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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract recites “said device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Intraoral scanner comprising”. The examiner believes “A intraoral scanner comprising” are the correct words to use here.
Claims 2-8 recites “intraoral scanner according to”. The examiner believes “the intraoral scanner according to” are the correct words to use here.
Claims 4 recites “the bubble level is a digital one”. The examiner believes “the bubble level is a digital bubble level” are the correct words to use here.
Claim 7 recites “method according to”. The examiner believes “a method according to” are the correct words to use here.
Claim 7 recites “a (spring) lip retractor”. The examiner believes “a spring lip retractor” are the best words to use here.
Claim 7 recites “maxillary arches”. The examiner believes “maxillary arch” are the correct words to use here.
Claims 2-8 are objected by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “by means of a mechanical or magnetic retention fitting” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vertical plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the camera “flash type””. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 recites the limitation “the body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the natural head position”, “the occlusal plane position”, “the maxillary arches”, “the protocol”, “the patient”, “the horizon”, “the upper lip”, “the upper central incisors”, “the acquisition beam”, “the vertical”, “the interincisor midline”, “the incisor edges”, “the objective lens”, “the digital articulator”, “the virtual face bow protocol”, “the image”, “the upper incisors”, “the upper model”, “the operators”, “the jaws”, “the condyles”, “the temporomandibular joint”, “the facial aesthetic determinants”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is unclear. Step A recites “after scanning the maxillary arches”. It is unclear whether or not the scanning operation is part of the claimed method. Step D recites “mounting in the digital articulator”, but the claim does not recite what is supposed to be mounted. Step E recites “the upper model”, but it is unclear what the upper model is since it is previously not defined. Step F merely states the orientation of the articulator but does not comprise an actual step. Step G merely states a perspective of the operator, but does not recite what the operator does in this step and does not define what a real “line of sight” means. Step I and J are unclear because they do not specify how and on what the superimposition should take place. In addition, it is unclear if the “extra oral photographs” in step I are the same ones in step H or if they are additional ones.
Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2014/0302452 to Hack et al (hereinafter “Hack”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,908,949 to Jaccard.
Regarding claim 1, Hack discloses intraoral scanner comprising an information collection system (12, 14, Fig. 1, [0044]).
Hack fails to expressly teach characterized in that it comprises a bubble level by means of a mechanical or magnetic retention fitting, allowing orientation of the information collection system of the intraoral scanner with respect to an object to be scanned in a position orthogonal to the vertical plane defined by a plumb line.
However, Jaccard teaches of an analogous device including a bubble level (12, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 13-17) by means of a mechanical or magnetic retention fitting (13, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 13-17), allowing orientation of the information collection system of the intraoral scanner with respect to an object to be scanned in a position orthogonal to the vertical plane defined by a plumb line (13, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, to utilize a bubble level in the manner taught by Jaccard. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of correcting the axial positioning of the body connected to the level (Jaccard: Col. 2, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 3, Hack, in view of Jaccard, teaches an intraoral scanner according to claim 1.
Hack, in view of Jaccard, fails to expressly teach that the bubble level is an analogue circular bubble
However, Hack further teaches that the bubble level is an analogue circular bubble level (Jaccard: 12, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, in view of Jaccard, to utilize a circular bubble level, as taught by Jaccard. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of correcting the axial positioning of the body connected to the level (Jaccard: Col. 2, lines 30-37).
Regarding claim 5, Hack, in view of Jaccard, teaches the intraoral scanner according to claim 1.
Hack, in view of Jaccard, fails to expressly teach characterized in that the fitting is of mechanical or magnetic retention, or of the camera "flash" type.
However, Jaccard further teaches the fitting is of mechanical or magnetic retention, or of the camera "flash" type (Jaccard: 13, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, in view of Jaccard, to utilize a bubble level in the manner taught by Jaccard. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of correcting the axial positioning of the body connected to the level (Jaccard: Col. 2, lines 30-37).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack, in view of Jaccard, and further in view of DE 202020003736 U1 to Guido.
Regarding claim 2, Hack, in view of Jaccard, teaches the intraoral scanner according to claim 1.
Hack, in view of Jaccard, fails to expressly teach characterized in that the bubble level is an analogue double bubble level.
However, Guido teaches of an analogous device (Guido: Fig. 1) wherein the bubble level is an analogue double bubble level (Guido: Figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, in view of Jaccard, to utilize a double bubble level, as taught by Guido. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of aligning the horizontal position of an object in two planes (Guido: page 1).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack, in view of Jaccard, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0030144 to Hansen.
Regarding claim 4, Hack, in view of Jaccard, teaches an intraoral scanner according to claim 1.
Hack, in view of Jaccard, fails to expressly teach characterized in that the bubble level is a digital one.
However, Hansen teaches of an analogous device (Hansen: Fig. 1) characterized in that the bubble level is a digital one (Hansen: 210, 240, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0058], [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, in view of Jaccard, to utilize a digital bubble level, as taught by Hansen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of alignment ([0058] of Hansen).
Regarding claim 7, Hack, in view of Jaccard, teaches the intraoral scanner body according to claim 1.
Hack, in view of Jaccard, fails to expressly teach a method for acquisition of the natural head position, three-dimensional orientation of the occlusal plane position and facial aesthetic references comprising the following steps: after scanning the maxillary arches, with or without performing the protocol for incorporating a virtual face bow, the patient stands in a relaxed position and looks straight ahead at a fixed point on the horizon, keeping that position ; the patient lifts the upper lip in order to expose the upper central incisors or he/she can use a (spring) lip retractor for the same purpose; characterized in that, is levelled so that the acquisition beam (2) is orthogonal to the vertical of the plumb line (1), then the maxillary central incisors are scanned in such a way as to acquire the interincisor midline and the maximum extension of the incisor edges allowed by the objective lens of the intraoral scanner (3); mounting in the digital articulator, using mean values or through the virtual face bow protocol; superimposing the image of the upper incisors obtained in the patient's natural head position onto the upper model mounted on the virtual articulator; three-dimensional orientation of the said articulator; the operator works from a real "line of sight" perspective, maintaining the functional relation of the jaws with the condyles of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ); acquisition of extra-oral photograph of the patient and incorporation of the natural position of the head, as well as the collection of information about the facial aesthetic determinants; superimposition of extra oral photographs taken with the patient in the natural head position; or superimposing a face scanner.
However, Hansen teaches of an analogous method for acquisition of the natural head position, three-dimensional orientation of the occlusal plane position and facial aesthetic references comprising the following steps:
after scanning the maxillary arches, with or without performing the protocol for incorporating a virtual face bow, the patient stands in a relaxed position and looks straight ahead at a fixed point on the horizon, keeping that position ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11);
the patient lifts the upper lip in order to expose the upper central incisors or he/she can use a (spring) lip retractor for the same purpose (Fig. 1-11);
characterized in that
, is levelled so that the acquisition beam (2) is orthogonal to the vertical of the plumb line (1), then the maxillary central incisors are scanned in such a way as to acquire the interincisor midline and the maximum extension of the incisor edges allowed by the objective lens of the intraoral scanner (3) (Fig. 1-11);
mounting in the digital articulator, using mean values or through the virtual face bow protocol ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11);
superimposing the image of the upper incisors obtained in the patient's natural head position onto the upper model mounted on the virtual articulator([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11);
three-dimensional orientation of the said articulator ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11);
the operator works from a real "line of sight" perspective, maintaining the functional relation of the jaws with the condyles of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11);
acquisition of extra-oral photograph of the patient and incorporation of the natural position of the head, as well as the collection of information about the facial aesthetic determinants ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11);
superimposition of extra oral photographs taken with the patient in the natural head position ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11); or
superimposing a face scanner ([0280]-[0356], Fig. 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, in view of Jaccard, to utilize a method in the manner taught by Hansen. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of alignment ([0058] of Hansen).
Regarding claim 8, Hack, in view of Jaccard and Hansen teaches the method according to claim 7.
Hack, in view of Jaccard and Hansen fails to expressly teach characterized in that the photographs are executed using a: a. camera with an inclinometer set to the vertical of the plumb line; and/or b. mobile device with a "Spirit Level Camera+" type application.
However, Jaccard further teaches that the photographs are executed using a: a. camera with an inclinometer set to the vertical of the plumb line; and/or b. mobile device with a "Spirit Level Camera+" type application (12, Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 13-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hack in view of Jaccard and Hansen, to utilize an inclinometer set in the manner taught by Jaccard. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of correcting the axial positioning of the body connected to the level (Jaccard: Col. 2, lines 30-37).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack, in view of Jaccard, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2008/0195128 to Orbay et al. (hereinafter “Orbay”).
Regarding claim 6, Hack, in view of Jaccard, teaches the intraoral scanner according to claim 1.
Hack, in view of Jaccard, fails to expressly teach characterized in that the level comprises an electronic display in the body of the intraoral scanner.
However, Orbay teaches of an intraoral scanner (Orbay: Fig. 1) characterized in that the level comprises an electronic display in the body of the intraoral scanner (Orbay: 54, Fig. 3A, [0102], [0159])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hack, in view of Jaccard, to utilize a display in the manner as taught by Orbay. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of displaying images ([0177] of Orbay).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795