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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final on 10/27/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-19 were previously pending and subject to non-final action filed 10/27/2025. In the response filed on 05/05/2026, claims 1, 4 13 and 18 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-19 are currently pending and subject to the final action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/05/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and 112 (b) have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. As a threshold matter, the Examiner's interpretation is grammatically untenable: the claim recites "change a normal of the oral scan data," in which the indefinite article "a" unambiguously identifies "normal" as a noun, not an adjective modifying "scan data." In the field of three-dimensional scanning and dental CAD - the precise technical context of the present invention - the term "normal" (or "surface normal") is a well-established term of art referring to a vector perpendicular to a surface of a three-dimensional mesh that defines the orientation, i.e., inside versus outside, of that surface. One of ordinary skill in this art would immediately understand "change a normal of the oral scan data" to mean inverting the surface normal vectors of the three-dimensional oral scan mesh, thereby converting the oral scan data from a positive model into a negative model.
The specification fully supports this understanding. Paragraph [0090] explicitly states: "a normal of the oral scan data 10 is changed, that is, a model of the oral scan data 10 becomes a negative model" (emphasis added), directly defining the claimed operation through the phrase "that is." Figures 3 and 4 further illustrate this concept: Figure 3(a) depicts the oral scan data. (10) as a positive model, Figure 3(b) depicts the impression scan data (20) as a negative model, and Figure 4 shows the reverse data (10') - the result of changing the normal of the oral scan data - now in the same negative-model orientation as the impression scan data, thereby enabling one-to-one alignment between the two datasets. Additionally, the specification at page 29-30 further employs "normal" in the same vector sense, describing that "the impression scan data 20 and the reverse data 20' of the impression scan data may be formed to have a normal in which the impression scan data 20 and the reverse data 20' face each other," confirming that "normal" consistently denotes a directional surface normal vector throughout the disclosure.
Accordingly, the written description requirement is satisfied and the claims are definite, and Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 112(a) and § 112(b) rejections.
Examiner Response: Applicant argues that “normal” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to refer to a surface normal vector. However, the specification does not expressly disclose or define “normal” in that manner, nor does it adequately describe the claim operation of changing a normal such that the oral scan data is represented as reverse data or a negative model. Applicant’s explanation relies on an interpretation that is not sufficiently supported by the disclosure. Therefore,, the rejections under 112 (a) (b) are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recite the limitation of “and wherein the processor is configured to change a normal of the oral scan data so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data,”
Claim 4 recite the limitation of “a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data”
Claim 13 recite the limitation of “a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data”
Claim 18 recite the limitation of “and wherein a normal of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are changed so that whereby the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are represented as reverse data of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data,”
Paragraph [0090] of specification filed on 08/19/2021 recites that as illustrated in Fig. 4, a normal of the oral scan data 10 is changed; such that the oral scan data becomes reverse data or a negative model. However, the specification does not expressly disclose or define “normal” in that manner, nor does it adequately describe the claim operation of changing a normal such that the oral scan data is represented as reverse data or a negative model. Applicant’s explanation relies on an interpretation that is not sufficiently supported by the disclosure and therefore does not reasonably convey to one or ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-3, 14-17, and 19 are rejected for fully incorporating the dependencies of their bases.
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recite the limitation of “and wherein the processor is configured to change a normal of the oral scan data so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data,”
Claim 4 recite the limitation of “a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data”
Claim 13 recite the limitation of “a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data”
Claim 18 recite the limitation of “and wherein a normal of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are changed so that whereby the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are represented as reverse data of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data,”
Paragraph [0090] of specification filed on 08/19/2021 recites that as illustrated in Fig. 4, a normal of the oral scan data 10 is changed. However, it is unclear what is meant by “a normal of th oral scan data.” The specification does not provide sufficient guidance or disclosure to inform one of ordinary skill in the art what constitutes the claimed “normal” or how changing the “normal” results in the claimed reverse data or negative model. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim limitation.
Dependent claims 2-3, 14-17, and 19 are rejected for fully incorporating the dependencies of their bases.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azernikov (US PGPUB: 20140278279 A1) in view of Kopelman (US PGPUB: 20150320320 A1) in view of FISKER (WO 2012/083960 Al, Pub Date: Jun. 28, 2012, hereinafter “Fisker”) in view of FISKER (US 20130209965 A1, Pub Date: Aug 15, 2013, hereinafter Fisker-9965) in view of Fisker (US 20090220916 A1, Pub Date: Sep. 3, 2009, hereinafter Fisker-0916).
Regarding independent claim 1, Azernikov teaches: a processor; (Azernikov – [0038] FIG. 5, a typical intra-oral scanning system (500) suitable for scanning a tooth preparation comprises a base unit (501) that serves as a housing for a microprocessor or computer)
a storage device: (Azernikov − [0031] storage and retrieval of digital 3D (three-dimensional) models)
and an oral scanner configured to scan an oral object (Azernikov − [0038] generated from images obtained by intra-oral scanning, or by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth. FIG. 5, a typical intra-oral scanning system (500) suitable for scanning;) and an impression model; (Azernikov − [0039] The impression may be scanned directly, for example by a table-top or box scanner. Images can be obtained by intra-oral scanning and using a table-top or box scanner to scan impression directly.)
wherein the processor is configured to: cause the storage device a storage unit configured to store oral scan data of the oral object which represents an oral model or an inside of a mouth of a patient obtained from the oral scanner (Azernikov − [0031 [0058] [0039] Intra-oral imaging technologies and products are currently available for use in scanning a patient's mouth to design a restoration. Examples include FastScan.RTM. (IOS Technologies, Inc.), CEREC.RTM. (Sirona), E4D (D4D Technologies), True Definition Scanner (3M ESPE), Trios.RTM. (3Shape), and iTero.TM. (Cadent/Align Technologies, Inc.). The intra-oral scanners may provide accurate acquisition and transfer of patient oral image information from the dental chair to the restoration designer. The impression may be scanned directly, for example by a table-top or box scanner.)
and selectively store impression scan data of the oral object which represents an impression model that is a frame of the oral model according to a preset determination condition; (Azernikov – [0039] Alternatively, the impression may be used to form a stone model which may then be scanned in the same manner. an impression of the preparation to be restored may be obtained by traditional impression making processes used in dental restoration, including forming an impression by the use of trays. The impression may be scanned directly, for example by a table-top or box scanner. Alternatively [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model. [0058] Fig. 17 searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704) Gingival (702) is the determination condition for selecting designed restorations of patient oral records.)
wherein the oral object is obtained by the impression model whose impression has been taken. (Azernikov – [0038] A 3D model (404') of a preparation (401'), as seen in FIG. 4b, FIG. 4b, may be generated from images obtained by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth.)
Azernikov teaches determination condition but does not explicitly teach guide selective storage of impression scan data
However, Kopelman teaches: determine whether the oral scan data corresponds to the determination condition and guide selective storage of the impression scan data; (Kopelman − [0037] AOI identifying module 115 is responsible for identifying areas of interest (AOIs) from intraoral scan data (e.g., intraoral images) and/or virtual 3D models generated from intraoral scan data. Areas indicative of receding gum, unclear margin line. Receding gum is gingival. The AOI identifying module 115 may, in identifying an AOI, and some or all of which may be stored in data store 110. [0072] At block 215, processing logic identifies one or more candidate intraoral areas of interest from the first intraoral image.)
and control a selection area corresponding to the determination condition, among the impression scan data, to be partially applied to a corresponding area of the oral scan data to obtain final scan data (Kopelman − Fig. 2A, 2B. At block 230, processing logic compares the second intraoral image to the first intraoral image. To compare intraoral images, processing logic determines an alignment between the intraoral images based on geometric features shared by these intraoral images. This may identify areas of interest such as tooth wear, cavities, and so forth (determination condition). [0133] FIG. 6 illustrates a screen shot 600 of an intraoral scan application. [0078] At block 248, a virtual 3D model of the dental site is generated. The virtual model 3D may be generated as discussed above. The virtual 3D model may be a virtual or digital model showing the surface features of the target area.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov and Kopelman because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. Adding the teaching of Kopelman provide Azernikov with area of interest module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: to be partially applied to a corresponding area of the oral scan data so that the selection area in the oral scan data is supplemented by the impression scan data to obtain final scan data.
However, Fisker teaches: among the impression scan data, to be partially applied to a corresponding area of the oral scan data to obtain final scan data. (Fisker – [pdf page 3 ll. 24-28] providing first 3D representation of an objection, obtaining a second 3D representation by scanning modified object (impression scan data) and replacing a first subset of the first 3D representation with data from the second 3D representation (impression scan data) and updating the first 3D representation to represent the modified object (the final scan data).)
PNG
media_image1.png
452
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman and Fisker because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, and wherein the processor is configured to change a normal of the oral scan data so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the oral scan data.
However, Fisker-9965 teaches: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, (Fisker-9965 − the narrow bore is not clearly seen in Fig. 5C.)
and wherein the processor is configured to change a normal of the oral scan data so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the oral scan data. (Fisker-9965 − [0280] FIG. 5D shows an example of a screenshot of the 3D scan of the tooth 501 in FIG. 5C. In this screenshot the bore 508 of the damaged tooth 501 is clearly seen. The scan has been reversed compared to in FIG. 5C so that the scan of the narrow bore can be seen.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, Fisker and Fisker-9965 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: a model of the oral scan data becomes a negative model,
However, Fisker-0916 teaches: a model of the oral scan data becomes a negative model, (Fisker-0916 – Fig. 15, [0153] To transform the scan from an impression scan 1500 (negative) to a model 1501 (positive) the surface orientation need to be inverted.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, Fisker and Fisker-9965, Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
Regarding dependent claim 2, depends on claim 1, Azernikov teaches: wherein the determination condition comprises at least one of a plurality of conditions, comprising unclear indication of a margin line, presence of a post area or presence of an area comprising metal in the oral scan data. (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model.)
Regarding dependent claim 3, depends on claim 1, Azernikov teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to allow a simulation unit to receive, from the storage device, information on areas neighboring the selection area and to automatically simulate the selection area before the selection area is applied to be replaced. (Azernikov – [0028] FIG. 17 shows a work flow diagram for generating restoration proposals. [0033] In an embodiment, a method for compact and descriptive representation of teeth shape and generation of automatic designs within CAD. CAD is simulation unit.)
Regarding independent claim 18, Azernikov teaches: A combined oral and impression scanning method comprising:
a first oral scan data storage step of storing first oral scan data by scanning an outer surface of an oral object, which represents an oral model, comprising an upper jaw model and a lower jaw model; (Azernikov − [0040] A plurality of scans may be obtained in order to form a suitable image of the patient's oral anatomy. For example, occlusal, lingual and buccal scans may be taken of the preparation and the opposing jaw. Fig. 6 show upper and lower jaw.)
a second oral scan data storage step of storing second oral scan data by scanning an inside of the oral object in a state in which the upper jaw model and the lower jaw model have been isolated from each other; (Azernikov − [0040-0041] A plurality of scans may be obtained in order to form a suitable image of the patient's oral anatomy. For example, occlusal, lingual and buccal scans may be taken of the preparation and the opposing jaw. Fig. 6 show upper and lower jaw. Fig. 7 show inside of the oral object.)
by scanning an impression model that is a frame of the oral model, (Azernikov − [0039] Alternatively, the impression may be used to form a stone model which may then be scanned in the same manner. an impression of the preparation to be restored may be obtained by traditional impression making processes used in dental restoration, including forming an impression by the use of trays. The impression may be scanned directly, for example by a table-top or box scanner.)
wherein the oral object is obtained by the impression model whose impression has been taken. (Azernikov – [0038] A 3D model (404') of a preparation (401'), as seen in FIG. 4b, FIG. 4b, may be generated from images obtained by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth.)
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: a selection area impression scan data comparison step of obtaining impression scan data of a selection area of the oral object comprising an occlusion state of the upper jaw model and the lower jaw model and comparing the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data
However, Kopelman teaches: a selection area impression scan data comparison step of obtaining impression scan data of a selection area of the oral object comprising an occlusion state of the upper jaw model and the lower jaw model and comparing the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data; (Azernikov − [0041] The AOI identifying module 115 may then compare the first virtual model to the second virtual model to determine a change in the dental site and identify an AOI to represent the change. [0076] The intraoral area of interest may be hidden or occluded in many views of the dental site.)
and a selection area impression scan data replacement application step of applying the impression scan data to the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data (Kopelman − [0037] AOI identifying module 115 is responsible for identifying areas of interest (AOIs) from intraoral scan data (e.g., intraoral images) and/or virtual 3D models generated from intraoral scan data. Areas indicative of receding gum, unclear margin line. Receding gum is gingival. The AOI identifying module 115 may, in identifying an AOI, and some or all of which may be stored in data store 110. [0072] At block 215, processing logic identifies one or more candidate intraoral areas of interest from the first intraoral image.)
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: by partially replacing the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov and Kopelman because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. Adding the teaching of Kopelman provide Azernikov with area of interest module. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: to be partially applied to a corresponding area of the oral scan data so that the selection area in the oral scan data is supplemented by the impression scan data to obtain final scan data.
However, Fisker teaches: by partially replacing the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data so that the selection area in the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data is supplemented by the impression scan data. (Fisker – [pdf page 3 ll. 24-28] providing first 3D representation of an objection, obtaining a second 3D representation by scanning modified object (impression scan data) and replacing a first subset of the first 3D representation with data from the second 3D representation (impression scan data) and updating the first 3D representation to represent the modified object (the final scan data).)
PNG
media_image1.png
452
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman and Fisker because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, and wherein a normal of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are changed so that whereby the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are represented as reverse data of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data.
However, Fisker-9965 teaches: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, (Fisker-9965 − the narrow bore is not clearly seen in Fig. 5C.)
and wherein a normal of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are changed so that whereby the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data are represented as reverse data of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data. (Fisker-9965 − [0280] FIG. 5D shows an example of a screenshot of the 3D scan of the tooth 501 in FIG. 5C. In this screenshot the bore 508 of the damaged tooth 501 is clearly seen. The scan has been reversed compared to in FIG. 5C so that the scan of the narrow bore can be seen.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, Fisker and Fisker-9965 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: models of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data become negative models,
However, Fisker-0916 teaches: models of the first oral scan data and the second oral scan data become negative models, (Fisker-0916 – Fig. 15, [0153] To transform the scan from an impression scan 1500 (negative) to a model 1501 (positive) the surface orientation need to be inverted.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, Fisker and Fisker-9965, Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
Regarding dependent claim 19, depends on claim 18, Azernikov teaches: wherein in the first oral scan data storage step, the upper jaw model and the lower jaw model face each other in a way to be occluded. (Azernikov − [0040] A plurality of scans may be obtained in order to form a suitable image of the patient's oral anatomy. For example, occlusal, lingual and buccal scans may be taken of the preparation and the opposing jaw.)
Claim(s) 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azernikov (US PGPUB: 20140278279 A1) in view of Kopelman (US PGPUB: 20150320320 A1) in view of FISKER (US 20130209965 A1, Pub Date: Aug 15, 2013, hereinafter Fisker-9965) in view of Fisker (US 20090220916 A1, Pub Date: Sep. 3, 2009, hereinafter Fisker-0916).
Regarding independent claim 4, Azernikov teaches: A combined oral and impression scanning system comprising:
an oral scan data storage step of storing oral scan data by scanning an oral object which represents an oral model or an inside of a mouth of a patient; (Azernikov − [0038] generated from images obtained by intra-oral scanning, or by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth. FIG. 5, a typical intra-oral scanning system (500) suitable for scanning;)
an impression mode change step of changing a mode of the oral scan data into an impression mode by determining the oral scan data so that the oral scan data corresponds to selectively stored impression scan data which represents an impression model that is a frame of the oral model; (Azernikov − [0039] Alternatively, the impression may be used to form a stone model which may then be scanned in the same manner. an impression of the preparation to be restored may be obtained by traditional impression making processes used in dental restoration, including forming an impression by the use of trays. The impression may be scanned directly, for example by a table-top or box scanner. Alternatively [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model. [0058] Fig. 17 searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704) Gingival (702) is the determination condition for selecting designed restorations of patient oral records.)
wherein the oral object is obtained by the impression model whose impression has been taken. (Azernikov – [0038] A 3D model (404') of a preparation (401'), as seen in FIG. 4b, FIG. 4b, may be generated from images obtained by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth.)
Azernikov does not explicitly teach a selection area replacement application step of partially obtaining scan data of a selection area among the impression scan data
However, Kopelman teaches: a selection area replacement application step of partially obtaining scan data of a selection area among the impression scan data and applying the impression scan data to the oral scan data having the changed impression mode; (Kopelman − [0037] AOI identifying module 115 is responsible for identifying areas of interest (AOIs) from intraoral scan data (e.g., intraoral images) and/or virtual 3D models generated from intraoral scan data. Areas indicative of receding gum, unclear margin line. Receding gum is gingival. The AOI identifying module 115 may, in identifying an AOI, and some or all of which may be stored in data store 110. [0072] At block 215, processing logic identifies one or more candidate intraoral areas of interest from the first intraoral image.)
and a final scan datum acquisition step of changing again, into an oral mode which is an initial mode, (Kopelman − [0077] At block 245, processing logic determines whether the intraoral scan session is complete. If so, the method continues to block 248. If additional intraoral images are to be taken and processed, the method returns to block 220.) the impression mode of the oral scan data to which the impression scan data has been applied in the selection area and obtaining a final scan data, (Kopelman − [0078] At block 248, a virtual 3D model of the dental site is generated. The virtual model 3D may be generated as discussed above. The virtual 3D model may be a virtual or digital model showing the surface features of the target area.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, and Kopelman because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, and wherein in the impression mode change step, a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the oral scan data.
However, Fisker-9965 teaches: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, (Fisker-9965 − the narrow bore is not clearly seen in Fig. 5C.)
and wherein in the impression mode change step, a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the oral scan data. (Fisker-9965 − [0280] FIG. 5D shows an example of a screenshot of the 3D scan of the tooth 501 in FIG. 5C. In this screenshot the bore 508 of the damaged tooth 501 is clearly seen. The scan has been reversed compared to in FIG. 5C so that the scan of the narrow bore can be seen.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, and Fisker-9965 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: a model of the oral scan data becomes a negative model,
However, Fisker-0916 teaches: a model of the oral scan data becomes a negative model, (Fisker-0916 – Fig. 15, [0153] To transform the scan from an impression scan 1500 (negative) to a model 1501 (positive) the surface orientation need to be inverted.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, Fisker-9965, and Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
Regarding dependent claim 5, depends on claim 4, Azernikov teaches further comprising a prosthetics production step of transmitting the final data to a design program so that prosthetics is fabricated. (Azernikov − [0058] After obtaining the final restoration proposal, the method may further comprise the step of forming a physical dental restoration from the restoration proposal, such as by a computer-assisted manufacturing (CAM) process (1708) for milling restorations.)
Regarding dependent claim 6, depends on claim 4, Azernikov teaches wherein the oral object comprises an oral model or an inside of a mouth of a patient. (Azernikov − [0038] A 3D model (404') of a preparation (401'), as seen in FIG. 4b, may be generated from images obtained by intra-oral scanning, or by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth.)
Regarding dependent claim 7, depends on claim 4, Azernikov teaches further comprising an impression scan data storage determination step of selectively storing the impression scan data depending on whether the oral scan data comprises a preset determination condition after the oral scan data storage step. (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model. [0058] Fig. 17 searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704) Gingival (702) is the determination condition for selecting designed restorations of patient oral records.)
Regarding dependent claim 8, depends on claim 7, Azernikov teaches: wherein the determination condition comprises at least one of a plurality of conditions, comprising unclear indication of a margin line, presence of a post area or presence of an area comprising metal in the oral scan data. (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model.)
Regarding dependent claim 9, depends on claim 8, Azernikov teaches: wherein the impression scan data comprises data stored by selectively scanning only a portion corresponding to a portion of oral scan data corresponding to the determination condition in an impression model. (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model.)
Regarding dependent claim 10, depends on claim 4, Azernikov does not explicitly teach: the margin line is unclear
However, Kopelman teaches: wherein: the impression mode change step comprises indicating a margin line in the impression scan data by using an impression material when it is determined that indication of the margin line is unclear in the oral scan data in the oral scan data storage step, and the margin line is applied to the oral scan data and indicated when the final scan data is obtained. (Kopelman − [0037] AOI identifying module 115 is responsible for identifying areas of interest (AOIs) from intraoral scan data (e.g., intraoral images) and/or virtual 3D models generated from intraoral scan data. Areas indicative of receding gum, unclear margin line. Receding gum is gingival. The AOI identifying module 115 may, in identifying an AOI, and some or all of which may be stored in data store 110. [0072] At block 215, processing logic identifies one or more candidate intraoral areas of interest from the first intraoral image.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kopelman, Fisker-9965, and Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
Regarding dependent claim 11, depends on claim 4, Azernikov teaches: wherein the oral scan data storage step comprises a post area scan step of converting a mode of the post area into an impression mode when it is determined that the selection area is a post area by scanning the oral object and applying the selection area by replacing previously stored impression scan data. (Azernikov – [0058] The method further comprises obtaining a margin line of at least one preparation from the scan data (1702); encoding a margin line (1703); searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704); optionally, indexing the previously designed restorations by similarity measurement for efficient retrieval of one proposal or a plurality of proposals; retrieving at least one design proposal that comprises a 3D image of the proposal; aligning the design proposal with the 3D image of the preparation model (1705);)
Regarding dependent claim 12, depends on claim 11, Azernikov teaches: wherein the post area scan step comprises: a display step of displaying the post area; (Azernikov – [0076] second computing device comprises a display module for viewing the restoration proposal)
an impression mode change step of selectively obtaining oral scan data of the post area, converting a mode of the oral scan data into the impression mode, and obtaining impression scan data; (Azernikov – [0058] The method further comprises obtaining a margin line of at least one preparation from the scan data (1702); encoding a margin line (1703); searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704); optionally, indexing the previously designed restorations by similarity measurement for efficient retrieval of one proposal or a plurality of proposals; retrieving at least one design proposal that comprises a 3D image of the proposal; aligning the design proposal with the 3D image of the preparation model (1705);)
and an embossing scan data application step of obtaining embossing scan data of the post area by changing the impression mode and applying the embossing scan data to the impression scan data by partially replacing the impression scan data. (Azernikov – [0058] Optionally, indexing the previously designed restorations by similarity measurement for efficient retrieval of one proposal or a plurality of proposals; retrieving at least one design proposal that comprises a 3D image of the proposal; aligning the design proposal with the 3D image of the preparation model (1705);)
Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azernikov (US PGPUB: 20140278279 A1) in view of Kim (US PGPUB: 20160157967 A1) in view of FISKER (WO 2012/083960 Al, Pub Date: Jun. 28, 2012, hereinafter “Fisker”) in view of FISKER (US 20130209965 A1, Pub Date: Aug 15, 2013, hereinafter Fisker-9965) in view of Fisker (US 20090220916 A1, Pub Date: Sep. 3, 2009, hereinafter Fisker-0916).
Regarding independent claim 13, Azernikov teaches: A combined oral and impression scanning method comprising:
an oral scan data acquisition step of obtaining, by a scanner, oral scan data of an oral object comprising a post area,; (Azernikov − [0038] generated from images obtained by intra-oral scanning, or by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth. FIG. 5, a typical intra-oral scanning system (500) suitable for scanning;)
wherein the oral object represents an oral model or an inside of a mouth of a patient; (Azernikov − [0031 [0058] [0039] Intra-oral imaging technologies and products are currently available for use in scanning a patient's mouth to design a restoration. Examples include FastScan.RTM. (IOS Technologies, Inc.), CEREC.RTM. (Sirona), E4D (D4D Technologies), True Definition Scanner (3M ESPE), Trios.RTM. (3Shape), and iTero.TM. (Cadent/Align Technologies, Inc.). The intra-oral scanners may provide accurate acquisition and transfer of patient oral image information from the dental chair to the restoration designer.)
a selection area designation step of designating the post area as an object area for an impression scan; (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model. [0058] Fig. 17 searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restored-ions for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704) Gingival (702) is the determination condition for selecting designed restorations of patient oral records. )
to correspond to an impression scan data which represents an impression model that is a frame of the oral model (Azernikov – [0039] Alternatively, the impression may be used to form a stone model which may then be scanned in the same manner. an impression of the preparation to be restored may be obtained by traditional impression making processes used in dental restoration, including forming an impression by the use of trays. The impression may be scanned directly, for example by a table-top or box scanner. Alternatively [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model. [0058] Fig. 17 searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704) Gingival (702) is the determination condition for selecting designed restorations of patient oral records.)
an impression scan data acquisition step of obtaining impression scan data of the selection area designated as the object area for the impression scan; (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] (2) accessing a case repository of similar previously designed restoration cases, where each case comprises a digital 3D model of a shape and a shape identifier that can be indexed and searched efficiently by similarity; [0041] identify margin line of a scanned model of a patient record. Gingival (702) is the determination condition for identifying margin line in patient 3D model. [0058] Fig. 17 searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704) Gingival (702) is the determination condition for selecting designed restorations of patient oral records.)
and a data aligned step of aligning the oral scan data and the obtained impression scan data of the selection area. (Azernikov − [0031] [0058] retrieving at least one design proposal that comprises a 3D image of the proposal; aligning the design proposal with the 3D image of the preparation model (1705))
wherein the oral object is obtained by the impression model whose impression has been taken. (Azernikov – [0038] A 3D model (404') of a preparation (401'), as seen in FIG. 4b, FIG. 4b, may be generated from images obtained by scanning a physical impression from the patient's mouth.)
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: oral scan data is reversed
However, Kim teaches: an impression mode change step of changing a mode of the oral scan data into an impression mode so that the oral scan data is reversed; (Kim − [0030] FIG. 4 is an exemplary view illustrating a reversing process for dimensionalizing an image matching groove in a primarily scanned image according to the first embodiment of the present invention;)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov and Kim because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. Adding the teaching of Kim provide Azernikov with reserve images of oral scans. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: so that the selection area in the oral scan data is supplemented by the impression scan data.
However, Fisker teaches: a data aligned step of aligning the oral scan data and the obtained impression scan data of the selection area so that the selection area in the oral scan data is supplemented by the impression scan data. (Fisker – [pdf page 3 ll. 20-28] aligning the first and second 3D representation and replacing a first subset of the first 3D representation with data from the second 3D representation (impression scan data) and updating the first 3D representation to represent the modified object (the final scan data).)
PNG
media_image2.png
435
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kim and Fisker because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, and wherein in the impression mode change step, a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the oral scan data.
However, Fisker-9965 teaches: wherein the selection area is a portion not clearly represented based on only the oral scan data, (Fisker-9965 − the narrow bore is not clearly seen in Fig. 5C.)
and wherein in the impression mode change step, a normal of the oral scan data is changed so that whereby the oral scan data is represented as reverse data of the oral scan data to correspond to the impression scan data, and the impression scan data is aligned to the reverse data of the oral scan data. (Fisker-9965 − [0280] FIG. 5D shows an example of a screenshot of the 3D scan of the tooth 501 in FIG. 5C. In this screenshot the bore 508 of the damaged tooth 501 is clearly seen. The scan has been reversed compared to in FIG. 5C so that the scan of the narrow bore can be seen.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kim, Fisker and Fisker-9965 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve intraoral scanning of a patient oral objects.
Azernikov does not explicitly teach: a model of the oral scan data becomes a negative model,
However, Fisker-0916 teaches: a model of the oral scan data becomes a negative model, (Fisker-0916 – Fig. 15, [0153] To transform the scan from an impression scan 1500 (negative) to a model 1501 (positive) the surface orientation need to be inverted.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kim, Fisker, Fisker-9965, and Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
Regarding dependent claim 14, depends on claim 13, Azernikov teaches: wherein the impression scan data is obtained by scanning an impression model which is a frame of an oral model through a scanner. (Azernikov − [0038] A 3D model (404') of a preparation (401'), as seen in FIG. 4b, may be generated from images obtained by intra-oral scanning,)
Regarding dependent claim 15, depends on claim 13, Azernikov teaches: wherein in the impression scan data acquisition step, the post area is obtained in an embossing form. (Azernikov − [0058] the method further comprises obtaining a margin line of at least one preparation from the scan data (1702); encoding a margin line (1703); searching a case repository (FIG. 3) of previously designed restorations for design proposals that are based on similarity measurements with the margin line of the preparation (1704);)
Regarding dependent claim 16, depends on claim 15, Azernikov does not explicitly teach: further comprising a re-reverse step of reversing again the oral scan data and impression scan data aligned in the data aligned step when the impression mode is released.
However, Kim teaches: further comprising a re-reverse step of reversing again the oral scan data and impression scan data aligned in the data aligned step when the impression mode is released. (Kim − [0024] obtaining an integrated scanned image considering a vertical dimension by reversing the second image matching groove so that an image of the second image matching groove is dimensionalized from the primarily scanned image,)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kim, Fisker, Fisker-9965, and Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
Regarding dependent claim 17, depends on claim 16, Azernikov does not explicitly teach: re-reverse step and obtaining final scan data by combining the oral scan data and the impression scan data.
However, Kim teaches: further comprising a final scan datum acquisition step of replacing the oral scan data with the impression scan data of the selection area in the re-reverse step and obtaining final scan data by combining the oral scan data and the impression scan data. (Kim − [0016] Specifically, the three-dimensional external shape image is obtained by combining information scanned while an oral scanner is moved along the inside of the patient's mouth, and includes overall shapes of the crown of the tooth and the gum. [0106] Specifically, the integrated scanned image 13 is obtained by overlapping and combining image information continuously scanned by a scanner moving along the inside of the patient's mouth or the outside of the denture 50.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Azernikov, Kim, Fisker, Fisker-9965, and Fisker-0916 because each references relate to digital dental scanning and restoration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fisker-0916 teaching of converting between negative impression data and positive model data into the combined system in order to improve the registration, comparison, and processing of intraoral scan data with impression scan data.
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 CARL E BARNES JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3395. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/CARL E BARNES JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights