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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/2025 has been entered.
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 42-53, 55, and 57-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 42 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 42 recites “comparing is mismatch thereby verifying that a topography of a preplanned drilling site matches a drilling plan as defined by said surgical guide and said topography matches the contacted surface of said subgingival bone” in lines 25-27 where it is unclear what is mismatched and how can there be a match when a mismatch is present. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as mismatching of the first information and the first dimension and determining that there is a mismatch present between the preplanned drilling site with the drilling plan and the topography doesn’t match the contact surface of the subgingival bone.
Claims 43-53, 55, and 57-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 42.
Claim 45 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 45 recite “said comparing comprises verifying one or more” in lines 1-2 wherein it is unclear whether the verifying step further limits the verifying step of step g in claim 42 OR if it is an additional verifying step. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as an addition verifying step separate from step g.
Claim 47 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 47 recites “wherein said first information includes one or more of:” in lines 1-2 wherein it is unclear whether applicant is further limiting the dental surgical guide information which is found to be part of the first information. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “wherein said dental surgical guide information further includes”.
Claim 48 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 48 recites “wherein subgingival bone includes measurement information of said patient mouth subgingival bone” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether applicant is further limiting the dental surgical guide information which is found to be part of the first information. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “wherein said measurement information comprises CT measurement information”.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 48.
Claim 50 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 50 recites “wherein said first information includes a design model of said dental surgical guide and of said patient mouth subgingival bone” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether applicant is further limiting the dental surgical guide information which is found to be part of the first information. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “wherein said dental surgical guide information further includes a design model of said dental surgical guide and said subgingival information further includes a design model of said patient mouth subgingival bone”.
Claim 51 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 51 recites “wherein said first information includes dimensions of said dental surgical guide and of said patient mouth subgingival bone” in lines 1-3. It is unclear whether applicant is further limiting the dental surgical guide information which is found to be part of the first information. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “wherein said dental surgical guide information further includes dimensions of said dental surgical guide and said subgingival information further includes dimensions of said patient mouth subgingival bone”.
Claim 52 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 52 recites “said estimating comprises” in lines 1-2 wherein it is unclear if applicant is intending to further limit the estimating step from claim 42. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “said estimating further comprising”.
Claim 52 recites “a first dimension defined using: said second dimension between said guide and said imager and a third dimension between a tip of said stylus and said imager” in lines 2-4 wherein it is unclear if it it’s the same first dimension claimed in claim 42 or if it is different. Further, it is unclear if the first dimension is determined using the second and third dimensions. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the first dimension is different and that it uses the second and third dimensions to make the first dimension.
Claim 57 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 57 recites “said feedback” in lines 2-3 wherein no antecedent basis has been established. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “feedback”.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent off of claim 57.
Claim 59 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 59 recites “said feedback” in lines 2-3 wherein no antecedent basis has been established. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as “feedback”.
Claim 64 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 64 recites “comparing is mismatch thereby verifying that a topography of a preplanned drilling site matches a drilling plan as defined by said surgical guide and said topography matches the contacted surface of said subgingival bone” in lines 25-28 where it is unclear what is mismatched and how can there be a match when a mismatch is present. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as mismatching of the first information and the first dimension and determining that there is a mismatch present between the preplanned drilling site with the drilling plan and the topography doesn’t match the contact surface of the subgingival bone.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 53 recites “calibrating said imager wherein said imager is calibrated to said stylus” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what applicant is further limiting as the limitation has been claimed in the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Brian Hopkins (Reg. No. 42669) on 12/5/2025.
The application has been amended as follows:
Claim 42, line 14 “patient mouth” is revised to –patient’s mouth—
Claim 42, line 20 “iii. estimating” is revised to –iv. estimating—
Claim 42, line 21 “patient mouth subgingival bone” is revised to –patient’s mouth subgingival bone—
Claim 42, line 24 “iv. comparing” is revised to –v. comparing—
Claim 42, line 26 “said surgical guide” is revised to –said dental surgical guide—
Claim 44, line 2 “said surgical guide” is revised to –said dental surgical guide—
Claim 50, line 2 “patient mouth subgingival bone” is revised to –patient’s mouth subgingival bone—
Claim 52, line 3, “said guide” is revised to –said dental surgical guide—
Claim 52, line 5, “said guide” is revised to –said dental surgical guide—
Claim 64, line 17 “said surgical guide” is revised to –said dental surgical guide—
Claim 64, line 18 “said mouth subgingival bone” is revised to –said patient’s mouth subgingival bone--
Claim 64, line 21 “patient mouth subgingival bone” is revised to –patient’s mouth subgingival bone—
Claim 64, line 27 “said surgical guide” is revised to –said dental surgical guide—
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
It should be noted that a call was made on 12/5/2025 to discuss examiner’s amendments which were agreed upon. However, after further consideration, more 112 issues and are addressed above in the form of a rejection. A voicemail was left to applicant on 12/23/2025 informing the applicant of the matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-53, 55, 57-64 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Hehn (US 20140234803 A1) is found to be the closest prior art where Hehn discloses an in-vivo dental surgical guide comprising receiving first information comprising dental surgical guide information of dental surgical guide, subgingival bone information of a subgingival bone of a patient’s mouth and a relation between parts of said dental surgical guide and said subgingival bone when said dental surgical guide is within said patient’s mouth. Further, Hehn discloses positioning said surgical guide within said patient’s mouth and comparing image information with said first information, said comparing comprising estimating, using said image information, a first dimension between said dental surgical guide and said patient’s mouth subgingival bone in relation to said known position of said tip of said stylus in relation to an imager when performing said contacting.
However, Hehn is silent to calibrating said imager to said stylus in order to generate a known position of a tip of said stylus in relation to said imager; while said surgical guide within said patient's mouth, contacting with a surface of said subgingival bone of said patient mouth; while performing said contacting, acquiring image information corresponding to an image which includes at least a portion of said stylus and a portion of said dental surgical guide therein using said imager; and detecting if a result of said comparing is mismatch thereby verifying that a topography of a preplanned drilling site matches a drilling plan as defined by said surgical guide and said topography matches the contacted surface of said subgingival bone in combination with the rest of the claim limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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 on (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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 12/29/2025