication with the logic processor for displaying a rendering of the hybrid 3D digital model ([0247] teaches displaying the 3D model).
Rubbert does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Fisker teaches
to acquire a sequence of images of the partial impression ([0105] teaches scanning the imprison that only includes the region of interest),
to form a second 3D digital model of the partial impression as a second surface contour of the region of interest ([0009] teaches scanning the imprison and generating a 3d scan);
to modify the first 3D digital model by replacing a portion of the first surface contour within the region of interest with the second surface contourdisplay ([0109] teaches modifying a scan based model by combining scans through replacing section to generate the modified 3d model).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Fisker does not explicitly teach the following limitations; however, in an analogous art, Schneider teaches
… wherein the partial impression covers only a portion of the dental arch corresponding to the region of interest ([0044] teaches obtaining a partial impression of the patient that includes the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to further add the partial impressions of the region of interest as disclosed by Schneider to decrease the complexity of production of dental impressions (Schneider [0015]).
Regarding Claim 23, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 11. Fisker further teaches automatically detecting the region of interest ([0102] teaches automatically detecting the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Regarding Claim 24, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 23. Fisker further teaches the region of interest is defined according to one or more boundaries of the partial impression ([0007] teaches the margin lines on the physical impression that define the region of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Regarding Claim 25, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 11. Rubbert further teaches scanning the partial impression comprises using an intraoral scanner ([0138], and [0154] teaches scanning the physical impression using an intraoral scanner).
Regarding Claim 26, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 11. Fisker further teaches wherein scanning the partial impression comprises using a desktop scanner ([0101] teaches the scanning using a desktop scanner).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert to add the scanning of the physical impressions of Fisker to improve the restoration quality and reduce the patient discomfort (Fisker [0097]).
Claims 2- 3, and 21- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudger Rubbert (US 20050089214 A1) (hereinafter Rubbert) in view of Rune Fisker (US 20090220916 A1) (hereinafter (Fisker) in view of Sascha Schneider (US 20130302752 A1) (hereinafter Schneider) further in view of Yingqian Wu (US 20170103569 A1) (hereinafter Wu):
Regarding Claim 2, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 1 however fails to explicitly teach accepting one or more operator instructions that identify the region of interest
However, in an analogous art, Wu teaches accepting one or more operator instructions that identify the region of interest ([0059] teaches the manual selection by an operator to identify the relevant area of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the manual selection by a user to determine the region of interest as disclosed by Wu to enhance user interaction and improve efficiency (Wu [0009]).
Regarding Claim 3, Rubbert in view of Fisker, Schneider and Wu teach the method of claim 2. Wu further teaches the one or more operator instructions are entered on a touch screen. ([0040] teaches the operator instruction are entered using a touch screen).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the manual selection by a user to determine the region of interest as disclosed by Wu to enhance user interaction and improve efficiency (Wu [0009]).
Regarding Claim 21, Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider teach the method of claim 11. Fisker further teaches accepting one or more operator instructions that identify the region of interest ([0059] teaches the manual selection by an operator to identify the relevant area of interest).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the manual selection by a user to determine the region of interest as disclosed by Wu to enhance user interaction and improve efficiency (Wu [0009]).
Regarding Claim 22, Rubbert in view of Fisker, Schneider and Wu teach the method of claim 21. however fails to explicitly teach the one or more operator instructions are entered on a touch screen.
However, in an analogous art, Wu teaches the one or more operator instructions are entered on a touch screen. ([0040] teaches the operator instruction are entered using a touch screen).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the manual selection by a user to determine the region of interest as disclosed by Wu to enhance user interaction and improve efficiency (Wu [0009]).
Claims 8, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudger Rubbert (US 20050089214 A1) (hereinafter Rubbert) in view of Rune Fisker (US 20090220916 A1) (hereinafter (Fisker) in view of Sascha Schneider (US 20130302752 A1) (hereinafter Schneider) further in view of Rune Fisker (US 20130209965 A1) (hereinafter Rune):
Regarding Claim 8, Rubbert in view of Fisker, and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. however fails to explicitly teach forming the 3D digital model comprises forming a point cloud.
However, in an analogous art, Rune teaches forming the 3D digital model comprises forming a point cloud ([0202] teaches creating the 3D model and using a point cloud)
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the virtual restoration of 3d scans as disclosed by Rune to improve precision in dental imaging and 3D modeling (Fisker [0007]).
Regarding Claim 27, Rubbert in view of Fisker, and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. however fails to explicitly teach modifying the 3D digital model by combining a portion of the second surface contour with the first surface contour over the region of interest comprises discarding areas of the first surface contour in the region of interest and substituting in the first surface contour of patient dentition the second surface contour of the region of interest.
However, in an analogous art, Rune teaches modifying the 3D digital model by combining a portion of the second surface contour with the first surface contour over the region of interest ([0016] teaches modifying the 3d model with a scan) comprises discarding areas of the first surface contour in the region of interest and substituting in the first surface contour of patient dentition the second surface contour of the region of interest ([0031], [0095], [0097], and [0151] teaches discarding the a section of the scan and replacing with a new scanned section).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the virtual restoration of 3d scans as disclosed by Rune to improve precision in dental imaging and 3D modeling (Fisker [0007]).
Regarding Claim 28, Rubbert in view of Fisker, and Schneider teach the method of claim 1. however fails to explicitly teach modifying the 3D digital model by combining a portion of the second surface contour with the first surface contour over the region of interest comprises substituting the second surface contour of the region of interest and a margin area a predefined distance away from the region of interest into the first surface contour.
However, in an analogous art, Rune teaches modifying the 3D digital model by combining a portion of the second surface contour with the first surface contour over the region of interest ([0016] teaches modifying the 3d model with a scan) comprises substituting the second surface contour of the region of interest and a margin area a predefined distance away from the region of interest into the first surface contour ([0095], [0097]-[0098] teaches discarding the a section of the scan with a margin and replacing it with a new scanned section).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the intraoral scanner disclosed by Rubbert in view of Fisker and Schneider to further add the virtual restoration of 3d scans as disclosed by Rune to improve precision in dental imaging and 3D modeling (Fisker [0007]).
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 MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (703)756-1694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/MAHMOUD KAMAL ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights