DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-15,17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pesach et al WO2014102779 (cited by applicant).
With regard to claim 2, Pesach et al disclose a method of position sensing in relation toa geometry of an oral surface for a position sensing system, the position sensing system comprising a probe 218 (fig. 2A) (see page 55, lines 11-22 which disclose that the probe may be a rotating dental drill) including a probe volume, the method comprising receiving a 3D model of the oral surface (page 4, lines 1-5), tracking positions of the probe volume (see page 38, lines 5-9) by sensing a position of at least one region of the probe via a position sensor, registering said tracked positions to said 3D model of said oral surface based on a mapping between a surface at which encounters of the probe 218 with the oral surface limit motion of the probe as tracked by the position sensor (page 38, lines 5-9 clearly disclose that the position sensor tracks the probe), and said 3D model of the oral surface (see page 58, lines 1-15). Note also that the position sensor may be attached to a tooth. See page 42, line 24.
With regard to the amended language in claim 2, note that the probe comprises a rotating dental tool portion (see page 55, lines 11-22 which discloses a dental drill (which rotates) that is adapted to contact at least one of a bone surface and tooth surface for preparation thereof. In this case, the claimed “at least one region” (the chuck that holds the rotating drill) is configured to rotate with the rotating tool portion, and is inherently tracked by the position sensor.
With regard to claim 3, note that the probe 216 is an elongated element extending from the distal region of a dental device 216. See fig. 2A.
With regard to claim 4, note that probe 216 may be a dental drill bur. See page 55, lines 13-14.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, note that the dental device 216 comprises at least one camera 230/232, which is/are used to generate the 3D model via images acquired. See fig. 2A.
With regard to claim 7, note that body 220 is considered to be an “independent device” comprising at least one camera 230/232.
With regard to claim 8, note that the 3D model is generated and/or updated while said sensing said position of said at least one region of said probe via a position sensor. See page 38, lines 5-9.
With regard to claim 9, note that the 3D model may be generated off line based on recorded positions. See page 4, lines 1-5 where the image may be recorded to a point cloud.
With regard to claims 10-12, note that the registering comprises determining a transform between tracked positions and the 3D model of the oral surface, and also registering tracked positions away from the modeled oral surface, based on the transform. See page 58, lines 1-15 which discloses how the registration can be accomplished by matching markers on the tooth with markers on the
model, as well as how the location of the stylus tip with respect to the visible tooth portion is estimated (which is away from the 3D model). With further regard to claim 12, the step of determining the transform with a minimized variance between sensed position measurements and the 3D model is inherent in the movement of the stylus tip.
With regard to claim 13, the registering as disclosed on page 58, lines 1-15 is used for calibrating an output of the positioning sensing system. See lines 16-20 which discloses how the SGMP determines if additional scanning needs to be done, with the output (image) indicating if there are missing portions of the tooth.
With regard to claims 14 and 15, note that the sensor may be an electromagnetic sensor. See page 28, lines 27-32. Such sensor is configured to sense a magnet on the probe.
With regard to claim 17, note that the sensor is configured (capable of) being fixed to the probe.
With regard to claim 18, note how the tracking comprises acquiring an image including at least a portion of the oral surface and at least a portion of the probe. See page 41, lines 29-31, as well as page 54, lines 11-21, which discloses how the field of view of the cameras 730, 732 include both the tooth and the stylus tip.
With regard to claims 19 and 20, note that the mapping between a surface at which encounters of the probe with the oral surface limit motion of the probe, is generated by collecting a plurality of
position measurement points where the encounters occur, some of which are below the gum line (subgingival). See page 53, lines 19-21.
With regard to claim 21, note that an estimated tooth contour is generated by converting bur tip position data of a bur tip of the probe (see page 55, lines 13-14 which discloses that the stylus tip may be a dental bur) into estimated tooth contour contact regions. See page 57, lines 11-16 which discloses how tooth estimations 1406 are generated from the position data.
With regard to claim 22, note how the registering comprises trimming sensed position measurements from the sensor which are potentially in contact with a surface of the tooth. See page 58, lines 1-15 which describes how estimated stylus positions 1410 (with respect to the tooth) are generated. The estimation of the stylus positions constitutes “trimming” the sensed measurements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are generally directed toward the core assertion that the Pesach et al ‘779 reference fails to disclose use of rotating dental tools. This assertion is not found persuasive.
Pesach et al clearly disclose that the probe may be a rotating dental tool. On page 55, lines 11-20, Pesach et al disclose that the stylus is a dental drill. Such a dental drill is inherently a rotating dental tool, and this inherency is also supported by Pesach et al’s disclosure in lines 21-22 that “in some embodiments, the drill itself when not rotating is used as stylus”. Thus, clearly Pesach et al contemplates that a rotating dental drill may be used and tracked by the sensing system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI whose telephone number is (571)272-4977. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 800-430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights