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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 10/08/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The surgical flap (260) added to Figs. 7, 9, 11-12, and paragraph [0093] of the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 3-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kats (US 20140154638 A1), in view of Nennung (DE 4115335 A1) and further in view of Jahn (US 20140377714 A1). Refer to the provided translation for Nennung.
Regarding claim 1, Kats discloses a dental device (100) comprising:
one or more copings (118) each having a longitudinal axis (124) and a wing region (112) that extends radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis (refer to annotated Figs. 4, 10 below), wherein an end (150) of the one or more copings is configured to mate with a fastener (refer to Paragraph [0086]; lower recess (150) is shaped to receive an implant (12));
PNG
media_image1.png
492
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
304
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a frame member (110) having a top surface and a bottom surface (refer to annotated Fig. 5 below), wherein the bottom surface comprises one or more attachment areas (130) configured to contact an attachment area (132) disposed on the wing region (112) of the one or more scan bodies (118) (refer to Paragraph [0069] and annotated Figs.1, 5 below; slots (130) and opening (132) in extension member (112) permit each extension member (112) to be selectively coupled to the base (110); and
PNG
media_image3.png
335
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
204
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
303
797
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kats does not disclose the frame member as being sized and dimensioned to fit within a central region of a dental arch (the central region of the dental arch is interpreted in the context of the dental art as the intraoral region defined at the perimeter by the curved shape formed by the dental arch).
Nennung discloses a device for aligning dental abutments in the same field of endeavor, wherein the frame member (10) of the device is sized and dimensioned to fit within a central region of the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0003], annotated Fig. 1 below; the two or more sockets (2) are moved such that each point reaches the central part (1) via the jaw arch; further, the distribution of the sockets (2) matches the curved shape formed by the dental arch, with the central part (1) fitting in the intraoral region defined by this curve demonstrating the central part (1) is capable of being situated in this central region of the arch).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size of the frame member (110) as taught by Kats, such that the frame member (110) can be positioned within the central region of the dental arch as taught by Nennung, as Nennung teaches this configuration as a suitable means of positioning the sockets (2) in the jaw (refer to Paragraph [0002]), the same purpose of Applicant’s device.
PNG
media_image6.png
403
407
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kats discloses that the copings (118) may be measured by a measurement system which captures the location and orientation of the coping (118) (refer to Paragraph [0094]), while also generating a 3D model from the impression device (100) measurements, which includes the one or more copings (118) (refer to Paragraph [0111]), but does not explicitly disclose the copings as scan bodies or having a digital image file available in a dental CAD software.
Jahn discloses a scan body (1) in the same field of endeavor, for determining a position and orientation of a dental implant (refer to Abstract), the same function of Kats’ and Applicant’s device. The scan body (1) as disclosed by Jahn is configured to mate with a fastener (refer to Paragraph [0018]; the outer thread of the lower region (3) corresponds to the inner thread of an implant), with a scan area (6) along the longitudinal axis (III) of the scan body (1) (refer to Paragraph [0021]). The scan body (1) has a reference digital file in an electronic storage library, which is later scanned by a scan system to compare the data of the positioned scan body to the reference file (refer to Paragraph [0016]). The use of a scan body and the associated digital file is advantageous for comparison of the positioned scan body in the patient’s mouth to the reference file, allowing for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coping of Kats to be a scan body, and further comprise an associated three-dimensional digital image file as taught by Jahn in order to allow for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
PNG
media_image7.png
548
619
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 1, with Kats further disclosing wherein each of the one or more attachment areas (130) of the frame member (110) has one or more protrusions, depressions, holes refer to Paragraph [0069] and Fig. 3; slot (130) is a hole), undercuts (refer to Paragraph [0069] and Fig. 3; slot (130) is a recessed surface that cannot be formed by straight path tools, meeting the definition of undercut), grooves, or lattice structure.
Regarding claim 4, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 1, with Kats further disclosing the attachment area (132) disposed on the wing region (112) of the one or more scan bodies (118) comprises one or more protrusions, depressions, holes (refer to Paragraph [0069] and Fig. 3; the attachment area (132) is an opening or hole), undercuts (refer to Paragraph [0069] and Fig. 3; the attachment area (132) is an opening that cannot be formed by straight path tools, meeting the definition of undercut), grooves, or lattice structure.
Regarding claim 5, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 1, with Kats further disclosing wherein scan bodies (118) or the frame member (110) have one or more three-dimensional features (156) with a known dimension that can be used to calibrate a physical dimension with digital dimensional data from an intraoral scanner (refer to Paragraphs [0094]-[0095];a measurement target (156) may be integrally molded to coping (118) for a measurement system to capture location and orientation; thereby the three dimensional feature (156) is capable of being used to calibrate a physical and digital dimension) .
Regarding claim 6, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 1, with Kats further disclosing wherein the one or more scan bodies (118) includes a first scan body (118), a second scan body (118), a third scan body (118), a fourth scan body (118), a fifth scan body (118), a sixth scan body (118), a seventh scan body (118) and an eighth scan body (118) (refer to Paragraphs [0063] –[0064]; each extension member (112) is connected to a coping (118), with the number of extension members between one and ten, thereby the number of copings is also between one and ten).
Regarding claim 7, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 1, with Kats further disclosing wherein the frame (110) member and wing regions (112) are made of a radiopaque material (refer to Paragraph [0062]; impression device (100) may be manufactured from any suitable material, such as metal, plastic or ceramics; metals are radiopaque).
Regarding claim 8, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 1, with the Kats further disclosing a method (300) of using the dental device (100) of claim 1, comprising:
coupling the one or more copings (118) to the one or more dental fasteners (12,) (refer to Paragraph [0088]; at step 302, each coping (118) is aligned with a corresponding implant (12));
positioning the wing region (112) of the one or more scan bodies (118) by rotating the scan body (118) about the dental fastener (12) so that the wing region extends into the central region of the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0088], annotated Fig. 9 below; the coping (118) is coupled to extension member (112) and can be rotated about two perpendicular axes thereby positioning the extension member (112) in the horizontal plane with respect to the base (110); Fig. 9 below demonstrates the wing regions (112) converging at a central region of the dental arch).
Kats does not explicitly disclose the copings as being scan bodies; however claim 1 modified the copings (118) to be scan bodies.
PNG
media_image8.png
320
691
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kats discloses that another method for measuring the location and orientation of dental implants uses 3D intra-oral scanners, but does not explicitly disclose scanning the copings (118) with an intraoral scanner. Further, Kats does not disclose aligning the scanned three-dimensional image to the image file.
Jahn discloses an intraoral method of determining a position and orientation of a dental implant in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0016]), the same function of Kats’ device. The scan body (1) is first inserted in a corresponding dental implant in the mouth of a patient, and then scanned by scan system for comparison to a reference digital file in an electronic storage library (refer to Paragraph [0016]). These method steps are advantageous for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using the device to determine the orientation and position of a dental implant as taught by Kats to include scanning the scan bodies, and aligning the scanned image to a reference digital image file as taught by Jahn, in order to allow for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
Kats discloses an alternative method of measuring the location and orientation of the implants, which includes applying adhesive to prevent cross brace members, such as the wings (112) from moving or rotating further (refer to Paragraph [0007]), but does not explicitly disclose using this method on the frame member (110) and wing regions (112). Although the application of adhesive to the wing regions (112) and frame (110) is not explicitly taught, Kats demonstrates that the application of adhesive as a known method for restricting movement of the dental device (refer to Paragraph [0007]). Further, Kats discloses that the dental device is intended to be locked and restricted from moving when removed from the patient’s mouth (refer to Paragraphs [0090], [0093]), the same function of applying adhesive to Applicant’s dental device.
Given the disclosure of adhesive as a known method of restricting the movement of the dental device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied adhesive to the wing regions (112) and frame member (110) to further restrict movement.
Regarding claim 10, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the method of claim 8, with Kats further disclosing the step of removing the frame member (110) and one or more scan bodies (118) from the fasteners (12) as a single unit (refer to Paragraph [0093] and Fig. 8; at step 310 impression device (100), which includes the scan bodies (118) and frame member (110) is removed from the patient’s mouth) and using the single unit as a physical verification jig of the relative fastener positions (refer to Paragraph [0094]; the impression device (100) is measured for the location and orientation of the copings (118)).
Claim(s) 12, 14-15 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kats (US 20140154638 A1) in view of Jahn (US 20140377714 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kats discloses a dental device (100) for scanning a dental arch (the dental device (100) is capable of being scanned) comprising:
a plurality of copings (118) each having a body region with a longitudinal axis (124) and a wing region (112) that extends radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis (refer to figure below);
wherein each body region has a bottom end (150) that is configured to mate with a fastener in the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0086]; lower recess (150) is shaped to receive an implant (12));
wherein the wing regions (112) of each of the plurality of copings (118) are sized and dimensioned to converge at a location within a central region of a dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0040], [0093] and annotated Fig. 9 below; the central region of the dental arch is interpreted in the context of the dental art as the intraoral region defined at the perimeter by the curved shape formed by the dental arch; the impression device (100) fits in the patient’s mouth and is removed after decoupling the device (100) from the implants, with the figure below demonstrating the wing regions (112) converging a central region of the dental arch) and come in close proximity so that the ends of the wing regions can be captured with an intraoral scanner (refer to Paragraph [0094] and annotated Fig. 9 below; the figure below demonstrates the wing regions (112) are in close proximity and thereby capable of being captured by an intraoral scanner).
PNG
media_image8.png
320
691
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kats discloses that the copings (118) may be measured by a measurement system which captures the location and orientation of the coping (118), while also generating a 3D model from the impression device (110) measurements, which includes the one or more copings (118), but does not explicitly disclose the copings as scan bodies with a shape for scanning, having a digital image file available in a dental CAD software or alignment of the digital image file with scanned data.
Jahn discloses a scan body (1) in the same field of endeavor, for determining a position and orientation of a dental implant (refer to Abstract), the same function of Kats’ device. The scan body (1) as disclosed by Jahn is configured to mate with a fastener (refer to Paragraph [0018]; the outer thread of the lower region (3) corresponds to the inner thread of an implant), wherein each of the plurality of scan bodies has a shape that facilitates scanning (refer to Paragraph [0021]); a scan area (6) along the longitudinal axis (III) of the scan body (1) is configured thicker and differently contoured). The scan body (1) has a reference digital file in an electronic storage library, which is later scanned by a scan system to compare the data of the positioned scan body to the reference file (refer to Paragraph [0016]). The use of a scan body, shaped to facilitate scanning, and the associated digital file is advantageous for comparison of the positioned scan body in the patient’s mouth to the reference file, allowing for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coping of Kats to be a scan body with a shape to facilitate scanning, and further comprise an associated three-dimensional digital image file as taught by Jahn, in order to allow for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
Regarding claim 14, Kats and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 12, with Kats further disclosing wherein the plurality of scan bodies (118) have undercuts at one or more attachment areas
PNG
media_image9.png
349
555
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Kats and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 12, with Kats further disclosing a method (300) of using the dental device (100) of claim 12, comprising:
coupling the plurality of copings (118) to the fasteners in the dental arch (12) (refer to Paragraphs [0088], [0100]; at step 302, each coping (118) is aligned with a corresponding implant (12) in the jawbone (10));
positioning the wing regions (112) of the plurality scan bodies (118, Kats) so as to converge within the central region of the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0088] and annotated Fig. 9 above; the coping (118) coupled to extension member (112) can move about a horizontal plane with respect to the base (110), thereby positioning the wing regions (112); the figure below demonstrates the wing regions (112) converging at a central region of the dental arch).
Kats does not explicitly disclose the copings as being scan bodies; however claim 12 modified the copings (118) to be scan bodies.
Kats discloses that another method for measuring the location and orientation of dental implants uses 3D intra-oral scanners, but does not explicitly disclose scanning the copings (118) with an intraoral scanner. Further, Kats does not disclose aligning the scanned three-dimensional image to the image file.
Jahn discloses an intraoral method of determining a position and orientation of a dental implant in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0016]), the same function of Kats’ device. The scan body (1) is first inserted in a corresponding dental implant in the mouth of a patient, and then scanned by scan system for comparison to a reference digital file in an electronic storage library (refer to Paragraph [0016]). These method steps are advantageous for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using the device to determine the orientation and position of a dental implant as taught by Kats to include scanning the scan bodies, and aligning the scanned image to a reference digital image file as taught by Jahn, in order to allow for exact determination of the alignment of the dental implant.
Kats discloses an alternative method of measuring the location and orientation of the implants, which includes applying adhesive to the device to prevent cross brace members, and the screws which they are attached to, from moving or rotating further (refer to Paragraph [0007]); however, Kats does not explicitly disclose using this method to bond the scan bodies (118) together.
Although the application of adhesive to the wing regions (112), scan bodies (118) and frame (110) is not explicitly taught, Kats demonstrates the application of adhesive as a known method for restricting movement, by applying the adhesive to restrict rotation or telescoping movements of the cross brace members (equivalent to the wings (112)) or the implant screws (equivalent to the scan bodies (118)) (refer to Paragraph [0007]). Further, Kats discloses that the dental device is intended to be locked and restricted from moving when removed from the patient’s mouth (refer to Paragraphs [0090], [0093]), the same function of applying adhesive to Applicant’s dental device.
Given the disclosure of adhesive as a known method of restricting the movement of the dental device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied adhesive to the plurality of scan bodies (118), thereby bonding them together to restrict movement.
Regarding claim 21, Kats and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 12, with Jahn further disclosing based on the scan body modification of claim 12, wherein the plurality of scan bodies (1) are sand blasted or coated to facilitate scanning (refer to Paragraphs [0010], [0017]; the scan region (6), which coats or covers the base region (2) is produced from PEEK, while the base part (2) is produced from titanium, which form an integral scan element (4); PEEK is inherently radiolucent, providing clear images during scans thereby facilitating scanning).
PNG
media_image10.png
627
657
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Kats and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 12, with Kats further disclosing the dental device of claim 12, wherein each wing region (112) has one or more wells (132; Merriam-Webster defines a well as a deep vertical hole, the opening (132) meets this definition) to facilitate luting (the openings (132) as shown are negative space, similar to Applicant’s device and are thereby capable of facilitating luting).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kats (US 20140154638 A1) in view of Nennung (DE 4115335 A1) and Jahn (US 20140377714 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juzbasic et al. (US 20150230894 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kats, Nennung and Jahn discloses the method of claim 8, with Kats further disclosing using a measurement system to measure the dental device (100) and scanning the jawbone cast (172), which is representative of the patient’s dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0109]-[0110]; the jawbone cast (172) provides an accurate representation of the patient’s jawbone including precisely located and oriented implant interfaces (168)). Kats also discloses CBCT as a method for measuring the location and orientation of dental implants to generate a 3D model (refer to Paragraph [0004]); however, Kats, Nennung and Jahn do not explicitly disclose CBCT for scanning the dental device (100) and dental arch (172), and subsequently aligning the two.
Juzbasic et al. discloses a method of providing a screw retained prosthesis in the same field of endeavor for orientating the position of an implant to be provided to a patient (refer to Paragraphs [0072], [0089]). The method as disclosed by Juzbasic et al. includes generating a first set of digital information of the mouth cavity of a person (refer to Paragraph [0073]), then generating a second set of digital information of the dental arch with the dental device installed (refer to Paragraph [0075]), with the second set of digital information acquired by CBCT (refer to Paragraph [0112]). Juzbasic further discloses aligning a digital impression technology such as intraoral scanning with CBCT, generating the second set of digital information, which provides accuracy when designing the final prosthesis (refer to Paragraph [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using the dental device as taught by Kats, Nennung and Jahn with the method of scanning and aligning with CBCT as taught by Juzbasic in order to accurately design the final prosthesis.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kats (US 20140154638 A1) in view of in view of Nennung (DE 4115335 A1) and Jahn (US 20140377714 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cornell et al. (US 20210137656 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kats, Nennung and Jahn disclose the method of claim 8, with Kats further disclosing, the step of:
selecting the wing regions (112) for the copings (118) from a plurality of wing regions each having different sizes for mating with the frame (110) (refer to Paragraph [0063]).
Kats is silent to selecting the one or more scan bodies (1) from a plurality of scan bodies.
Jahn further discloses selecting the one or more scan bodies (1) from a plurality of scan bodies having different sizes (refer to Paragraph [0005]; based on the modification in claim 1, which includes the scan body (1) and associated digital library, there is an option to combine the component forming the scan region and the transition region with different base parts, each having different interface designs adapted to each case);
Kats, Nennung and Jahn do not explicitly disclose selecting the frame member from a plurality of frame members.
Cornell et al. discloses a method of positioning an assembly in the same field of endeavor (refer to Fig. 13 and Paragraph [0006]). The dental device (100) as disclosed by Cornell et al. is designed to locate and verify the anatomic position of a prosthetic (refer to Paragraph [0032]), the same function of Kats’ and Applicant’s dental device. The positioning assembly further comprises a frame member (refer to Paragraph [0037]; the frame member (200 + 210) is designed to function as an adjustable foundation for the Prosthetic Positioning Assembly (100), allowing the clinician to adjust the position of the occlusal plane rapidly and dynamically) wherein the frame member (200 +210) is selected from a plurality of frame members to allow customization to the size of the patient’s mouth (refer to Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using the dental device as taught by Kats, Nennung and Jahn with a plurality of frame members as taught by Cornell et al. in order to allow customization of the dental device to the patient’s mouth.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kats (US 20140154638 A1) in view of Jahn (US 20140377714 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Geier (US 20140121500 A1).
Regarding claim 13 Kats and Jahn disclose the dental device of claim 12, with Kats further disclosing wherein the wing region (112) is formed at the distal end from
PNG
media_image11.png
261
417
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Geier discloses a reference member (16) in the same field of endeavor, for determining a position of an implant analog within a mouth or cavity of a patient (refer to Paragraph [0037]). The device (16) as disclosed by Geier comprises a scan body (14) with a wing region (17) configured to mate with a fastener in the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0043], [0051] and figure below; the reference member (16) is scanned with a scanner), wherein the wing regions (17) taper longitudinally at the distal end the scan body (refer to Paragraph [0039]; the body is trapezoidal). The trapezoidal shape can be configured to optimize space in the dental cavity, improving accuracy of an optical method (refer to Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the wing region as taught by Kats and Jahn with a tapered shape as taught by Geier in order to optimize shape in the dental cavity, thereby improving accuracy of the optical method.
PNG
media_image12.png
349
598
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (JP 2020058677 A) in view of Consult-Pro: Dental Education, Dental Implant Procedure - Two Stage Award Winning Patient Education (www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMycqoQrlBs), and further in view of Feijtel (US20040078040A1). All references to Kubota refer to the translation provided.
Regarding claim 16, Kubota discloses a method of using a dental device (5) comprising a frame member (52d; refer to Paragraph [0028] of the specification; under BRI, Examiner understands a frame member as a connecting member between one or more scan bodies) and one or more scan bodies (51) during implant surgery (refer to Paragraph [0011]; the invention is drawn to intraoral image generation of implants; this is a method of implant location which is a part of implant surgery), wherein each scan body (51) has a longitudinal axis and a wing region that extends radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis(refer to annotated Fig. 12 below), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image13.png
368
459
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
245
284
media_image14.png
Greyscale
coupling the one or more scan bodies (51) to the one or more implants and orienting their wing regions to extend into a central region of the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0062]-[0063], annotated Fig. 11 below; the central region of the dental arch is interpreted in the context of the dental art as the intraoral region defined at the perimeter by the curved shape formed by the dental arch; a cylindrical scan body (51) is connected to each implant, then each connecting member (52a-52d) is created by combining of plurality of three-dimensional portions in a straight line, where each of these straight line formations extends into a central region of the dental arch);
PNG
media_image15.png
281
389
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Kubota further discloses scanning the dental arch and the one or more scan bodies (51), either before or after the frame member is affixed to the one or more scan bodies (51) (refer to Paragraph [0077] and Fig. 11; the intraoral scanner (2) is moved across the scan bodies (51) while the scan bodies are attached to the connecting member (5))
PNG
media_image16.png
406
546
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Kubota does not disclose the steps of cutting the soft tissue and placing the implants in the dental arch bone.
Consult-PRO: Dental Education discloses a dental implant procedure in the same field of endeavor. The procedure as disclosed includes the steps of cutting soft tissue of a dental arch to create one or more surgical flaps (refer to figures in NPL document; the flap is raised to expose the bone) and placing one or more implants in a bone of the dental arch (refer to figures in NPL document; the bone is drilled for the implant fixture which is then placed). The flap is retracted until the placement of the cover screw (refer to figures in NPL document). After placement of the cover screw, the flap is sutured, allowing the bone to heal (refer to figures in NPL document). This video demonstrates a known method of dental implant surgery, wherein the method is advantageous for less chance of infection and implant failure (refer to figures in NPL document; the video description details the benefits of this method).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method of using the dental device as taught by Kubota with the surgical flap method of implant placement as taught by Consult-PRO: Dental Education, as this method has a reduced chance of infection and implant failure.
Kubota further discloses the scan bodies (51) being positioned together in such a way that is capable of holding the surgical flaps open, as the scan bodies (51) comprise an implant connection portion (53; refer to Paragraph [0064]) and a wider cylindrical portion that extends radially outward, which is inherently diametrically larger than the implant connecting diameter, thereby being capable of retracting the adjacent surgical flap (refer to annotated Fig. 12 below and Paragraph [0062]).
PNG
media_image17.png
209
346
media_image17.png
Greyscale
However, the combination does not disclose bonding or luting the frame member (52d) to the wing regions of the one or more scan bodies (51) to maintain this position (refer to annotated Fig. 12 above).
Feijtel discloses a dental device (1) in the same field of endeavor for dental surgery (refer to Paragraph [0002]). The dental device (1) is disclosed as comprising a frame member (16) and a body (8) with a radial extension region (15) connecting the frame member to the dental implants (5), similar to the arrangement of both Kubota and Applicant’s invention. The bodies (8) and associated radial extension regions (15) are connected to the frame member (16) by gluing the parts together (refer to Paragraph [0032]). This allows for more rigid construction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection of the frame member to the scan bodies as taught by Kubota with glue bonding as taught by Feijtel in order form a rigid frame structure.
PNG
media_image18.png
580
889
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kubota, Consult-Pro: Dental Education and Feijtel disclose the method of claim 16, with Kubota further disclosing wherein the step of scanning comprises obtaining a preoperative scan (refer to Paragraph [0067]; in the connecting member registration process, a three-dimensional image showing the overall shape of the connecting member (5) is generated by the three-dimensional scanner (3) before the connecting member (5) is attached to the oral cavity, thereby being preoperative), an intraoral scan while the one or more scan bodies (51) are coupled with the dental arch (refer to Paragraphs [0076]-[0077] and Fig. 17; intraoral scanning of the scan bodies (51) is performed), and aligning the intraoral scan with the preoperative scan (refer to Paragraphs [0079] – [0080]; the image generating device (1) receives the pre-correction occlusal surface image from the intraoral scanner (2), and replaces the portion of the connecting member (5) in the precorrection occlusal surface image with the connecting member registration image, which is acquired via 3D scanner).
Regarding claim 18, Kubota, Consult-Pro: Dental Education and Feijtel discloses the method of claim 16, with Kubota further disclosing the step of removing the frame member (52d) and one or more scan bodies (51) from the one or more implants as a single unit (refer to Paragraph [0082]; the connecting member (5), which is the combination of the scan bodies (51), wing regions and frame member (52d), is removed from the oral cavity). Kubota does not disclose suturing the surgical flaps.
Consult-Pro: Dental Education further discloses suturing the one or more surgical flaps (refer to NPL document; the flaps are sutured closed after placement of the cover screw).
Regarding claim 19, Kubota, Consult-Pro: Dental Education and Feijtel disclose the method of claim 18, with Kubota disclosing the step of using the single unit (5) as a physical verification jig to verify, and optionally, correct the accuracy of the intraoral scan
Regarding claim 20, Kubota, Consult-Pro: Dental Education and Feijtel disclose the method of claim 16, Kubota does not explicitly disclose leveling the frame member (52d) with the top of the scan bodies (51).
Feijtel further discloses the frame member (16) which is glued to scan bodies (8) is adjusted or leveled to be at
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using the device (5) of Kubota and Consult-Pro: Dental Education with a leveling step as taught by Feijtel in order to reduce stresses induced by height differences.
PNG
media_image19.png
580
1025
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP 2019217138 A) in view of Stumpel (US 20190254785 A1), and further in view of Suttin et al. (US 20130273492 A1). All references to Kimura refer to the provided translation.
Regarding claim 23, Kimura discloses a method of using a plurality of scan bodies (6+9), wherein each scan body (6+9) has a longitudinal axis (refer to figure below), a wing region (9) that extends radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis (refer to figure below), and a negative space (10; refer to Paragraph [0029]; the concave portions are formed along extension portion (9b)) disposed on the wing region (9), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image20.png
288
442
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
269
454
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
302
541
media_image22.png
Greyscale
coupling the plurality of scan bodies to a dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0020]; the dental scan attachment is attached to a scan body (6+9) which is attached to an implant body (3) in the patient’s jaw);
positioning the plurality of scan bodies (6+9) such that their wing regions (9) are in close proximity to at least one other scan body (6+9) (refer to Paragraph [0021] and Fig. 4; an extension portion (9b) extends to the position of another implant (3), thereby also being positioned close to the other scan body (6+9) which is affixed to the implant (3)).
Kimura does not disclose positioning the wing regions to extend into a central region of the dental arch.
Suttin et al. discloses using a connecting-geometry tool in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0044]), wherein the wing regions (502) of the scan bodies (500) extend into the central region of the dental arch (refer to Paragraph [0045], Fig. 5B). The connecting geometry being positioned in the central region (connecting area 110) bridges the gap between open sections of the arch for more accurate scans (refer to Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of positioning the scan bodies as taught by Kimura with the method of positioning the scan bodies centrally as taught by Suttin et al. to bridge the gap between open sections of the arch for more accurate scans (refer to Paragraph [0035])
Kimura and Suttin et al. are silent to bonding or luting the scan bodies (6+9) to each other via the negative space regions (10).
Stumpel discloses a modular support (30) with wing regions (40+42, 40; refer to figure below) in the same field of endeavor (refer to Abstract). The modular support further comprises bodies (37) which are coupled to the patient’s jaw via implants (33) and abutments (35) (refer to Paragraph [0040]), with the first wing regions (40+42) being positioned in close proximity to a second wing region (40) such that plurality of bodies (37) can be indirectly luted together via bonding in the negative space (refer to figure below) (refer to Paragraph [0049]). The bonding is advantageous for forming a rigid framework (refer to Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using the plurality of scan bodies as taught by Kimura and Suttin et al. with adhesive bonding means as taught by Stumpel in order to rigidly secure the scan bodies together.
PNG
media_image23.png
319
619
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Kimura, Suttin et al. and Stumpel disclose the method of claim 23, with Kimura further disclosing wherein the negative space (10) comprises a well, opening, hole, channel, or groove (refer to Paragraph [0029] and Fig. 6; uneven round concave portions, or grooves, are formed on the extension portion (9b)).
Regarding claim 25, Kimura, Suttin et al. and Stumpel disclose the method of claim 23, with Kimura further disclosing the step of scanning the plurality of scan bodies (6+9) (refer to Paragraph [0022]; the handheld mobile 3D scanner (7) is moved along the jaw (1) to obtain 3D image data after attaching scan attachment (9) to the scan body (6)).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding IDS objection is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted IDS.
The outstanding claim and specification objections are withdrawn in view of the amended matter.
The outstanding drawing objections for the reference numbers not mentioned in the description and/or drawings are withdrawn.
The outstanding 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The outstanding drawing objections for the claimed subject matter not being shown are withdrawn; however, new subject matter was introduced to remedy this objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that Kats fails to teach the amended claim language of claim 1 such that a frame member is sized and dimensioned to fit within a central region of the dental arch, the above rejection relies on an alternative reference combination.
In response to the argument that the interpretation of the center of the dental arch is unreasonable, such that Kats fails to teach wing regions that converge at a central region of the dental arch, the central region of the dental arch is interpreted in the context of the dental art as the intraoral region defined at the perimeter by the curved shape formed by the dental arch. Kats demonstrates this feature, as the wing regions are shown converging at a central region of the arch, near the central incisors. The claim(s) being referenced do not require that the wing regions converge at a central point, but rather a region, which is a broad limitation; 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).
This same reasoning follows for Kubota; Kubota teaches the 3D portions of the connecting members which form the wings of the scan bodies as extending into this central region, as described in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Kimura’s main purpose is to scan the mucous membrane and thus cannot be modified such that the scan bodies extend into the central region of the jaw, Kimura discloses the image acquisition superimposition is based on the extensions (9b) and aligning the plurality of superimposed images, which can be performed by orientating the scan bodies in a central region, while still acquiring a portion of the mucous membrane (refer to Abstract and Paragraph [0010]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (Consult-Pro and Feijtel, Stumpel), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799