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 .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 03/13/2026.
The examiner withdraws the 35 USC 112 rejections, in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged the following: “Fisker Fails to Teach a Lower Portion "Inserted Into and Fixed Within" Gingival Tissue. Moreover, while the Examiner relied on Fisker's "inner gingival surface" as corresponding to the claimed "lower portion...that is inserted into and fixed within a patient's gingiva," this mapping fundamentally misunderstands the claimed limitation. Fisker's inner gingival surface is described as a surface "which faces or contacts surfaces of the patient's oral cavity when the denture is arranged in the patient's mouth" (0030). This means it is a surface of the denture that contacts the tongue or palate within the oral space-it is "hidden" only in the sense that it faces inward toward the oral cavity rather than outward. Importantly, Fisker's inner surface is not hidden in the gingival tissue; it rests on top of the gingival ridge and remains within the accessible oral space.” The examiner is not persuaded. Regarding the claim language of “…inserted into and fixed within”, the examiner is relying on Fisker paragraph 0072 teachings “The dentist may perform the measurements by means of different measurement devices. The measurement device can for example be a component which is fixed to the patient's gum and/or lips. The component may be fixed using e.g. impression material, bite registration material, biocompatible glue etc.” Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., hidden) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following: “Chekh Does Not Cure Fisker's Deficiencies. Chekh merely discloses compositing 3D bite models into 2D patient images at the mouth opening. Chekh does not teach or suggest a three-dimensional structure model that is aligned through an overlapping part between scan and library models, includes a first area of non- prepared library model data and a second area of prepared scan model data, and thereby obtains both precise data for the prepared structure and data for difficult-to-scan portions.” The examiner is not persuaded. Chekh teachings in Paragraphs 0324; 0333 discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “wherein the three-dimensional structure model is generated by merging a part of the three-dimensional library model that is the same as the three-dimensional scan model and a part of the three-dimensional scan model that is a prepared part of the processed actual structure and is different from the three-dimensional library model through an overlapping part.” Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Moreover, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., obtains both precise data for the prepared structure and data for difficult-to-scan portions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker, US Patent Application No.: 20150111177 in view of Chekh, US Patent Application No.: 20190350680.
Claim 1:
Fisker discloses a method for matching structure data (“producing the denture's gingiva to match perfectly pre-manufactured acrylic teeth or custom manufactured teeth” See Fisker Abstract; 0099; 0150, 0261; 0294). Fisker failed to disclose the following:
wherein the three-dimensional structure model is generated by merging a part of the three-dimensional library model that is the same as the three-dimensional scan model and a part of the three-dimensional scan model that is a prepared part of the processed actual structure and is different from the three-dimensional library model through an overlapping part.
However, this feature is disclosed by Chekh (See Paragraphs 0324; 0333). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fisker by the teachings of Chekh to enable accurately and realistically depicting 3D bite models of teeth, more effectively (See Chekh Summary).
As modified:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses the following:
a library loading operation of loading a library of a structures (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101) is stored in a storage unit (See Fisker Paragraph 0445) on a user interface (See Fisker Paragraph 0164; 0287-0294; 0364; 0438);
a selecting operation of selecting a three-dimensional library model from the library loading operation by a user (“selecting digital 3D representations of the wax rims from a wax rim library and digitally shaping these digital 3D representations to fit the patient's oral situation using a virtual manipulation too” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094; 0097; 0100; 0105; 0106; 0191);
a library model setting operation (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101) of disposing the three-dimensional library model selected in the selecting operation on an oral model data (“virtually removing a part of one or more of the teeth models, if the virtual articulation indicates that removal is suitable” See Paragraphs 0201; 0229-02321) by a calculation unit (See Fisker Paragraphs 0321; 0323);
a scanning operation of scanning a processed actual structure through a scan unit to convert a scanned structure into a three-dimensional scan model (“In step 101 a digital 3D representation of the patient's gums is obtained by e.g. scanning the patient's gums using an intra-oral scanner and converting the data obtained by the scanner to a 3D model of the gums.” See Fisker Figure 1A; Paragraphs 0013; 0035-0036; 0038; 0100-0101; 0329);
and an aligning operation of connecting an overlapping part between the three-dimensional library model and the three-dimensional scan data model combined with each other (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Fisker Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327) by the calculation unit (See Fisker Paragraphs 0321; 0323);
wherein the three-dimensional structure model is generated by merging a part of the three-dimensional library model that is the same as the three-dimensional scan model and a part of the three-dimensional scan model that is a prepared part of the processed actual structure and is different from the three-dimensional library model through an overlapping part (See Chekh Paragraphs 0324; 0333);
wherein a lower portion of the three-dimensional structure model includes a first area of the three-dimensional library model that is inserted into and fixed within a patient's gingiva (“The gingival part of the denture comprises an inner gingival surface which faces or contacts surfaces of the patient's oral cavity when the denture is arranged in the patient's mouth. Preferably, the digital design of the denture also comprises a corresponding virtual inner gingival surface” See Fisker Paragraphs 0030; 0072), and includes the overlapping part corresponding to a non-prepared area of the processed actual structure (See Chekh Paragraphs 0324; 0333) and an upper portion of the three-dimensional structure model includes a second area of the three- dimensional scan model that protrudes outside the gingiva, is exposed inside the oral cavity, and corresponds to a prepared part of the actual structure (“The outer gingival surface of a manufactured denture is visible when the denture is arranged in the patient's mount.” See Fisker Paragraph 0027) which is the upper portion of the overlapping part (See Chekh Paragraphs 0324; 0333).
Claim 2:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein the aligning operation aligns the three-dimensional library model and the three-dimensional scan model combined with each other (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327) using an iterative closet point (ICP) algorithm (See Fisker Paragraph 0324).
Claim 3:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein the selecting operation sets a target position at which the three-dimensional library model for installation on the oral model data (“selecting digital 3D representations of the wax rims from a wax rim library and digitally shaping these digital 3D representations to fit the patient's oral situation using a virtual manipulation too” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094; 0097; 0100; 0105; 0106; 0191).
Claim 4:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein the library model setting operation (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101) disposes the three-dimensional library model (“virtually removing a part of one or more of the teeth models, if the virtual articulation indicates that removal is suitable” See Fisker Paragraphs 0201; 0229-02322) on an arbitrary point on the oral model data (See Fisker Paragraphs 0191-0192).
Claim 5:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein the library model setting operation (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101) automatically disposes the three-dimensional library model selected in the selecting operation at the set target position (“virtually removing a part of one or more of the teeth models, if the virtual articulation indicates that removal is suitable” See Fisker Paragraphs 0201; 0229-02323).
Claim 6:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein when the scanning operation is performed (“In step 101 a digital 3D representation of the patient's gums is obtained by e.g. scanning the patient's gums using an intra-oral scanner and converting the data obtained by the scanner to a 3D model of the gums.” See Fisker Figure 1A; Paragraphs 0013; 0035-0036; 0038; 0100-0101; 0329), data from an upper portion of the three-dimensional library model by a certain height is deleted (“adjusting the size, shape, length, width, or thickness of the pre-manufactured teeth to obtain said target form. The adjustments may involve the removal of excess tooth material” See Fisker Paragraphs 0229-0232; 0239).
Claim 7:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein the height is adjustable according to the user's operation (“adjusting the size, shape, length, width, or thickness of the pre-manufactured teeth to obtain said target form” See Fisker Paragraphs 0050; 0052; 0055; 0570).
Claim 8:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses a comparing operation of comparing data of the three-dimensional scan model acquired in the scanning operation with data of the three-dimensional library model (“In step 101 a digital 3D representation of the patient's gums is obtained by e.g. scanning the patient's gums using an intra-oral scanner and converting the data obtained by the scanner to a 3D model of the gums.” See Fisker Figure 1A; Paragraphs 0013; 0035-0036; 0038; 0100-0101; 0329) by the calculation unit (See Fisker Paragraphs 0321; 0323).
Claim 9:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein in the aligning process between the data of the three-dimensional scan model and the data of the three-dimensional library model (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Fisker Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327), data from a part where the data do not overlap each other up to the upper portion of the three-dimensional library model is deleted (“adjusting the size, shape, length, width, or thickness of the pre-manufactured teeth to obtain said target form. The adjustments may involve the removal of excess tooth material” See Fisker Paragraphs 0229-0232; 0239).
Claim 10:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein whether the data of the three-dimensional scan model and the data of the three- dimensional library model overlap each other is determined depending on a data density of the data of the three-dimensional scan model (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Fisker Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327-0329 Note: The examiner interprets “data density” as being the same as “data obtained by the scanner to a 3D model of the gums” in para. 0329).
Claim 11:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein the three-dimensional library model is aligned (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Fisker Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327) with the three-dimensional scan model formed at the target position corresponding to the three-dimensional scan model acquired in the scanning operation (“In step 101 a digital 3D representation of the patient's gums is obtained by e.g. scanning the patient's gums using an intra-oral scanner and converting the data obtained by the scanner to a 3D model of the gums.” See Fisker Figure 1A; Paragraphs 0013; 0035-0036; 0038; 0100-0101; 0329), and the three-dimensional library model is disposed (“virtually removing a part of one or more of the teeth models, if the virtual articulation indicates that removal is suitable” See Fisker Paragraphs 0201; 0229-02324).
Claim 12:
Fisker discloses a method for matching structure data (“producing the denture's gingiva to match perfectly pre-manufactured acrylic teeth or custom manufactured teeth” See Fisker Abstract; 0099; 0150, 0261; 0294). Fisker failed to disclose the following:
wherein the three-dimensional structure model is generated by merging a part of the three-dimensional library model that is the same as the three-dimensional scan model and a part of the three-dimensional scan model that is a prepared part of the processed actual structure and is different from the three-dimensional library model through an overlapping part.
However, this feature is disclosed by Chekh (See Paragraphs 0324; 0333). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fisker by the teachings of Chekh to enable accurately and realistically depicting 3D bite models of teeth, more effectively (See Chekh Summary).
As modified:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses the following:
a selecting operation of selecting a three-dimensional library model which corresponds to a structure before processed within an oral cavity (“selecting digital 3D representations of the wax rims from a wax rim library and digitally shaping these digital 3D representations to fit the patient's oral situation using a virtual manipulation too” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094; 0097; 0100; 0105; 0106; 0191);
and an aligning operation (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Fisker Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327) of generating a three-dimensional structure model by merging the three-dimensional library model with a three-dimensional scan model which corresponds to a structure after processed (“the virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the sets of teeth models, such as where one or more virtual teeth models are aligned relative to the other teeth of the set of teeth models in which they are comprised and/or relative to the set of teeth models for the other jaw” See Fisker Paragraphs 0102; 0202; 0271-0273; 0327) by a calculation unit (See Fisker Paragraphs 0321; 0323);
wherein the three-dimensional structure model is generated by merging a part of the three-dimensional library model that is the same as the three-dimensional scan model and a part of the three-dimensional scan model that is a prepared part of the processed actual structure and is different from the three-dimensional library model through an overlapping part (See Chekh Paragraphs 0324; 0333);
wherein a lower portion of the three-dimensional structure model includes a first area of the three-dimensional library model that is inserted into and fixed within a patient's gingiva (“The gingival part of the denture comprises an inner gingival surface which faces or contacts surfaces of the patient's oral cavity when the denture is arranged in the patient's mouth. Preferably, the digital design of the denture also comprises a corresponding virtual inner gingival surface” See Fisker Paragraph 0030),
and includes the overlapping part corresponding to a non-prepared area of the processed actual structure (See Chekh Paragraphs 0324; 0333), and an upper portion of the three-dimensional structure model includes a second area of the three- dimensional scan model that protrudes outside the gingival, is exposed inside the oral cavity, and corresponds to a prepared part of the actual structure (“The outer gingival surface of a manufactured denture is visible when the denture is arranged in the patient's mount.” See Fisker Paragraph 0027) which is the upper portion of the overlapping part (See Chekh Paragraphs 0324; 0333).
Claim 14:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses a library model setting operation (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101) of disposing the three-dimensional library model selected in the selecting operation at a position of the three-dimensional scan model in the three-dimensional oral model including the three-dimensional scan model (“virtually removing a part of one or more of the teeth models, if the virtual articulation indicates that removal is suitable” See Fisker Paragraphs 0201; 0229-02325) by the calculation unit (See Fisker Paragraphs 0321; 0323).
Claim 15:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses of wherein in the library model setting operation (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101), an iterative closet point (ICP) algorithm is used for the arrangement of the three-dimensional library model (See Fisker Paragraph 0324).
Claim 16:
The combination of Fisker and Chekh discloses wherein after the library model setting operation (“the library sets may be obtained by building up dentures manually, scanning the dentures, where the artificial teeth are arranged in proper occlusion, and then saving this scan as a library teeth set up for denture” See Fisker Paragraphs 0094-0096; 0100-0101), remaining parts other than a first area application part in the three-dimensional library model are deleted (“virtually removing a part of one or more of the teeth models, if the virtual articulation indicates that removal is suitable” See Fisker Paragraphs 0201; 0229-02326).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150206306 discloses recording individual three-dimensional optical images to form a global image of a dental object to be measured.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM EST.
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, SAID BROOME can be reached on (571) 272-2931. 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 May 1, 2026
1 Note: The examiner interprets the Applicant’s teachings of “disposing” as being the same as “removed”.
2 Note: The examiner interprets the Applicant’s teachings of “disposing” as being the same as “removed”.
3 Note: The examiner interprets the Applicant’s teachings of “disposing” as being the same as “removed”.
4 Note: The examiner interprets the Applicant’s teachings of “disposing” as being the same as “removed”.
5 Note: The examiner interprets the Applicant’s teachings of “disposing” as being the same as “removed”.
6 Note: The examiner interprets the Applicant’s teachings of “disposing” as being the same as “removed”.
Prosecution Insights