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 filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claim 2 is canceled by the applicant.
Argument:
The applicant argues that Kopelman does not cure the deficiencies of Yancey. Applicant acknowledges that the Examiner cited Kopelman to teach "trimming" and "inverting" (mapped to Kopelman's "model well"). However, applicant states that Kopelman relates to manipulating a virtual model to reconstruct an obscured finish line (see paragraph [0018] of Kopelman). Applicant states that the "trimming" in Kopelman refers to virtually creating a "trimmed second model part" by removing surface data in a computer environment (see paragraph [0038]), which is fundamentally different from the feature of the amended Claim 1, that the physical "second cast is trimmed" prior to obtaining the second scan data.
Response:
Our reviewing Court has made clear that examined claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable using ordinary and accustomed term meanings so as to be consistent with the Specification. In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Court further has explained that the interpretations are to be made while “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification,” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), but without reading limitations from examples given in the Specification into the claims, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moreover, there is no ipsissimis verbis test for determining whether a reference discloses a claim element, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant asserts that neither US Patent Publication 2019 0164353 A1, (Yancey et al.) nor US Patent Publication 2020 0330193 A1, (Kopelman et al.) teach “at least a part of the second cast is trimmed.” However, the examiner maintains that Kopelman et al. shows ("said trimmed second model part can also be manipulated such as to include a model well substantially complementary to said model base," paragraph [0038]). As a result of the computer model being trimmed, a person of ordinary skill would understand that a physical model can be trimmed. A practical example of this would be trimming a computer model before sending it to a 3D printer, especially as step 160 of Fig. 3, shown below, states “manufacturing a physical model.” A 3D print not having material that would have to be removed is better than printing an original model and then removing the excess material, all other things being equal, though both are within the teachings of the prior art. Therefore, the rejection is still deemed proper and has been maintained.
Argument:
The applicant argues that the "model well" in Kopelman (see paragraph [0039]) refers to a physical socket structure for mating a die with a model base, representing a physical coupling between two positive physical models. Applicant argues that it does not teach or suggest the data processing step of "inverting" negative pre-scan data into positive first scan data.
Response:
Claim 5 states: the data processing method of Claim 1, wherein aligning the obtained plurality pieces of scan data comprises: aligning the first scan data with the second scan data. US Patent Publication 2020 0330193 A1, (Kopelman et al.) shows "said trimmed second model part can also be manipulated such as to include a model well substantially complementary to said model base," paragraph [0039] where manipulating a part to include a model well is within the interpretation of inverting as inverting is one of many manipulations a person of ordinary skill knows to make to computer models.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kopelman et al. does not teach or suggest the data processing step of "inverting" negative pre-scan data into positive first scan data, Examiner notes that with respect to the issue of bodily incorporation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT KR2022/001924. Priority to KR10-2021-0017681 with a priority date of 8 February 2021 and KR10-2022-0016327 with a priority date of 8 February 2021 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78. The certified translation has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 8 August 2023, 16 February 2024, 20 November 2024 and 6 March 2025 that have been previously considered remain placed in the application file.
Specification - Title
The title has been amended. The objection to the title is withdrawn.
Specification - Abstract
The Abstract has been amended. The objection to the abstract is withdrawn.
Specification - Drawings
Replacement drawing sheets have been received. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
1st Claim Interpretation
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claims 10, 11, 12 and 14 recite “at least one of.” Since “at least one of” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
2nd Claim Interpretation (Contingent Limitation)
Under MPEP 2111.04, Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
In this case, Claims 8 and 9 recite “in a case that” then listing “intersection distance is less than,” making the method step optional. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, the method step is not required. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2019 0164353 A1, (Yancey et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2020 0330193 A1, (Kopelman et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Yancey et al. teach a data processing method ("method for dental impression scan merging," paragraph [0016])comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Yancey et al. Fig. 3, showing using several impressions to create a 3d model.)]obtaining a plurality pieces of scan data including pre-scan data ("When removed from the mouth, the impression provides a detailed and stable negative of the teeth," paragraph [0003]), first scan data and second scan data from a plurality of different casts ("first model includes a three-dimensional model including a plurality of geometric faces indicative of a first dental impression of a user's dental arch. The second model includes a three dimensional model including a plurality of geometric faces indicative of a second dental impression of the user's dental arch," paragraph [0016]) including a first cast and a second cast generated based on the first cast ("The first dental impression and the second dental impression are impressions of the same dental arch of the user. The computing device includes a merge manager," paragraph [0006] where the second cast is based on the patient of the first case);
aligning the obtained plurality pieces of scan data ("The method further includes aligning the first model with the second model," paragraph [0016]); and
merging a portion of one piece of scan data among the aligned plurality pieces of scan data with another piece of scan data among the aligned plurality pieces of scan data ("The method further includes generating a merged model in response to identification of the selected geometry," paragraph [0016]),
PNG
media_image2.png
452
327
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the pre-scan data is obtained by scanning the first cast("The first model includes a three-dimensional model including a plurality of geometric faces indicative of a first dental impression of a user's dental arch," paragraph [0006]).
Yancey et al. do not explicitly teach all of trimming.
[AltContent: textbox (Kopelman et al. Fig. 1, showing trimming)]However, Kopelman et al. teach the first scan data is obtained by inverting pre-scan data, the second scan data is obtained by scanning the second cast, and at least a part of the second cast is trimmed("said trimmed second model part can also be manipulated such as to include a model well substantially complementary to said model base," paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Yancey et al. and Kopelman et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify “Technologies for Merging Three-dimensional Models of Dental Impressions” as taught by Yancey et al. to use “Method for Manipulating a Dental Virtual Model, Method for creating Physical Entities based on a Dental Virtual Model thus Manipulated and Dental Models thus created” as taught by Kopelman et al.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “For example, in prosthodontics, a computer model of a patient's teeth may be manipulated to provide machining data to manufacture a physical model of the intra oral cavity, and/or to design and manufacture a coping and/or a prosthesis” as noted by the Kopelman et al. disclosure in paragraph [0004], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a higher productivity as there is a reasonable expectation that dental models will need to be modified for anticipated dental procedures; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 1, wherein the first cast is an impression- taking cast ("the computing device 100 may select geometry from a model 204 of a dental impression that captures the customer's anatomy from the tip of the teeth to the gingival line," paragraph [0062]), and the second cast is an oral cavity cast ("at least the user's teeth and gums (as captured by the dental impression or three-dimensional scan)," paragraph [0070] where a three dimensional cast is within the interpretation of an oral cavity cast).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 3, as noted above.
Yancey et al. do not explicitly teach all of trimmed portions.
However, Kopelman et al. teach wherein a trimmed portion of the second cast is a part of a gingival portion of the second cast ("said trimmed second model part can also be manipulated such as to include a model well substantially complementary to said model base," paragraph [0038]).
Yancey et al. and Kopelman et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 1, as noted above.
Yancey et al. do not explicitly teach all of aligning.
However, Kopelman et al. teach wherein aligning the obtained plurality pieces of scan data comprises:
aligning the first scan data with the second scan data ("said trimmed second model part can also be manipulated such as to include a model well substantially complementary to said model base," paragraph [0039] where manipulating a part to include a model well is within the interpretation of inverting).
Yancey et al. and Kopelman et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 1, wherein merging a portion of one piece of scan data comprises:
measuring an intersection distance between a predetermined region of the first scan data obtained by inverting the pre-scan data and a predetermined region of the second scan data ("defines a plane for the first model, and identifies a distance between the plane and a vertex of the geometric face on the second model," paragraph [0085]);
selecting at least a portion of the first scan data based on the intersection distance ("the merge manager 208 may evaluate each of the geometric faces of the first model 500, and at least some of those geometric faces may be removed," paragraph [0085] where removal requires selection first); and
combining the selected portion of the first scan data ("merge manager 208 may be configured to automatically select the best merging strategy using, for instance, artificial intelligence, machine learning, neural networks, etc.," paragraph [0088]).
Yancey et al. do not explicitly teach all of trimmed portions of the second scan.
However, Kopelman et al. teach wherein the selected portion of the first scan data corresponds to a trimmed portion of the second scan data indicating a trimmed portion of the second cast ("manipulating said second model part to remove surface data thereof corresponding to said auxiliary virtual model and creating a trimmed second model part," paragraph [0038]).
Yancey et al. and Kopelman et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 6, wherein the intersection distance is a distance when a ray generated in a normal direction from one of the predetermined region of the first scan data and the predetermined region of the second scan data meets the other ("The distance 816 may correspond to the offset between the geometric faces 804, 806. In some embodiments, the distance includes X, Y, and Z components (e.g., height, width, and depth)," paragraph [0082]).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 6, wherein selecting at least a portion of the first scan data comprises:
in case that the intersection distance is less than a first threshold value, the first scan data of a corresponding portion is deleted ("The computing device 100 may remove the geometric face on the first model 500 when the distance between the plane on the second model 502 and the vertex of the first model 500 satisfies a threshold ( e.g., the vertex is greater than a minimum distance, falls within a range of distances, etc.) corresponding to relative depth," paragraph [0097]), and
in case that the intersection distance is equal to or greater than the first threshold value, the first scan data of a corresponding portion is selected ("The merge manager 208 may determine whether the geometric face on the second model 502 intersects with the ray ( e.g., within a tolerance or threshold, for instance). Where the geometric face on the second model 502 intersects with the ray, the computing device 100 may determine that the geometric face on the second model 502 has a greater depth," paragraph [0095]).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 6, wherein selecting at least a portion of the first scan data comprises:
in case that the intersection distance is less than the first threshold value or equal to or greater than a second threshold value, a portion of the first scan data corresponding to the intersection distance is deleted ("The distance 816 may satisfy the threshold when the distance 816 exceeds the minimum distance. In other embodiments, the threshold is between a minimum and maximum distance. Thus, the distance 816 may satisfy the threshold when the distance 816 falls between the minimum and maximum distance of the threshold," paragraph [0082]), and
in case that the intersection distance is equal to or greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, a portion of the first scan data corresponding to the intersection distance is selected ("The distance 816 may satisfy the threshold when the distance 816 exceeds the minimum distance. In other embodiments, the threshold is between a minimum and maximum distance. Thus, the distance 816 may satisfy the threshold when the distance 816 falls between the minimum and maximum distance of the threshold," paragraph [0082]).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 8, wherein combining the selected portion of the first scan data comprises:
combining the selected first scan data and the second scan data with each other to generate final scan data ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]), and
wherein the final scan data is formed to display at least one of the selected first scan data and the second scan data ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 2, wherein the merging a portion of one piece of scan data comprises:
designating an intersection reference region of the second scan data ("The merge manager 208 may cast the ray from the reverse face normal plane or vector towards the nearby geometric faces in the second model 502. The merge manager 208 may determine whether any geometric faces on the second model 502 intersect with the ray (within a tolerance or threshold, for instance)," paragraph [0084] where intersecting within a tolerance is an intersection reference region);
generating at least one ray in a normal direction from the first scan data obtained by inverting the pre-scan data ("a reverse face normal plane or vector ( e.g., a plane extending beneath and perpendicular) for a geometric face on the first model 500," paragraph [0084]);
selecting portions of the first scan data where the ray meets the intersection reference region ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]); and
combining the second scan data with the portions of the first scan data selected in the selecting ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]).
Yancey et al. do not explicitly teach all of trimmed portions.
However, Kopelman et al. teach wherein the portions of the first scan data correspond to trimmed portions of the second scan data indicating trimmed portions of the second cast ("manipulating said second model part to remove surface data thereof corresponding to said auxiliary virtual model and creating a trimmed second model part," paragraph [0038]).
Yancey et al. and Kopelman et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 11, wherein in the combining the second scan data comprises:
generating final scan data by combining the selected portions of the first scan data and the second scan data ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]),
wherein the final scan data is formed to display at least one of the selected first scan data and the second scan data ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 11, wherein the portions of the first scan data are portions between a first portion of the first scan data, at which the ray meets one end of the intersection reference region, and a second portion of the first scan data, at which the ray meets the other end of the intersection reference region ("The distance 816 may satisfy the threshold when the distance 816 exceeds the minimum distance. In other embodiments, the threshold is between a minimum and maximum distance. Thus, the distance 816 may satisfy the threshold when the distance 816 falls between the minimum and maximum distance of the threshold," paragraph [0082]).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Yancey et al. teach the data processing method of Claim 9, wherein combining the selected portion of the first scan data comprises:
combining the selected first scan data and the second scan data with each other to generate final scan data ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]), and
wherein the final scan data is formed to display at least one of the selected first scan data and the second scan data ("the computing device 100 generates the merged model. The computing device 100 may combine remaining geometric faces from the first and/or second model 500, 502 into the selected geometry," paragraph [0101]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATH E WELLS whose telephone number is (703)756-4696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/Heath E. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 27 January 2026
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664