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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at pages 7-12, filed 27 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1, 5 and 16, “the real-time 3-D model data” refers to the sequentially aligned scan data that is the “real-time 3-D model”. Additionally, “a subject into which a structure is inserted” does not include a patient’s natural teeth, since teeth grow from within the body and are not “inserted” in the mouth, unlike a dental prosthetic.
Claim 17 includes the term “telecommunicationally”, which is interpreted to mean communication over a distance through a medium including wired or wireless transmission.
According to the Federal Circuit’s decision in SuperGuide v. DirecTV, claim language of the type “at least one of … and …” creates a presumption that Applicant intended the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language to be a conjunctive list, unless the Specification supports an interpretation of the claim language that rebuts the presumption.1 Claims 1, 5, 6, and 16 recite limitations that raise the presumption of a conjunctive list per SuperGuide. Claims 1 and 6 are representative.
[Claim 1] … wherein the subject is at least one of a mouth of a patient and an oral model of the mouth of the patient …
[Claim 6] The method of claim 5, wherein the subject is at least one selected from a group comprising a mouth of a patient, a negative model of the mouth, and a positive model of the mouth.
As a preliminary matter, “at least one selected from” is considered equivalent to “at least one of”. The “subject” of the “scan step” in claim 1 cannot simultaneously be a model of a patient’s mouth and the patient’s mouth itself based on the Specification. The Specification at paragraph 58 describes alternatives for the subject, providing, “the subject is not essentially limited to the inside of the actual mouth of a patient, and the subject may be an oral model (plaster cast) for testing the insertion depth and insertion angle of a structure before the structure is inserted into the mouth of a patient.” Accordingly, “at least one of a mouth of a patient and an oral model of the mouth of the patient” is interpreted to be a disjunctive list.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the portions of the Specification noted above, paragraph 58 provides, “The oral model may be a negative model, that is, an impression obtained by performing impression taking by using alginate, etc. or may be a positive model obtained by filling a negative model with a material such as plaster. Accordingly, the scan data 1 may be digital data of the negative or positive model that is imitated from a real thing within the mouth of a patient or the inside of the mouth.” (emphasis added). It is not reasonable to interpret the group of alternative subjects as a conjunctive list, e.g., a subject that is both a positive and a negative model of the mouth. Therefore, “at least one selected from a group comprising a mouth of a patient, a negative model of the mouth, and a positive model of the mouth” is interpreted to be a disjunctive list.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 16 each recite the phrase “a reference point overlapped between the scan data and the library model data is increased” (emphasis added), which is confusing. It is unclear how a reference point is “increased” and what that increasing encompasses. Turning to the specification, paragraph 76 provides that “if the global alignment step 322 is performed by adding the library model data LD selected in the library selection step 330 between the 3-D data, the reference point at which the 3-D data and the library model data LD may be overlapped, respectively, is increased.” This passage is assumed to mean that by adding the library model data to the 3-D model, more reference points are processed in the global alignment. The claims do not recite multiple reference points or a number of such points being increased. For purposes of applying prior art, the phrase “a reference point overlapped between the scan data and the library model data is increased” is interpreted as meaning that as a result of adding the library model data to the real-time 3-D model data (sequentially aligned scan data), a number of reference points for reconstructing the “final 3-D model” is increased. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claims 1, 5 and 16.
Claims 1, 5 and 16 each recite the phrase “and the real-time 3-D model data is reconstructed to form a final 3-D model”. The term “final” means to come to the end of a series or being the last thing amongst a series of related things. However, the phrase “and the real-time 3-D model data is reconstructed to form a final 3-D model” does not require an interpretation that means the final model is reconstructed as a result of the library model data being added to the sequentially aligned scan data, i.e., the real-time 3-D model data. Because this phrase is mostly untethered from the rest of the claim language, it is unclear what makes the reconstructed model “final”. For purposes of applying prior art, “and the real-time 3-D model data is reconstructed to form a final 3-D model” is interpreted as meaning that the real-time 3-D model data, including the added library model data, is reconstructed to form a final 3-D model, where “final” means coming to the end of the previously-recited steps/process. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claims 1, 5 and 16.
Claim 3 recites “the at least some of the scan data”, which lacks a sufficient antecedent basis because there is no previously-recited “at least some of the scan data”. However, claim 2 recites “at least some of the scan data”. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 3 is interpreted as depending from claim 2.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the structure is at least any one selected among prosthetic appliances comprising a scanbody or an abutment inserted into the subject” (emphasis added). Since the group of appliances comprises a scan body or an abutment, the group is not closed and could include any number of other structures inserted into the subject. The phrase “any one” refers to the group as a whole, meaning “the structure” refers to the scan body, the abutment, and any other appliance. It is unclear how the structure can be “any” appliance beyond the recited scanbody or abutment. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 7 is interpreted to mean that the structure selected from the library is at least one of a scanbody or an abutment inserted into the subject.
Claim 9 recites “the real-time 3-D model”. However, when viewed with its parent claims as a whole, there are two recitations of “a real-time 3-D model” between claims 5 and 9. Thus, the antecedent basis of “the real-time 3-D model” is unclear. For purposes of applying prior art, “a real-time 3-D model”, as recited in claim 9, is interpreted as “[[a]] the real-time 3-D model”.
Claim 19 recites “the 3-D data that are consecutive to each other”. The 3-D data is described in claim 18 as being converted 2-D image data of the subject. However, it is unclear what makes some of the 3D data consecutive and not other data. Furthermore, given that claim 18 recites only one 2-D image, it is unclear how “the 3-D data that are consecutive to each other” would correspond to at least two consecutive or sequentially acquired 2-D scan images. For purposes of applying prior art, the local alignment operation of claim 19 is interpreted to mean that 2-D images of the subject are sequentially aligned to generate the 3-D data. Dependent claim 20 is rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claim 19.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20200197129 to Kopelman et al. (hereinafter “Kopelman” – previously cited by Examiner) in view of Simplified Digital Workflow For Dental Implant Restoration On A Stock Abutment Using An Intraoral Scanner: A Dental Technique to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim2”).
Regarding claim 1, Kopelman teaches a method of supplementing scan data using library data, the method comprising:
a scan step of obtaining scan data (Kopelman, par. 49, “The data regarding the at-hand patient may include X-rays, 2D intraoral images, 3D intraoral images, 2D models, and/or virtual 3D models corresponding to the patient visit during which the scanning occurs.”) of a subject (A region of an intraoral site) into which a structure is inserted (The patient’s mouth may include inserted dental prosthetics, such as studs. See Kopelman at par. 47.) through a scanner (Kopelman, par. 32, “the practitioner uses the scanner 150 to scan the readied preparation tooth and generate a set of intraoral images (e.g., intraoral image data set 135A) of the preparation tooth before the soft tissue reverts back to its natural position.”);
a step of selecting (Kopelman, Figure 2, step 225), by a controller (Kopelman, par. 95, “Processing device 802”), library model data (Kopelman, pars. 47-48, “reference data 138 may include past data regarding the at-hand patient (e.g., intraoral images and/or virtual 3D models), pooled patient data, and/or pedagogical patient data, some or all of which may be stored in data store 110. … Different criteria may be used to identify different classes of anomalies. In one embodiment, an area of missing image data is used to identify anomalies that might be voids. For example, voxels at areas that were not captured by the intraoral images may be identified.” The anomaly identifying module 15 accesses/selects the reference data 138. See Kopelman at par. 47.); and
a step of post-processing (Kopelman, par. 33, “After generating the set of intraoral images for the preparation tooth, the practitioner may preview the set of intraoral images (or a 3D model [created] therefrom) to determine if the set of intraoral images have satisfactory quality.”), by the controller, the scan data (Kopelman, par. 60, “Via the user interface, a user may mark or otherwise demarcate the unacceptable portion of the 3D model. Eraser module 132 may then delete or otherwise remove the marked portion from the 3D model (and the associated portions of a locked image data set and/or other image data set used to create the unacceptable portion). For example, the dental procedure of interest may be providing a dental prosthesis, and the deleted or removed part of the 3D model may be part of a finish line of a tooth preparation that exists in a real dental surface, but was not clearly represented in the 3D model (or in the intraoral image data sets 135A-135N used to create the 3D model).”, par. 61, “Intraoral scan application 108 may direct a user to generate one or more additional intraoral images of the dental site corresponding to the portion of the 3D model (and corresponding set or sets of intraoral images) that was deleted or removed.”),
wherein the subject is a mouth of a patient (Kopelman, par. 28, “Via such scanner application, the scanner 150 may provide image data (also referred to as scan data) to computing device 105. The image data may be provided in the form of intraoral image data sets 135A-135N, each of which may include 2D intraoral images and/or 3D intraoral images of particular teeth and/or regions of an intraoral site. In one embodiment, separate image data sets are created for the maxillary arch, for the mandibular arch, for a patient bite, and for each preparation tooth. Such images may be provided from the scanner to the computing device 105 in the form of one or more points (e.g., one or more pixels and/or groups of pixels).”),
wherein the scan data before the step of post-processing has a data blank (Kopelman, par. 47, “anomalies may include voids (e.g., areas for which scan data is missing), areas of conflict or flawed scan data (e.g., areas for which overlapping surfaces of multiple intraoral images fail to match)”),
wherein a real-time 3-D model formed by sequentially aligning the scan data (Kopelman, par. 41, “image registration is performed for each pair of adjacent or overlapping intraoral images (e.g., each successive frame of an intraoral video)”, par. 60, “Via the user interface, a user may mark or otherwise demarcate the unacceptable portion of the 3D model.”) is distorted (Kopelman, par. 45, “In many instances, data from one set of intraoral images does not perfectly correspond to data from another set of intraoral images”, par. 59, “during the initial 3D data collection step (e.g., via scanning) that resulted in the first 3D virtual model being generated, the unacceptable portion may be distorted or otherwise defective and may not properly correspond to a physical dental surface (e.g., due to some defect in the actual scanning process)”), and
wherein model data is added to the real-time 3-D model scan data (Kopelman, par. 55, “The portion of the new intraoral image that corresponds to an inside of the contour of the anomaly is then used to replace the original data from the intraoral image data set for the anomaly. This data may then be added to the locked image data set”, par. 56, “In one embodiment, after anomaly identifying module 115 identifies an anomaly, anomaly identifying module 115 may then determine whether there are any additional image data sets that include data covering the area at which the anomaly was identified. Anomaly identifying module 115 may compare this area from the one or more additional image data sets to the data of the locked image data set. Based on this comparison, anomaly identifying module 115 may determine that the data of the locked image data set covering the contour is to be replaced by data from another image data set. The portion of the other image data set that corresponds to an inside of the contour of the anomaly may then be used to replace the original data from the intraoral image data set for the anomaly. This data may then be added to the locked image data set.”),
a reference point overlapped between the scan data and the model data is increased (Kopelman, par. 55, “The portion of the new intraoral image that corresponds to an inside of the contour of the anomaly is then used to replace the original data from the intraoral image data set for the anomaly. This data may then be added to the locked image data set”. Filling in an area of missing scan data with new scan data in a region that spatially overlaps the old scan data and the new scan data, i.e., in alignment, increases the number of reference points in each modified scan image having replaced data. Replacing an empty region of the 3-D model with new data necessarily increases the number of points of the 3-D model.), and
the real-time 3-D model data is reconstructed to form a final 3-D model (Kopelman, par. 61, “The one or more additional intraoral images may be registered with the 3D model and/or with the intraoral image data sets used to create the 3D model) to provide a composite of the 3D model and the one or more additional intraoral images. In the composite, the part of the 3D model that was previously deleted/removed is at least partially replaced with a corresponding part of the one or more additional intraoral images. However, the portions of the one or more additional images that are outside of the deleted or removed part of the 3D model are not applied to the composite or updated 3D model. In one embodiment, the portion of the new intraoral image that corresponds to the erased portion of a locked image data set is added to the locked image data set.”), but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Kim2.
Kim2 teaches library model data (Kim2, pg. 269, “Figure 1. Capturing process of library data of stock abutment. A, Die scanning jig of tabletop scanner used to scan analog components of stock abutment. B, Scanning process using tabletop scanner. C, Edit and confirm overall quality of all scanned data in computer-aided design (CAD) software.”) corresponding to a structure inserted into a subject (Kim2, pg. 268, “The use of intraoral scanning in the fabrication of an implant restoration requires a scannable abutment, unlike a tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis, where the prepared tooth is scanned”, pg. 271, “Figure 4. Matching intraoral scan data to appropriate library file in computer-aided design (CAD) software. A, Intraoral scan data imported in Exocad CAD software. Distal margin portion of stock abutment not captured clearly. B, Superimpose intraoral scan data and library data of stock abutment using scan registration option. C, Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process. D, Occlusal view showing margin portion of library data replaced.”).
Kopelman discloses using an intraoral scanner to sequentially capture and align scan images of a patient’s mouth to create a 3-D model. Through a displayed interface, a user is able to see identified anomalies including missing data and areas of poor registration. To fix the 3-D model, new data is acquired and the modified images are re-registered while the unmodified parts of the 3-D model are locked. Thus, Kopelman shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement missing or flawed 3-D model data with additional data registered to the existing data, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, supplementing incomplete or flawed intraoral scan data. Kim2 discloses matching intraoral scan data including an abutment structure inserted into a patient’s mouth to a library file of a stock abutment, and replacing the flawed scan data by registration with the data from the library file. Thus, Kim2 shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain 3-D models from intraoral scans including artificial structures inserted into a patient’s mouth, selecting a matching digital dental prosthesis corresponding to a flawed part of a 3-D model via registration, and reconstructing a final 3-D model showing the replaced structure, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, supplementing incomplete or flawed intraoral scan data
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the computing device disclosed by Kopelman by adding a library of insertable and scannable dental prostheses structures and the programming functionality to register library model data of such structures with intraoral scan data as disclosed by Kim2, to thereby identify missing or flawed data of a structure in a 3D model reconstructed from intraoral scans of a patient, select a corresponding library model of the structure, and replace the missing or flawed data by manually important and automatically registering the library data to the scan data of the 3-D model as an option made available to the user to implement in place of or in addition to acquiring new scan data directly. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of improving the final 3-D model when missing data or flaws arise from inserted dental prostheses.
Regarding claim 2, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the library model data added in the step of post-processing is aligned with at least some of the scan data (Registration is alignment between two image data sets, meaning a first data set is aligned with a second data set and the second data set is aligned with the first data set. See Kim2, Figure 4, “Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim [2], wherein the at least some of the scan data is aligned based on the library model data (Registration is alignment between two image data sets, meaning a first data set is aligned with a second data set and the second data set is aligned with the first data set. Kopelman, par. 61, “The one or more additional intraoral images may be registered with the 3D model and/or with the intraoral image data sets used to create the 3D model) to provide a composite of the 3D model and the one or more additional intraoral images.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in a three-dimensional (3-D) model of the structure, a data blank of the structure (Kopelman, par. 47, “voids (e.g., areas for which scan data is missing), areas of conflict or flawed scan data (e.g., areas for which overlapping surfaces of multiple intraoral images fail to match)”) that has not been scanned in the scan step (Kim2, Figure 4, “not captured clearly”) is supplemented with the library model data (Kim2, Figure 4, “Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Claim 5 substantially corresponds to claim 1 by reciting a method of supplementing scan data using library data corresponding to the method of claim 1, differing primarily by reciting an alignment step of generating, by a controller (Kopelman, par. 95, “Processing device 802”), a three-dimensional (3-D) model of the subject (Kopelman, par. 33, “After generating the set of intraoral images for the preparation tooth, the practitioner may preview the set of intraoral images (or a 3D model [created] therefrom) to determine if the set of intraoral images have satisfactory quality.”) by aligning the scan data with library model data corresponding to the structure (Kim2, pg. 268, “The use of intraoral scanning in the fabrication of an implant restoration requires a scannable abutment, unlike a tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis, where the prepared tooth is scanned”, pg. 271, “Figure 4. Matching intraoral scan data to appropriate library file in computer-aided design (CAD) software. A, Intraoral scan data imported in Exocad CAD software. Distal margin portion of stock abutment not captured clearly. B, Superimpose intraoral scan data and library data of stock abutment using scan registration option. C, Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process. D, Occlusal view showing margin portion of library data replaced.”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the subject is a mouth of a patient (Kopelman, par. 49, “The data regarding the at-hand patient may include X-rays, 2D intraoral images, 3D intraoral images, 2D models, and/or virtual 3D models corresponding to the patient visit during which the scanning occurs.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the structure is an abutment inserted into the subject (Kim2, pg. 268, “a scannable abutment”, pg. 271, “Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process. D, Occlusal view showing margin portion of library data replaced.”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the alignment step comprises:
a local alignment step of sequentially aligning the scan data input in the scan step (Kopelman, par. 41, “image registration is performed for each pair of adjacent or overlapping intraoral images (e.g., each successive frame of an intraoral video)”); and
a global alignment step of generally aligning at least some of the scan data (Kopelman, par. 61, “The one or more additional intraoral images may be registered with the 3D model and/or with the intraoral image data sets used to create the 3D model) to provide a composite of the 3D model and the one or more additional intraoral images. In the composite, the part of the 3D model that was previously deleted/removed is at least partially replaced with a corresponding part of the one or more additional intraoral images.) which is input with the library model data (Kim2, pg. 269, “library data of stock abutment”) after the local alignment step is terminated (Kopelman, pars. 58-61, “A 3D model created by model generation module 125 may be displayed to a user via a user interface of intraoral scan application. The 3D model can then be checked visually by the user.” The flawed data is unlocked, meaning it can change as a result of the registration with the additional data. The other model data is locked, meaning it remains fixed. The registration of new data with the model as a whole is a global alignment step).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein:
a real-time 3-D model of the subject is generated in the local alignment step (Kopelman, par. 58, “A 3D model created by model generation module 125 may be displayed to a user via a user interface of intraoral scan application. The 3D model can then be checked visually by the user.”), and
the real-time 3-D model is reconstructed in the global alignment step (Kopelman, par. 64, “create a new 3D model”).
Regarding claim 10, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the library model data is selected before the alignment step (Kim2, abstract, “A straightforward digital restorative method based on a library of stock abutments is presented.” The method is predicated on the library model data being established beforehand.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the library model data is selected before the scan step (Kim2, abstract, “A straightforward digital restorative method based on a library of stock abutments is presented.” The method is predicated on the library model data being established beforehand.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the library model data is selected before the global alignment step (Kim2, abstract, “A straightforward digital restorative method based on a library of stock abutments is presented.” The method is predicated on the library model data being established beforehand.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the library model data is selected before the scan step (Kim2, abstract, “A straightforward digital restorative method based on a library of stock abutments is presented.” The method is predicated on the library model data being established beforehand.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the library model data is automatically (Kim2, pg. 271, “Superimpose intraoral scan data and library data of stock abutment using scan registration option.”) or manually selected (Kim2, pg. 269, “Import the scanned abutment analog data into CAD software (Exocad DentalCAD; Exocad GmbH). Evaluate the integrity of the margin and confirm the overall quality of the scanned data.” Importing is a manual user function. Creating the library data and importing the data are both selections of the data, as well as collectively amounting to a selection process.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the method of claim 14, wherein when the library model data is manually selected, the library model data is selected in a library interface in response to an input from a user (Kim2, pg. 269, “Import the scanned abutment analog data into CAD software (Exocad DentalCAD; Exocad GmbH). Evaluate the integrity of the margin and confirm the overall quality of the scanned data.” Importing is a manual user function. Importing the scanned data to the CAD software requires a user interface.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 5.
Claim 16 substantially corresponds to claim 1, primarily differing by reciting a system for supplementing scan data using library data, the system comprising a scanner (Kopelman, par. 23, “scanner 150”) and a processor (Kopelman, par. 95, “Processing device 802”) which is configured to execute a control operation corresponding to the “step of post-processing” of claim 1.
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the scanner comprises:
at least one camera (Kopelman, par. 40, “camera”) configured to accommodate light reflected by the subject (Kopelman, par. 25, “Scanner 150 may include a probe (e.g., a hand held probe) for optically capturing three-dimensional structures (e.g., by confocal focusing of an array of light beams). One example of such a scanner 150 is the iTero® intraoral digital scanner manufactured by Align Technology, Inc. Other examples of intraoral scanners include the 3M™ True Definition Scanner and the Apollo DI intraoral scanner and CEREC AC intraoral scanner manufactured by Sirona®.”), and
an imaging sensor telecommunicationally connected to the camera and configured to obtain a two-dimensional (2-D) image of the subject (Scan images are acquired using a camera-based intraoral scanner. See Kopelman at par. 25. An imaging sensor being electrically connected within the camera is implicitly disclosed, as reflected analog optical light cannot become a digital image without being quantized by an image sensor.).
Regarding claim 18, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the system of claim 17, wherein the control operation comprises:
a three-dimensional (3-D) conversion operation to convert the 2-D image of the subject into 3-D data (Kopelman, par. 40, “To generate the virtual 3D model, model generation module 125 may register (i.e., “stitch” together) the intraoral images generated from the intraoral scan session. In one embodiment, performing image registration includes capturing 3D data of various points of a surface in multiple images (views from a camera), and registering the images by computing transformations between the images. The images may then be integrated into a common reference frame by applying appropriate transformations to points of each registered image.”), and
an alignment operation to align the 3-D data (Kim2, pg. 271, “B, Superimpose intraoral scan data and library data of stock abutment using scan registration option. C, Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process.”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the system of claim 18, wherein the alignment operation comprises:
a local alignment operation to perform sequential alignment on the 3-D data that are consecutive to each other (Kopelman, par. 41, “image registration is performed for each pair of adjacent or overlapping intraoral images (e.g., each successive frame of an intraoral video)”), and
a global alignment operation to generally align the 3-D data (Kopelman, par. 61, “The one or more additional intraoral images may be registered with the 3D model and/or with the intraoral image data sets used to create the 3D model) to provide a composite of the 3D model and the one or more additional intraoral images. In the composite, the part of the 3D model that was previously deleted/removed is at least partially replaced with a corresponding part of the one or more additional intraoral images.) with the library model data (Kim2, pg. 269, “library data of stock abutment”) after the alignment performed by the local alignment operation (Kopelman, pars. 58-61, “A 3D model created by model generation module 125 may be displayed to a user via a user interface of intraoral scan application. The 3D model can then be checked visually by the user.” The flawed data is unlocked, meaning it can change as a result of the registration with the additional data. The other model data is locked, meaning it remains fixed. The registration of new data with the model as a whole is a global alignment step.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, Kopelman in view of Kim2 teaches the system of claim 19, wherein:
the control operation further comprises a library selection operation to select the library model data (Kim2, pg. 269, “Import the scanned abutment analog data into CAD software (Exocad DentalCAD; Exocad GmbH). Evaluate the integrity of the margin and confirm the overall quality of the scanned data.” Importing is a manual user function. Creating the library data and importing the data are both selections of the data, as well as collectively amounting to a selection process.), and the library model data selected by the library selection operation supplements the scan data obtained by the scanner (Kim2, pg. 268, “Scan data of stock abutment portion replaced by library data of same shape and size after registration process.”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feasibility Of Using An Intraoral Scanner For A Complete-Arch Digital Scan to Park et al. discloses, “The degree of distortion of the virtual model differs depending on the type of intraoral scanner. The recommended scan range for intraoral scans is essential guidance for achieving ideal clinical outcomes for fixed prostheses” (pg. 804).
A Novel Method For Complex Three-Dimensional Evaluation Of Intraoral Scanner Accuracy to Vág et al. discloses a “study … to compare two existing
methods and one novel method for measuring the distortion of three-dimensional (3D) models created with complete-arch digital impressions, and to assess the accuracy of different scan patterns using these methods” (abstract).
U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20150056576 to Nikolskiy et al. discloses, “Where a correspondence threshold between aligned points on the library arch form and the scanned model is not achieved after non-rigid registration, a rigid registration process may be automatically re-run starting from a first set of correspondence values achieved from a first or initial global and/or local deformation process. Thus, rigid registration and non-rigid global and local deformation processes may be repeated, optimizing correspondence between points on the lingual and buccal arcs of the library arch form and the scanned model. Multiple iterations of the global and local deformation processes may be automatically performed to refine the library arch form-scanned model registration to achieve optimal contact distances between teeth, and final positioning of the arch form, as seen in FIG. 14B” (par. 93).
U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20210192759 to Lang discloses, “The determining and/or selecting a size and/or shape of a dental implant, dental implant component and/or any other dental device can be planned based on any of the foregoing and/or following information, including, for example, underlying bone including bone shape and geometry, bone stock, bone density and/or bone quality, e.g. derived from scan data or imaging data. The determining and/or selecting a size and/or shape of a dental implant, dental implant component and/or any other dental device can utilize any information related to dimensions, curvatures, curves, edges, plateaus, margins, ridges, cusps, grooves, and/or shape of one or more existing teeth, e.g. intended for repair or extraction, adjacent teeth or opposing teeth, e.g. derived from one or more scan data or imaging data” (par. 940).
Intra-Oral Scanning And CAD/CAM Prosthesis Fabrication to Moglioni et al. discloses, “A solid structure is recreated and forms the virtual model, and accuracy depends on the dimensions and number of triangles. Therefore, it is based on the number of reference points initially recorded by the scanner—the more detailed the scan, the more detailed reconstruction.”
FR Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 3083691 to Casimiro et al. discloses a CAD-based abutment manufacturing method and system and is pertinent for disclosing using an intraoral scanner to capture scan data of teeth and an implant already inserted into the patient’s mouth (See abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 See Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
