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
Applicant’s Amendments files on 04/03/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s):
Amended claim(s):
New Claim(s):
51-80
51, 55, 70, 71, 76, and 77
80
Response to Arguments
This office actions in responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks made in an Amendment received on April 3, 2026.
In view of amendments filed on 04/03/2026 to the drawings, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
In view of the new claim amendments and applicant arguments, Remarks filed on 04/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections have been carefully considered and the claim rejections to claims 51, 55, 70, 71, 76, and 77 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
In view of the new claim amendments and applicant arguments, Remarks filed on 04/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 claim rejections have been carefully considered and the claim rejections to claims 51-79 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments Remarks filed 04/03/2026 on pages 12-13 with respect to claim 51 rejected under 35 USC 102, the applicant’s arguments are not fully persuasive. The applicant argues on page 13 stating:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pesach discloses contacting a plurality of points inside the oral cavity while scanning the oral cavity with the IOS, at Abstract “method for measuring regions of a tooth in a mouth including: measuring at least one surface point on a surface of the tooth with respect to an element mechanically coupled to said surface point; determining a location of at least one visible reference mechanically coupled to said surface point with respect to said element; estimating a location of said surface point with respect to said visible reference.” And Paragraph [0138] “the imager has a field of view which can image stylus 218, an area of a tip thereof and/or an area of the tooth against which the stylus is placed. Optionally, the imager is used to capture information about the tooth which can be used to register and/or generate to a tooth model, and/or is used to collect information about the stylus.”
Applicant further states under Overview section on page 12 that Pesach apparently fails to disclose the claimed manner of determining probe position, particularly: “determining a three-dimensional position in space of the elongate probe based on: (i) scan data and; (ii) physical contact with a plurality of intraoral points”.
Please note, the amended pending claims do not recite “determining a three-dimensional position in space of the elongate probe”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. determining a three-dimensional position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s), at least in claim 51. 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).
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicants, in summary, argues stating:
PNG
media_image2.png
190
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims having amended with the feature of “wherein said determining is based on [(i) scan data from the IOS and ](ii) physical contact of the elongate probe with the plurality of intraoral points” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please note: Pesach discloses “where said determining is based on scan data from the IOS” at Paragraph [0112] "stylus location and/or stylus tip location is measured repetitively during stylus movement(e.g., during stylus scanning” and Paragraph [0218] “The stylus tip 3D location in relation to the tooth coordinates system is estimated from collected images of the stylus… The stylus tip 3D location relative to SGMP main body is then estimated.”
Finally, on page 13 of the Remarks, the Applicants argue that:
PNG
media_image3.png
156
664
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pesach discloses at Paragraph [0104] "to measuring regions of a tooth, especially subgingival portions, for example, using contact measurement.” and Paragraph [0151] “a stylus is put into position in contact with a point on a subgingival (or non-visible) tooth surface.”.
This Office action has been updated with new grounds of rejection addressing the amendments, using newly cited art, Merritt (US 2017/0290554 A1), as explained in the body of the rejection below.
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 51-61, 64-67, 69-78, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al. (US 2015/0348320 A1) (hereinafter, Pesach), in view of Merritt (US 2017/0290554 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Pesach discloses an oral measuring method configured to make oral measurement of an object located within an oral cavity of a patient comprising: a. providing an Intra Oral Scanner (IOS) with an elongate probe extending therefrom (paragraph [0054] “a device comprising a connector and an extending elongate measurement element with a tip adapted to be placed between a gingiva and a tooth, said device sized to fit in a human mouth, the connector having an inner geometry configured to mount on an intra-oral scanner.”; paragraphs [0113] “one or more stylus measurement is combined with a supragingival tooth model measured separately (e.g., from digital imaging, CT scan, MRI scan, 3D intraoral scanner, 3D scan of convention impression)...one or more stylus measurement is combined with a supragingival tooth model extending the model”; paragraph [0126] “the gingival retraction is provided using a stylus or other elongate measurement element which mounts to the intraoral scanner.” paragraph [0183] multiple cameras, (e.g., four cameras) collect images of adjacent teeth...images of adjacent teeth are used in registration of collected images with a tooth model (e.g., tooth model from intraoral scanner, scanning standard impression, CT).”);
b. contacting a plurality of points inside the oral cavity while scanning the oral cavity with the IOS (Abstract “method for measuring regions of a tooth in a mouth including: measuring at least one surface point on a surface of the tooth with respect to an element mechanically coupled to said surface point; determining a location of at least one visible reference mechanically coupled to said surface point with respect to said element; estimating a location of said surface point with respect to said visible reference.”; paragraph [0138] “the imager has a field of view which can image stylus 218, an area of a tip thereof and/or an area of the tooth against which the stylus is placed. Optionally, the imager is used to capture information about the tooth which can be used to register and/or generate to a tooth model, and/or is used to collect information about the stylus.”);
c. determining a position of each of the plurality of points based on the scanning to determine a position in space of the elongate probe (paragraph [0112] “stylus location and/or stylus tip location is measured repetitively during stylus movement (e.g., during stylus scanning) In some embodiments a stylus movement is measured. Repetitive stylus location and/or stylus tip measurements and measuring a stylus and/or stylus tip movement are referred to by the term ‘tracking’.”);
d. and calculating a location of a surface of said object using the determined positions (Abstract “determining a location of at least one visible reference mechanically coupled to said surface point with respect to said element; estimating a location of said surface point with respect to said visible reference.”; paragraph [0053] “the device comprises circuitry for generating a surface of said tooth, including at least one sub-gingival surface portion using said estimated location”).
wherein said determining is based on (i) scan data from the IOS (Paragraph [0112] "stylus location and/or stylus tip location is measured repetitively during stylus movement(e.g., during stylus scanning”; Paragraph [0218] “The stylus tip 3D location in relation to the tooth coordinates system is estimated from collected images of the stylus… The stylus tip 3D location relative to SGMP main body is then estimated.”) [and (ii) physical contact of the elongate probe with the plurality of intraoral points].
However, Pesach fails to teach wherein said determining is based on physical contact of the elongate probe with the plurality of intraoral points.
Merritt teaches wherein said determining is based on physical contact of the elongate probe with the plurality of intraoral points (Paragraph [0046] "the surgeon places the probe tip on a tooth surface, and interacts with the tracking system to indicate the beginning of a probe trace. The surgeon slowly traces the probe's spherical tip over each of the patient's exposed teeth, tracing points on the occlusal, buccal, and lingual surfaces. With the tip of the probe still in contact with a tooth surface, the surgeon interacts with the tracking system to indicate the end of the trace.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Pesach’s reference to include wherein said determining is based on physical contact of the elongate probe with the plurality of intraoral points taught by Merritt’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the accuracy of the placement of dental implants as suggested by Merritt (see Merritt, Paragraph [0003]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Merritt with Pesach to obtain the invention specified in claim 51
Regarding claim 52, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said plurality of points comprise gum or other mucosal tissue (paragraph [0142] “the imager (e.g., cameras 230 and 232) captures images of tooth 204 from different directions and may be used to image the 3D contour of tooth 204 and/or optionally the 3D contour of gingiva 202, gum line 207 on tooth.”; paragraph [0332] “Pocket depth can be tracked over time in order to evaluate the effect of a dental treatment. In some embodiments SGMP is used to measure sulcus or pocket depth by applying a constant insertion force while inserting the stylus into the sulcus or pocket, similar to measurements taken using a periodontal probe.”).
Regarding claim 53, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said contacting comprises inserting said probe through mucosal tissue (paragraph [0179] “a stylus tip thickness is between 0.1 mm and 2 mm or between 0.5 mm and 1.5 mm potentially preventing insertion of stylus 218 from damaging the patient's gingiva, and assisting the user (dentist) in inserting and moving the stylus during measurements.”; paragraph [0332] “Pocket depth can be tracked over time in order to evaluate the effect of a dental treatment. In some embodiments SGMP is used to measure sulcus or pocket depth by applying a constant insertion force while inserting the stylus into the sulcus or pocket, similar to measurements taken using a periodontal probe).
Regarding claim 54, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses herein: said plurality of points comprise gum tissue (paragraph [0142] “the imager (e.g., cameras 230 and 232) captures images of tooth 204 from different directions and may be used to image the 3D contour of tooth 204 and/or optionally the 3D contour of gingiva 202, gum line 207 on tooth.”), and
the method further comprises determining gum thickness by creating a 3D model based on the determining step and comparing the 3D model to bone location in a CT 3D model (paragraph [0104] “measuring regions of a tooth, especially subgingival portions, for example, using contact measurement. In some embodiments a stylus tip is put into contact with a subgingival surface of a tooth. The subgingival surface of the tooth is then measured by estimating a location of the stylus tip with respect to a visible reference of a visible portion of the tooth (e.g., tooth portion surface topography, marker on the tooth, stylus) giving a stylus tip location”; paragraph [0113] “one or more stylus measurement is combined with a supragingival tooth model measured separately (e.g., from digital imaging, CT scan, MRI scan, 3D intraoral scanner, 3D scan of convention impression).”; paragraph [0114] “combining a two or more tooth measurements is by aligning of two or more images. In some embodiments aligning two or more images is by matching of 3D image information… aligning two or more images is by pattern matching of 2D features and/or natural marks on a tooth surface… aligning two or more images is by matching one or more marker placed on a portion of the mouth being measured”).
Regarding claim 55, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein: said plurality of points comprise points on tooth tissue (Abstract “method for measuring regions of a tooth in a mouth including: measuring at least one surface point on a surface of the tooth with respect to an element mechanically coupled to said surface point; determining a location of at least one visible reference mechanically coupled to said surface point with respect to said element; estimating a location of said surface point with respect to said visible reference.”; paragraph [0138] “ the imager has a field of view which can image stylus 218, an area of a tip thereof and/or an area of the tooth against which the stylus is placed. Optionally, the imager is used to capture information about the tooth which can be used to register and/or generate to a tooth model, and/or is used to collect information about the stylus.”); and
said method further comprises measuring the point between a crown and a tooth to which it is attached based upon the positions of the plurality of points (paragraph [0137] “the crown surface at the crown finish line will be the same as the inclination of the natural tooth surface adjacent to the crown finish line in the apical direction to provide a smooth or gentle incline/gradient over the crown finish line… (e.g., in order to match the crown/prosthetic inclination with the natural tooth inclination) the 3D surface dimensions of the tooth portion above line 110, where line 110 is approximately 0.5 mm-1 mm or approximately 0.1 mm-5 mm beyond (in the apical direction of) subgingival preparation area 108 is measured.”).
Regarding claim 56, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said object is an implant and said contacting comprises contacting said implant (paragraph [0331] “the above described methods and device are used to measure implant connections and implant abutments including one or more of the implant neck, hexagon, and outer surface connected to the abutment. Once measured, a model may be displayed to a user and/or an existing model updated. For example, a measurement of nearby teeth may be used to show the orientation and/or position of an implant relative to other teeth and/or a jaw and/or a CT data set.”).
Regarding claim 57, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said object is a bone structure and said contacting comprises contacting said bone structure (paragraph [0053] “the device comprises circuitry for generating a surface of said tooth, including at least one sub-gingival surface portion using said estimated location.”; paragraph [0204] “with a wider field of view is used to collect images for construction of a coarse 3D model of neighboring teeth to the tooth being measured and/or of the whole jaw.”).
Regarding claim 58, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses further comprising determining geometric parameters of said object selected from a group consisting of: location, orientation, and shape (paragraph [0124] “gingival retraction with existing intraoral scanners… the shape of parts of the tooth that are exposed by the retractor are used to build a tooth model, and may comprise a sub-gingival portion thereof. Optionally, these locations are automatically identified based on their color and/or based on them being near the tip of the retraction tool.”; paragraph [0331] “a measurement of nearby teeth may be used to show the orientation and/or position of an implant relative to other teeth and/or a jaw and/or a CT data set.”).
Regarding claim 59, which claim 57 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said bone structure is an alveolar bone (paragraph [0123] “camera/s provide jaw information for prosthetic design (e.g., neighboring teeth topography and/or opposite jaw tooth/teeth topography with respect to the prepared tooth is in some embodiments, used to guide prosthetic dimensions) and/or improve orientation accuracy of the imager in relation to tooth for image matching.”; paragraph [0190] “a camera with a wider field of view is used to collect images for construction of a coarse 3D model of neighboring teeth to the tooth being measured and/or of the whole jaw”).
Regarding claim 60, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said plurality of points are a plurality of known points on said object (paragraph [0160] “the location of marker/s in relation to the visible tooth portion is known (e.g., by a processing circuitry, for example, based on user entry, contacting a marker with the stylus tip and/or code entry, which code is associated with such information) and the stylus tip location with respect to the visible tooth portion is determined from the stylus tip location relative to the marker/s, for example, using analytical geometry methods.”).
Regarding claim 61, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses determining a specific shape of said object based on said plurality of points (paragraph [0124] “gingival retraction with existing intraoral scanners… the shape of parts of the tooth that are exposed by the retractor are used to build a tooth model, and may comprise a sub-gingival portion thereof. Optionally, these locations are automatically identified based on their color and/or based on them being near the tip of the retraction tool.”).
Regarding claim 64, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses adding data related to said position in space of the elongate probe to a 3D model (paragraph [0028] “generating a 3D model and registering said 3D model to said existing tooth model. Optionally, said generating a 3D model comprises generating a point cloud and registering said point cloud to said existing tooth model.”; paragraph [0311] “The location of the stylus tip with respect to the visible tooth portion (stylus tip location) is then estimated 1410. The stylus tip location is then registered with the tooth 3D model 1412. If enough tooth locations have been measured 1414 scanning is finished and the 3D tooth model is complete”).
Regarding claim 65, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said method is performed after inserting an implant into a bone or after opening covering gingiva to expose the implant (paragraph [0144] “during measurement with the SGMP, stylus 218 lifts gingival tissue 202 revealing a portion of subgingival area 206, optionally including preparation finish line 208, temporarily to cameras 230, 232. The revealed portion of subgingival area 206 can then be measured using image/s collected by cameras 230, 232 optionally including stylus 218 and/or stylus marking/s 234.”; paragraph [0331] “methods and device are used to measure implant connections and implant abutments including one or more of the implant neck, hexagon, and outer surface connected to the abutment. Once measured, a model may be displayed to a user and/or an existing model updated. For example, a measurement of nearby teeth may be used to show the orientation and/or position of an implant relative to other teeth and/or a jaw and/or a CT data set.”).
Regarding claim 66, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses determining gum thickness by determining the position of the gums using said IOS and said determined position of said object using said elongate probe (paragraph [0104] “measuring regions of a tooth, especially subgingival portions, for example, using contact measurement…a stylus tip is put into contact with a subgingival surface of a tooth. The subgingival surface of the tooth is then measured by estimating a location of the stylus tip with respect to a visible reference of a visible portion of the tooth (e.g., tooth portion surface topography, marker on the tooth, stylus) giving a stylus tip location”).
Regarding claim 67, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said determining is performed using a force sensor (paragraph [0109] “stylus tip location is measured/ by mechanical measurements, for example stylus deflection, stylus e.g., applied force magnitude and/or direction for example using one or more force sensor (e.g., load cell, strain gauge) In some embodiments one or more force sensor is located at a stylus connection to the main body and/or along a stylus length and/or at the stylus tip.”).
Regarding claim 69, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses comparing a result of said determining with a desired planned result (paragraph [0216] “Known stylus dimensions and/or marker dimensions and/or distance between marker/s and/or displacement along the stylus of marker/s can be used to calibrate the imager where images of known distances/dimensions provide a scale to the imager. In one example, an image of the stylus including markings is acquired and the position of the markings on the image extracted. A comparison of the extracted positions to known positions can be used to determine calibration settings.”; paragraph [0224] “a reference object of a known size may be used for a full calibration—the relative size of the object in the image plane with respect to its known size, reveals the missing scaling factor. Optionally, the markers upon the SGMP (e.g., stylus) are used to fulfill requirements for a full calibration.”).
Regarding claim 70, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said method includes measuring a horizontal or vertical mismatch of said object based upon the positions of the plurality of points (paragraph [0189] “during measurements with the stylus, as illustrated in FIG. 3B, the stylus is orientated in the coronal-apical direction where a tilt angle θ to a distal-mesal direction (horizontal) a is approximately 90°. In some embodiments, the stylus is orientated at approximately 90° to a buccal-lingual direction”).
Regarding claim 71, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses generating a 3D model based on one or more of said contacted plurality of points and said scan of said oral cavity (paragraph [0106] “multiple measurements of different subgingival surfaces are combined to generate a surface topography model of at least a subgingival area of the tooth.”).
Regarding claim 72, which claim 71 is incorporated, Pesach discloses designing a custom abutment (paragraph [0003] “dental prosthetics generally involves measurement or acquisition of three dimensional model/s of existing dental structures. Often prosthetics extend below the gum line, and measurement of dental structures below the gum line is carried out. Accurate measurement/s and/or modeling can facilitate a good fit of the prosthetic constructed using the measurements/s and/or model/s to the patient's mouth.”; paragraph [0331] “the above described methods and device are used to measure implant connections and implant abutments including one or more of the implant neck, hexagon, and outer surface connected to the abutment.”).
Regarding claim 73, which claim 72 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said custom abutment is shaped according to a gingiva shape (paragraph [0003] “dental prosthetics generally involves measurement or acquisition of three dimensional model/s of existing dental structures. Often prosthetics extend below the gum line, and measurement of dental structures below the gum line is carried out. Accurate measurement/s and/or modeling can facilitate a good fit of the prosthetic constructed using the measurements/s and/or model/s to the patient's mouth.”).
Regarding claim 74, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said contacting comprises contacting within a recess (paragraph [0144] ”during measurement with the SGMP, stylus 218 lifts gingival tissue 202 revealing a portion of subgingival area 206, optionally including preparation finish line 208, temporarily to cameras 230, 232. The revealed portion of subgingival area 206 can then be measured using image/s collected by cameras 230, 232 optionally including stylus 218 and/or stylus marking/s”).
Regarding claim 75, which claim 74 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein said recess includes one or more of a socket of a tooth extraction, an excavated hole in a bone, a drilled hole in a tooth, an excavated cavity in a tooth for an inlay, an excavated cavity in a tooth for an onlay and a root of a tooth (paragraph [0331] “the above described methods and device are used for measurement in additional dental procedures, such as 3D scanning of preparation for inlays, onlays, and fillings”).
Regarding claim 76, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses using collected data from said method for performing one or more of producing and fitting a removable prosthesis (paragraph [0305] “FIG. 13 is a flow chart that illustrates an exemplary method for creation of dental prosthetics... The dentist prepares the tooth or teeth (1300) to which the prosthetic will be affixed. After preparation, optionally, supragingival measurements of the prepared tooth are collected using another device or method, e.g. impression, digital impression, CT, MRI (1302)... The SGMP device is then turned on, and the stylus is put into a starting position (1304). SGMP then collects measurements (1306). Measurements can be, for example, optical (e.g. images), mechanical using stylus tracking etc. (e.g., as described above). In some embodiments, for example as described above, collecting measurements involves the user guiding SGMP around the tooth.”).
Regarding claim 77, which claim 76 is incorporated, Pesach discloses performing one or more of producing and fitting said removable prosthesis (paragraph [0305] “The user then sends the prosthetic model for construction (1310). Once the prosthetic is received by the user, it is fitted/attached to the prepared tooth (1312).).
Regarding claim 78, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses estimating a mechanical property of a mechanical tissue by said contacting (paragraph [0266] “FIG. 9A is a schematic diagram of an embodiment with a sensor located at the stylus tip. FIG. 9A illustrates an embodiment with a sensor 923 at the stylus tip and sensors along stylus length 921. In some embodiments sensors 921 are strain gauges. In some embodiments sensor 923 is a force sensor such as load cell, strain gauge. The force sensor located at the stylus tip 923 measures the force applied at the tip and not over all of the stylus as, for example when measuring stylus deflection at stylus base or over the whole stylus body.”).
Regarding claim 80, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach discloses wherein the plurality of points includes points located in obscured or recessed regions of the oral cavity (Paragraph [0104] "to measuring regions of a tooth, especially subgingival portions, for example, using contact measurement.”; Paragraph [0151] “a stylus is put into position in contact with a point on a subgingival (or non-visible) tooth surface.”.; Examiner interprets subgingival to be points of the tooth located below the gum line (i.e. obscured regions)).
Claims 62, 63 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al. (US 2015/0348320 A1) (hereinafter, Pesach) in view of Merritt (US 2017/0290554 A1), and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2014/0343395 A1) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 62, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach and Merritt both fail to teach wherein said oral measurement further comprises detecting said object using a metal detecting component.
Choi teaches wherein said oral measurement further comprises detecting said object using a metal detecting component (paragraph [0020] “A system and method for providing magnetic based navigation in dental implant surgery is disclosed. According to one embodiment, a surgical navigation system comprises a custom piece that is made to fit in a patient's anatomy and comprises a first magnetic component. The surgical navigation system further comprises an instrument assembly comprising a drill bit and a second magnetic component. A processing unit receives and displays a first position and orientation data from the first magnetic component with respect to a second position and orientation data from the second magnetic component to track the movement of the first magnetic component with respect to the second magnetic component.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Pesach in view of Merritt to include wherein said oral measurement further comprises detecting said object using a metal detecting component taught by Choi’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine the position and orientation of the drill relative to the implant position as suggested by Choi (see, Choi paragraph [0027]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Merritt and Choi with Pesach to obtain the invention specified in claim 62.
Regarding claim 63, which claim 62 is incorporated, Pesach and Merritt both fail teach wherein said detecting said object using a metal detecting component is performed before said contacting.
Choi teaches wherein said detecting said object using a metal detecting component is performed before said contacting (paragraph [0020] “A system and method for providing magnetic based navigation in dental implant surgery is disclosed. According to one embodiment, a surgical navigation system comprises a custom piece that is made to fit in a patient's anatomy and comprises a first magnetic component. The surgical navigation system further comprises an instrument assembly comprising a drill bit and a second magnetic component. A processing unit receives and displays a first position and orientation data from the first magnetic component with respect to a second position and orientation data from the second magnetic component to track the movement of the first magnetic component with respect to the second magnetic component.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Pesach in view of Merritt to include wherein said oral measurement further comprises detecting said object using a metal detecting component taught by Choi’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine the position and orientation of the drill relative to the implant position as suggested by Choi (see, Choi paragraph [0027]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Merritt and Choi with Pesach to obtain the invention specified in claim 63.
Regarding claim 68, which claim 51 is incorporated, Pesach and Merritt both fail teach wherein said method is performed after a bone was drilled and a hole was generated for an implant and said contacting comprises contacting points inside said hole.
Choi teaches wherein said method is performed after a bone was drilled and a hole was generated for an implant and said contacting comprises contacting points inside said hole (paragraph [0040] “The drill hand piece 502 accepts drill bits 503 of different diameters and lengths for drilling a hole at a planned implant site of the patient.”; paragraph [0041] “Because the sensor 102 is incorporated in the instrument assembly at a fixed point, the instrument's position and orientation becomes trackable within the nearby transmitter's coordinate system 105 in a rigid body motion. The position and orientation of the instrument assembly 501 can be represented within the nearby transmitter's coordinate system 105. The transmitter coordinate system 105 is made consistent with the patient CT coordinate system 205, therefore the position and orientation of the drill piece 502 can be tracked relative to the patient CT coordinate system 205.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Pesach in view of Merritt to include wherein said method is performed after a bone was drilled and a hole was generated for an implant and said contacting comprises contacting points inside said hole taught by Choi’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to drill a hole at a planned implant site as suggested by Choi (see, Choi paragraph [0040]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Merritt and Choi with Pesach to obtain the invention specified in claim 68.
Claim 79 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesach et al. (US 2015/0348320 A1) (hereinafter, Pesach) in view of Merritt (US 2017/0290554 A1), and further in view of Oshida et al. ("Dental implant systems." International journal of molecular sciences 11.4 (2010): 1580-1678.) (hereinafter, Oshida).
Regarding claim 79, which claim 78 is incorporated, Pesach and Merritt both fail to teach wherein said mechanical property is at least one of tissue elasticity and tissue hardness.
Oshida teaches wherein said mechanical property is at least one of tissue elasticity and tissue hardness (Introduction [page 1587 paragraph 3] “the loading with implant/bone couple, the strain-field continuity should be held (if not, it should indicate that implant is not fused to vital bone), although the stress-field is obviously in a discrete manner due to different values of modulus of elasticity (E) between host tissue and foreign implant material.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Pesach in view of Merritt to include wherein said mechanical property is at least one of tissue elasticity and tissue hardness taught by Oshida’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine how these properties affect stress transfer conditions as suggested by Oshida (see, Oshida Introduction [page 1586 paragraph 3])
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Merritt and Oshida with Pesach to obtain the invention specified in claim 79.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shafir (US 4997369 A) discloses a method for digitizing a three-dimensional surface contour using a probe with positional and deflection sensors to capture and correct sampled point coordinates.
Mushabac (US 5257184 A) discloses a method for encoding curvilinear contours of an object using multiple movable stylus elements and transmitting reference position and displacement data to a computer.
Nahlieli (US 2010/0047733 A1) discloses a method for illuminating, imaging and performing treatment within an intra-oral cavity using a probe member having treatment, light guide, and light collection channels.
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 UROOJ FATIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-2096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/UROOJ FATIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights