`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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the Lips and Walls of claims 1 and 11 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the multiple retention prongs described in claims 6 and 16 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In lines 4-5 of claim 3 describe that the STV tray with the universal scan bodies and the dental putty provide for “verification of acceptable locations for the dental implants, all in one component, which is used during a surgery stage for the dental implants”. While in [0036] of the present specification describes that the verification is used during pre-surgery stage. Therefore, the claimed intended use of the tool in the claim during verification does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 3 and 13 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 3 recites the limitation "universal scan bodies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the term “universal scan bodies” in line 2 is indefinite. It is not understood if said term refers to the “one or more universal scan bodies” described in claim 1, if it is only the plurality of universal scan bodies, or if they are other bodies that cooperate with the STV tray. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as the term in claim 1 is the same as in claim 3.
Regarding claim 3 and 13, the description of “verification of acceptable locations for the dental implants, all in one component, which is used during a surgery stage for the dental implants” in lies 4-5 is indefinite. If the tool uses the universal scan bodies during verification, and the universal scan bodies are attached to the dental implant for capturing its position as described in claim 1. It is not understood said verification, if the location of the dental implant in the patient’s mouth has been already done. For examination purposes, the recitation will be interpreted as the verification is related to the exact location where the dental implant is placed in the patient’s jaw.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims use the acronyms “STV” when referring to the tray. However, even when the specification describes that said term is defined in [0035] as “Scan, Tissue, Verification tray”, it is suggested to at least use the full complete term in the independent claim followed by the acronyms so that it can be used later in the dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 and 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 3-4 describe that “when the high reflectivity can cause issues with an inter oral scanner interpreting what is being scanned when making its 3D model”. It is suggested to include in the claim any limitation that describe the present invention, and at the same time avoid any information equivalent to a negative recitation.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMarino (US 20170202648 A1) in view of Lin (US 20140178835 A1).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Walls)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lips)][AltContent: textbox (U-shaped opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Frame)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (STV tray)]
PNG
media_image1.png
446
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1, 11 and 13:
Regarding claim 1, DiMarino discloses an apparatus, including:
a STV tray configured to have a frame with a U-shaped opening resembling a bite shape of the teeth in a patient's mouth (see annotated Fig. 1 above), where the U-shaped opening is located in the frame of the STV tray where the teeth of the patient should be located (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
where the frame has lips (see Fig. 1 above – where the lips are the portions of the tray facing the lips) and walls (see Fig. 1 above – where the wall are the portions of the tray facing the back) to structurally form and support dental putty inserted into the U-shaped in the frame and secure the dental putty in place when removing the STV tray from the patient's mouth (see [0057] – “dental impression tray includes cavity defining means including at least a first wall defining a receiving cavity for receiving an impression material”), and
where the apparatus is configured to be used with a scanner that records the patients’ arch form (see [0093]) (for claim 1); and that the STV tray is configured to cooperate with the dental putty to provide a tool for ii) a collection of a tissue impression of the tissue topology under compression (for claim 3).
However, DiMarino does not disclose that the STV tray in cooperation with the dental putty and one or more universal scan bodies is engineered to keep blood, debris, and moisture out of a scanning field of an intraoral scanner while capturing a dental impression of a dental implant's position and an accurate tissue topology adaptation under compression (for claim 1); and that the STV tray is configured to cooperate with the universal scan bodies and the dental putty to provide a tool for i) a 3D digital facial scan, and for iii) a verification of acceptable locations for the dental implants, all in one component, which is used during a surgery stage for the dental implants, as well as a restoration stage for the dental implants (for claim 3).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, DiMarino discloses method for performing a full arch 3D digital facial scanning workflow (see [0093] – where the STV tray is configured to be used with a scanner that records the patients’ arch form), including:
providing a STV tray to have a frame with a U-shaped opening resembling a bite shape of the teeth in a patient's mouth (see annotated Fig. 1 above), where the U-shaped opening is located in the frame of the STV tray where the teeth of the patient should be located (see annotated Fig. 1 above),
providing the frame with lips (see annotated Fig. 1 above – where the lips are the internal and external portions of the tray closer to the lips) and walls (see Fig. 1 above – where the wall are the internal and external portions of the tray closer toward the back) to structurally form and support dental putty inserted into the U-shaped opening in the frame as well as secure the dental putty in place when removing the STV tray from the patient's mouth (see [0057] – “dental impression tray includes cavity defining means including at least a first wall defining a receiving cavity for receiving an impression material”) (for claim 11); and providing the STV tray to cooperate with the dental putty to provide a tool for ii) a collection of a tissue impression of the tissue topology under compression (for claim 13).
However, DiMarino does not disclose the step of providing the STV tray in cooperation with the dental putty and one or more universal scan bodies to keep blood, debris, and moisture out of a scanning field of an intraoral scanner while capturing a dental impression of each dental implant's position and an accurate tissue topology adaptation under compression (for claim 11); and the step of providing the STV tray in cooperation with the dental putty and one or more universal scan bodies of an intraoral scanner while capturing a dental impression of each dental implant's position and an accurate tissue topology adaptation under compression (for claim 13).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
898
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Universal scan body)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cap)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fastening member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Implant)]
PNG
media_image3.png
474
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
438
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
462
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
428
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Impression material / Putty material)][AltContent: textbox (Impression material / Putty material)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
384
418
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Soft tissue topology)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Soft tissue topology molded on the putty material)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Universal scan body)]
PNG
media_image8.png
354
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1, 3, 11 and 13:
Lin teaches a method for taking a 3D oral scanning in a patient, by using a universal scan body (1) that includes a cap (12) and a fastening member (14) (see annotated Fig. 11A above), that after the universal scan body (1) is installed over the implant (9) already placed in the jaw bone, the gingiva is saw around the cap (12), the cap (12) is grinded around the to make space for the gingiva (see A12, A2, A3and A4 of Fig. 8 and see Fig. 11B-11C). After griding the cap (12), what is left is the main body (121) (see Fig. 11D). After that, it is taken a mold of the area through an impression material (putty material) (see Fig. 8 and 11F -11G – step B5). Furthermore, the main body (121) is also used for scanning the area in combination with the surrounding teeth (84) so that “dental crown or custom abutment is able to be designed and fabricated” based on the size of the available space (see C5 in Fig. 8 above and [0054]). Due what the scan is capable of capturing the main body (121) the contour of the tooth (84). Any other bodily fluid is not considered in the scanning field. In addition, the impression material (putty material) is laid over the universal scan body (1) and over the adjacent teeth (84), in this way covering the universal scan body main body (121) and the adjacent teeth from any blood, debris, and moisture generated in the area. Furthermore, due to each of the universal scan bodies is placed over each individual implant, the impression material of the STV tray is capable of providing the means for verifying the location of each dental implant in the patient’s mouth, including the soft tissue topology surrounding the dental implant area (see Fig. 11F and 11G above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of DiMarino, with the universal scan body of Lin, in order to be able to verify the exact location of the dental implant in order to identify the size of the crown or abutment based on the space available through a scanning over the location of the dental implant already, so that it would be made customized to the patient.
Regarding claim 2, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where DiMarino discloses that the STV tray has a U-shaped frame to receive the dental putty material to capture the dental impression (see Fig. 1 above and [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1, and where DiMarino discloses further including: providing the STV tray with a U-shaped frame to receive the dental putty material to capture the dental impression (see Fig. 1 above and [0057]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMarino (US 20170202648 A1) in view of Lin (US 20140178835 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Getz (US 2583170 A).
Regarding claim 10, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 2, and where DiMarino discloses that the lips and wall are configured to so that the dental putty is capable of adhere to them, and where the STV tray with the dental putty is configured to give an ability to capture the dental impression which can then be removed from the mouth to get a 3D digital facial scanning outside a bloody environment of the mouth during surgery.
However, DiMarino/Lin do not disclose that the lips and walls of the U-shaped frame of the STV tray are configured to provide with multiple holes in the walls to allow the dental putty to fill into these holes, which allows the dental putty material to lock into the frame of the STV tray during removal of the STV tray from the patient's mouth as well as when subsequent scans occur on the STV tray with the universal scan bodies.
Regarding claim 20, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 12, and where DiMarino discloses that the lips and wall are configured to so that the dental putty is capable of adhere to them, and where the STV tray with the dental putty is configured to give an ability to capture the dental impression which can then be removed from the mouth to get a 3D digital facial scanning outside a bloody environment of the mouth during surgery.
However, DiMarino/Lin do not disclose further including the step of providing the lips and walls of the U-shaped frame of the STV tray with multiple holes in the walls to allow the dental putty to fill into these holes, which allows the dental putty material to lock into the frame of the STV tray during removal of the STV tray from the patient's mouth as well as when subsequent scans occur on the STV tray with the universal scan bodies.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Holes)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Walls)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Lips)]
PNG
media_image9.png
410
278
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Getz teaches a dental tray including lips and walls, where in each of the lips and wall includes holes (19) to facilitate the yielding of the impression material to the frame by allowing the impression material to pass through the holes while the apparatus is creating the dental impression of the patient (see annotated Fig. 9, and col. 2, lines 11-27 and col. 3, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wall of STV tray of DiMarino/Lin, with the holes of Getz, in order to hold the impression material towards the walls during the dental impression and removal of the impression material from the oral cavity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMarino (US 20170202648 A1) in view of Lin (US 20140178835 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schluter et al. (EP 3375402 A1).
Claims 7 introduce product-by-process language “sand blasted”. Therefore, claims 7 is considered product-by-process claim and the final product will be given patentable weight only.
Regarding claim 7, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, DiMarino/Lin does not disclose an external surface of the one or more universal scan bodies is not highly reflective during a 3D facial scan.
Schluter et al. teaches an abutment covered with a scanning powder. The application of the powder reduces the optical reflective properties of the abutments resulting in improved quality of the scan data (see page 3, 4th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the universal scan bodies of DiMarino/Lin, with the scanning powder on the surface of the scanning structure of Schluter, in order to improve the quality of the scan data by reducing the optical reflective properties of the scanning structure.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMarino (US 20170202648 A1) in view of Lin (US 20140178835 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baumann et al. (DE 102020101852 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 17;
Claims 7 introduce product-by-process language “sand blasted”. Therefore, claims 7 is considered product-by-process claim and the final product will be given patentable weight only.
Regarding claim 7, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
However, DiMarino/Lin does not disclose an external surface of the one or more universal scan bodies is not highly reflective during a 3D facial scan.
Regarding claim 17, DiMarino/Lin discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 11.
However, DiMarino/Lin does not disclose providing an external surface of the one or more universal scan bodies that were sand blasted to ensure the external surface is not highly reflective during a 3D facial scan, when the high reflectivity can cause issues with an inter oral scanner interpreting what is being scanned when making its 3D model, and thus, the external surface being sand blasted allows the 3D facial scan to accurately interpret a presence and location of the one or more universal scan bodies in the 3D facial scan.
With respect to claims 7 and 17;
Baumann teaches a scan abutment from “metals cannot be optically detected or only with difficulty. These scan abutments must therefore be surface-treated by a blasting process”, in this way obtaining a bright, non-reflective surface (see page 2, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface of the universal scan bodies of DiMarino/Lin, with the blasting process of Baumann, in order to obtaining a bright, non-reflective surface of a metal material for optical easy detection when scanning the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-9, 14-16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose a first universal scan body is configured to mate to multiple other components in a set of parts used in a full arch 3D digital facial scanning workflow consisting of a scan nug, a multi-unit abutment, an orientation scan marker, and a scan bullet, depending on a procedure being performed in a surgery stage for the dental implants or a restoration stage for the dental implants in the full arch 3D digital facial scanning workflow.
Regarding claim 5, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose a first universal scan body is configured to have a hollow interior to allow threads of a screw to pass through the first universal scan body and then screw into a cavity in a top of 1) a scan nug, 2) a multi-unit abutment, 3) an orientation scan marker, and 4) a scan bullet.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose a first universal scan body is configured to have multiple retention prongs that are in a middle portion of its body that lock the first universal scan body into the dental putty to prevent the first universal scan body from rotating once the dental putty hardens in the STV tray, and where the STV tray is configured to have two or more distinct shapes in an exterior of a top portion of the STV tray to be able to pick out points of commonality to stitch different scans together
Regarding claim 8, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose a scan bullet configured to receive a screw passing through a first universal scan body, where the first universal scan body is locked in place in the dental putty in the frame of the STV tray that has been removed from the patient's mouth, where the scan bullet is placed in an implant site in the dental impression captured by the universal scan body locked into position in the dental putty that has hardened, where the first universal scan body is on one side of the dental putty impression and the scan bullet is on the other side of the dental putty impression, which is locked into the STV tray.
Regarding claim 9, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose a scan bullet along with the dental impression captured in the dental putty that has hardened allows a capture of a tissue scan of the tissue topology under compression, where the topography of the tissue around the dental implant is captured under compression, without all of the blood and debris present during surgery.
Regarding claim 14, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose the step of providing a first universal scan body to mate to multiple other components in a set of parts used in the full arch 3D digital facial scanning workflow consisting of 1) a scan nug, 2) a multi-unit abutment, 3) an orientation scan marker, and 4) a scan bullet, depending on a procedure being performed in a surgery stage for the dental implants or a restoration stage for the dental implants in the full arch 3D digital facial scanning workflow.
Regarding claim 15, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose the step of providing a first universal scan body to have a hollow interior to allow threads of a screw to pass through the first universal scan body and then screw into a cavity in a top of 1) a scan nug, 2) a multi-unit abutment, 3) an orientation scan marker, and 4) a scan bullet.
Regarding claim 16, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose the step of providing a first universal scan body to have multiple retention prongs that are in a middle portion of its body that lock the first universal scan body into the dental putty to prevent the first universal scan body from rotating once the dental putty hardens in the STV tray, and providing the STV tray with two or more distinct shapes in an exterior of a top portion of the STV tray to be able to pick out points of commonality to stitch different scans together.
Regarding claim 18, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose the step of providing a scan bullet to receive a screw passing through a first universal scan body, where the first universal scan body is locked in place in the dental putty in the frame of the STV tray that has been removed from the patient's mouth, and providing the scan bullet to be placed in an implant site in the dental impression captured by the universal scan body locked into position in the dental putty that has hardened, where the first universal scan body is on one side of the accurate dental putty impression and the scan bullet is on the other side of the dental putty impression, which is locked into the STV tray.
Regarding claim 19, the prior arts of DiMarino, Lin, Baumann, Schluter, Getz do not disclose the step of providing a scan bullet along with the dental impression captured in the dental putty that has hardened to allow a capture of a tissue scan of the tissue topology under compression, where the topography of the tissue around the dental implant is captured under compression, without all of the blood and debris present during surgery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAYDA ARLENE APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/MIRAYDA A APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772