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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 6,8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisker 20180000569 in view of Sager 20090319068.
With regard to claim 6, Fisker discloses a method of using an integrated library, the method comprising: a model selection step of selecting a 3D abutment model to be applied by a user from 3D abutment model database (see paragraph 28); a model display step of displaying the 3D abutment model on a library user interface (paragraph 56); and a margin line registration step of registering margin line data in the 3D abutment model (paragraph 23). Note that the registered margin line data is automatically generated/edited in the library user interface where the 3D abutment model is displayed, as Fisker discloses that predetermined design criteria comprising margin line data may be included (paragraph 23) and incorporated when the GUI is being utilized (paragraph 27). This data is automatically generated when the user is notified that the predetermined design criteria is not being met (paragraph 27).
Fisker does not disclose a database storage step of storing the 3D abutment model with the margin line data registered therein in the 3D abutment model database so as to be associated with the 3D abutment model.
Sager discloses a method of updating libraries of dental objects after they have been modified, allowing subsequent users to select updated object designs. See paragraph 42.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the step of storing the 3D abutment model with the margin line data registered therein in the 3D abutment model database (which also would inherently “associate” it with the 3D abutment model (since they both would share the same database), in view of the teaching of Sager that it is known to continuously update a database with modified dental objects, then subsequently selecting a modified dental object from the database, allowing for adaptive learning of the dental system.
With regard to claim 8, note that Fisker as modified by Sager discloses: a margin line editing step of editing the margin line data (paragraph 23 of Fisker) associated with the 3D abutment model; a re-registration step of registering the edited margin line data in the 3D abutment model (paragraph 23 of Fisker); and a corrected database storage step of storing the 3D abutment model with the edited margin line data registered therein in the 3D abutment model database (Sager discloses updating the library with modified dental objects).
With regard to claim 9, note that the margin line registration step and the re-registration step are performed on a library user interface (the display is considered to be a "library user interface" when displaying the chosen abutment), and the 3D abutment model with the margin line data registered therein is loaded at a specific position of a 3D oral model so as to be displayed on the scan user interface (the display is considered to be a "scan user interface" when displaying the abutment with the 3D oral model).
With regard to claim 10, note that the 3D abutment model is obtained by scanning a real abutment before implantation in an oral cavity or through CAD design. See paragraph 28 which discloses a digital library of stock dental abutments. Thus, the step of scanning a real abutment is inherent in creating the library of stock (real) abutments.
With regard to claim 11, note that the margin line registered in the margin line registration step is generated automatically according to curvature information of the margin line of the 3D abutment model or generated by a user's editing. See paragraphs 23, 27 and the analysis of claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1,5 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 6 have been considered, but are not found persuasive. Although applicant argues that the combination of Fisker/Sager does not disclose that the scan user interface is different than the library user interface, claim 6 does not recite this limitation.
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