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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 12, 2023 is noted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-3 and 5-7 contain several figures, however, they are not each individually labeled. It is noted that each figure should be individually labeled, such as 5A, 5B and so on. Further fig. 8 contains reference numbers not mentions in the specification and figures 7-8 and 13-19 do not contain any reference numbers and therefore, it is unclear what the figures illustrate. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims a scan body comprising a “body and a hole”. It is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim the body comprising the hole or I the body and the hole are separate elements. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the claimed body of the scan body comprising the claimed hole, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further the applicant claims “the top surface of the scan body”. It is unclear if the claimed top surface is of the scan body or the claimed body of the scan body. It is noted that for examination purposes, it is being interpreted as either. The same issue applies to the claimed macro geometrical shapes around the scan body and the claimed groove and the limitations are being interpreted the same for examination purposes.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “semi-rigid elastic” is unclear. It is noted the “semi-rigid” is relative and therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the claims chain being elastic but being semi-rigid in that it can hold a formed shape.
Further with respect to claim 2, it is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim with respect to the term “helical” chain. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as the chain having at least two links that are offset from each other and the chain is elastic such that it can be twisted so that the links are offset as claimed, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 3, the limitation “having a diameter 1mm less than the diameter of the scan body” is unclear as the claim does not claim the scan body. It is noted that for examination purposes the claim limitation is being interpreted as functional and the claim does NOT claim the scan body.
With respect to claim 4, the claim limitation ”massive” is unclear It is noted that massive can be interpreted as solid, however, the applicant also claimed the link is solid. Since the claimed chain is designed for use in the mouth, it is unclear if the applicant is trying to claim the links are very large (i.e. massive) or just that they are solid. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as being solid, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 5, the claimed limitation “high-precision resin” is unclear. It is noted that the term is relative and therefore unclear as to what is being claimed. It is noted that for examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as just a light curable resin, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
With respect to claim 6, the claimed system is unclear. Specifically that applicant claims “having protruding macro geometric shapes”, however, it is unclear if the claimed shape are those of claim 1 or different ones. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed limitations are being interpreted as the claimed shapes of the independent claim, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
The same issue applies to the claim limitation “at least two grooves” and it is being interpreted as discussed above, such that the groove of claim 6 is the claimed groove of claim 1, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify what is being claimed.
Further with respect to claim 6, the claim limitation “at least two scan bodies” in step c of the claim is unclear. It is unclear if the at least two scan bodies are the claimed at least two scan bodies or additional scan bodies. It is noted that for examination purposes, the claimed limitation is being interpreted as the claimed limitation is referencing the claimed at least two scan bodies, however, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
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) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo et al. (2024/0050200).
Gallo teaches a scan body 102 comprising a cylindrical or polyhedral-shaped body (see figs. 8, 11-13, 18, such that the body is polyhedral shaped) and a hole for attachment to the part to be scanned (see figs. 9-10, 14-15, 18-19 which show a hole in the body, see abstract, i.e. screwing the scanbodies to implants inserted in the bone, claim 24), characterized in that the top of the scan body being beveled (see fig. 8, such that the body has the top portion 124 which is beveled, i.e. does not have a right angle) and having around the scan body protruding macro geometrical shapes 122, these protruding macro geometrical shapes being at least three (see figs. 8-10), the scan body also has a groove 123, located in its upper third (see fig. 8), and this groove having a perimeter smaller than the perimeter of the scan body (see fig. 8). Gallo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the perimeter of the groove is smaller than the perimeter of the scan body by approximately 1 mm. However, it is noted that Gallo teaches the groove on the scan body for the same purpose including the attachment of a chain element for enhanced scanning. It is noted that Gallo does not teach the specific perimeter providing an unexpected result or advantage but only for providing easy and correct positioning of the chain. It is noted that since the prior art of Gallo teaches the groove being used for the same reason, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify Gallo to provide the perimeter of the groove to be smaller than the perimeter of the scan body by approximately 1 mm as a matter of obvious design choice. Such that the smaller perimeter allow for the easy and secure placement of the chain on the scan body.
Gallo teaches with respect to claim 2 (as best understood), semi-rigid elastic helical chain 3/4 (par. 96) characterized in that it comprises a plurality of links 3 (par. 96, element 3 has 2 and there are several elements 3 of the chain 3/4), said links 3 having a rotation off set (see figs., such that the link of each individual element 3 are offset by an angle) It is noted that Gallo does not specifically teach the angle is offset by 20 degrees, however, teaches the chain being elastic such that the links can be bent and flexed so that they are capable of being offset by 20 degrees in a desired arrangement during use. Therefore, Gallo teaches the invention as claimed.
Gallo further teaches with respect to claim 3 (as best understood), the links have a quadrangular or circular shape (see fig. 13, such that they are circular) having a diameter 1 mm less than the diameter of the scan body (such that the diameter is capable of being 1mm less than a scan body). It is noted that the scan body is not claimed and therefore the limitation is functional.
Gallo further teaches with respect to claim 4, wherein the links are solid and colored (see fig. 13 that shows the links are solid and they inherently have a color).
Gallo teaches with respect to claim 6, a system for intraoral scanning characterized in that it comprises at least two scan bodies according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, see figs. 18-19 which show a plurality of scan bodies 102), the bodies having the claimed protruding macro geometric shapes 122 which are distinct among the scan bodies (par. 94, such that each scan body has a specific series of variable protrusions that are unique, see par. 71 and fig. 5 which is a different embodiment but shows the different protrusions between scan bodies better, see figs. 18-19 which also shows the protrusions varying between the scan bodies), a helical chain according to claim 2 (see rejection above), the helical chain is positioned between at least two scan bodies, wherein at least two links of the helical chain slide to at least two grooves of the scan bodies each (see figs. 18-19, such that the links 3 are slide on each scan body and retained in the groove).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo et al. (2024/0050200) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Parker (2013/0323664).
Gallo teaches the invention as substantially claimed and discussed above, however, does not specifically teach the link are transparent, hollow and filled with a light-curable high precision resin.
Parker teaches a chain like device used for dental use that is transparent (i.e. transparent to light in order to allow curing of the resin within it), hollow and filled with a light curable high rescission resin (par. 22, 36, 45, 84, claim 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material of the links taught by Gallo with the hollow transparent links filled with a light curable resin taught by Parker in order to adjust the desired properties of the links.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIDI MARIE EIDE whose telephone number is (571)270-3081. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-4:00.
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, 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.
/HEIDI M EIDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 10/15/2025