DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 9/19/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 37, 48, and 56 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 37, 48, and 56 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.
Dependent claims 38-40, 44-47, 49-55, and 57-63 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following highlighted elements in claims 37, 48, and 56 are subject matter not described in the specification;
“receive a first scan dataset comprising the portion of the patient's mouth including the two segments, the soft tissue, homogeneous, cross-arch connecting area, and at least one landmark feature relative to the dental arch area, the landmark feature comprising a selected tooth of the plurality of teeth;
receive a second scan dataset comprising the portion of the patient's mouth including the two segments, the soft tissue, homogeneous, cross-arch connecting area, and the at least one landmark feature relative to the dental arch area, a dimension of the selected tooth in the first scan dataset being different from the dimension of the selected tooth in the second scan dataset;”
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.
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 37, 48, and 56 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.
Dependent claims 38-40, 44-47, 49-55, and 57-63 are rejected based on their dependency.
Claims 37, 48, and 56 recite the limitation “the selected tooth in the second scan dataset.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 37, 48, 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Humphries et al. (US 2013/0249907) in view of Choi et al. (US 2004/0038168).
Regarding claim 37, Humphries teaches a system for determining a dimension of a portion of a patient's mouth comprising a dental arch area and a soft tissue, homogenous, cross-arch connecting area extending between the dental arch area, the dental arch area including two segments separated by the soft tissue, homogenous, cross-arch connecting area, the system comprising:
at least one processor (see figure 1); and
at least one storage device comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor (see figure 1), configured the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receive a first scan dataset comprising the portion of the patient's mouth including the two segments, the soft tissue, homogeneous, cross-arch connecting area, and at least one landmark feature relative to the dental arch area, the landmark feature comprising a selected tooth of the plurality of teeth (see figure 5A-5B, figure 7, para. 0052, 0056, Humphries discusses performing intra oral scans of the patient’s mouth that contains teeth features, and tissue regions);
receive a second scan dataset comprising the portion of the patient's mouth including the two segments, the soft tissue, homogeneous, cross-arch connecting area, and the at least one landmark feature relative to the dental arch area, a dimension of the selected tooth in the first scan dataset being different from the dimension of the selected tooth in the second scan dataset (see figure 5A-5B, figure 7, para. 0052, 0056, 0062, Humphries discusses performing intra oral scans of the patient’s mouth that contains teeth features, and tissue regions);
virtually align the at least one landmark feature of the first scan dataset with the at least one landmark feature of the second scan dataset to form a virtually aligned first scan dataset, a skew in the virtually aligned first scan dataset being less than a skew in the first scan dataset (see figure 5a-5B, figure 7, para. 0052, 0056, 0062, Humphries discusses aligning the intra oral scans and comparing dimensional data; see para. 0055, Humphries discusses dimensions and angles as parameters used to align datasets, therefore an aligned dataset will have less skew than a previously unaligned dataset).
Humphries does not expressly disclose compare a dimension of the at least one landmark feature with a reference dimension of the at least one landmark feature to determine an error correction; and apply the determined error correction to the virtually aligned first scan dataset to produce a corrected scan dataset.
However, Choi teaches compare a dimension of the at least one landmark feature in the first scan dataset with a reference dimension of the at least one landmark feature in the second scan dataset to determine an error correction (see para. 0033, Choi discusses a process finds points on the original tooth crown and finds corresponding points on the current tooth. The process finds each Pi on the current tooth and Qi of the original tooth and calculates the distance between Pi and Qi); and
apply the determined error correction to the virtually aligned first scan dataset to produce a corrected scan dataset (see para. 0033, Choi discusses determining a transformation that minimizes the square sum of these errors. Then the process positions the teeth and starts again. A new point Pi and a new point Qi are selected, and the process finds the difference and determines the transformation that minimizes the error. The above steps are iterated until the error is less than termination criteria or a maximum number of iteration is reached).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Humphries with Choi to derive at the invention of claim 37. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform dental model alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Humphries in this manner in order to improve dental model alignment by determining error in the initial matching alignment to properly minimize the error to correctly align the models. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Humphries, while the teaching of Choi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the error in the initial alignment of dental models and correcting the error to properly align the models. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 48 is rejected as applied to claim 37 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 56, Humphries teaches a system for determining a dimension of a portion of a patient's mouth comprising a dental arch area comprising a plurality of teeth and a soft tissue, homogenous, cross-arch connecting area extending between the dental arch area, the dental arch area including two segments separated by the soft tissue, homogenous, cross-arch connecting area, the system comprising: at least one storage device comprising instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor (see figure 1), configured the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receive a first scan frame dataset comprising the portion of the patient's mouth including the two segments, the soft tissue, homogeneous, cross-arch connecting area, and at least one definable feature relative to the dental arch area, the landmark feature comprising a selected tooth of the plurality of teeth (see figure 5A-5B, figure 7, para. 0052, 0056, 0062, Humphries discusses performing intra oral scans of the patient’s mouth that contains teeth features, and tissue regions);
receive a second scan frame dataset comprising the portion of the patient's mouth including the two segments, the soft tissue, homogeneous, cross-arch connecting area, and the at least one definable feature relative to the dental arch area, a dimension of the selected tooth in the first scan dataset being different from the dimension of the selected tooth in the second scan dataset (see figure 5A-5B, figure 7, para. 0052, 0056, 0062, Humphries discusses performing intra oral scans of the patient’s mouth that contains teeth features, and tissue regions).
Choi teaches compare a dimension of the at least one definable feature in the first scan frame dataset with a reference dimension of the at least one definable feature in the second scan frame dataset to determine an error correction, the error correction is based on a respective difference between the at least one definable feature in the first scan frame dataset and the reference dimension of the at least one definable feature (see para. 0033, Choi discusses a process finds points on the original tooth crown and finds corresponding points on the current tooth. The process finds each Pi on the current tooth and Qi of the original tooth and calculates the distance between Pi and Qi); and
apply the determined error correction to the first and second scan frame datasets to produce a corrected first and second scan frame datasets comprising corrected first and second scan frame datasets (see para. 0033, Choi discusses determining a transformation that minimizes the square sum of these errors. Then the process positions the teeth and starts again. A new point Pi and a new point Qi are selected, and the process finds the difference and determines the transformation that minimizes the error. The above steps are iterated until the error is less than termination criteria or a maximum number of iteration is reached).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Humphries with Choi to derive at the invention of claim 56. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform dental model alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Humphries in this manner in order to improve dental model alignment by determining error in the initial matching alignment to properly minimize the error to correctly align the models. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Humphries, while the teaching of Choi continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating the error in the initial alignment of dental models and correcting the error to properly align the models. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
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 KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663