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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 20, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirelez, JR. et al. (US 2022/0160478 A1, hereinafter “Mirelez”) in view of Alhrashi (US 2023/0200954 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mirelez discloses a method for assisting in alignment of a dental prosthesis and dental implants for full arch dental implant placement ([0028]) comprising obtaining, by a digital intraoral scanner, a first digital intraoral scan image of an oral cavity of a patient ([0014]-[0015]), creating, by a processing device, with reference to the first digital intraoral scan image, a three-dimensional (3D) virtual dental prosthesis model ([0022], where prothesis model is created using CAD design) that serves as a basis for producing a dental prosthesis for the patient, obtaining an adaptive element including a prosthetic prototype that is produced based on the 3D virtual dental prosthesis model ([0023]), and a plurality of matching indicators that are attached on the prosthetic prototype according to preset conditions ([0024-0025 describes scan bodies used in conjunction with the dental prosthesis), obtaining, by the digital intraoral scanner, a second digital intraoral scan image of the oral cavity of the patient when the adaptive element is attached to a gum of the patient (second scan described in method in [0028]), the second digital intraoral scan image showing the adaptive element that includes the matching indicators and creating a plan for the dental restoration (0027]).
Mirelez discloses the invention substantially as claimed, and describes aligning preoperative digital records, clinical digital records, and post-healing digital records to form a dental restoration design, but does not specifically disclose obtaining, by a tomographic device, a tomographic scan image of the oral cavity of the patient when the adaptive element is attached to the gum of the patient, the tomographic scan image showing an alveolar bone of the patient and the matching indicators, superimposing, by the processing device, the second digital intraoral scan image and the tomographic scan image on each other by aligning the matching indicators, so as to generate a superimposed image; and outputting, by the processing device, based on the second digital intraoral scan image, the tomographic scan image and the superimposed image, a plan for implanting the dental implants into the alveolar bone.
In the same art of 3D modeling for dental prosthesis, Alhrashi teaches aligning two image datasets from scanned images (3D x-rays) and tomographic scans (DT) to form a fully-integrated 3D digital model (Figures 7-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the aligning/superimposing method for data as taught by Alhrashi with the method of Mirelez in order to create a complete digital model to create a plan for implanting dental implants into the alveolar bone (as is taught by Mirelez in [0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, Mirelez in view of Alhrashi discloses the method of Claim 1 as described above, and Mirelez further discloses that the step of obtaining the adaptive element includes producing the prosthetic prototype by a 3D forming equipment based on the 3D virtual dental prosthesis model ([0028] discloses using the CAD design to manufacture or 3D print the prosthesis).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirelez in view of Alhrashi in further view of Crockett (US 2024/0033055 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Mirelez in view of Alhrashi discloses the method of claim 1 as described above, but does not teach that the step of outputting the plan is to output the plan indicating, for each of the dental implants, a location and an orientation of the dental implant, and a location and an orientation of a hole that penetrates the dental prosthesis and that is aligned with the dental implant. In the same art of dental implants, Crockett teaches the use of scan bodies with a frame (as seen in Figure 7) where dental implants (207) are planned to be placed with a location and an orientation of a hole (210) that penetrates a dental prosthesis (250). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the method for using a structure of a frame with dental implants to be placed with a dental prosthesis as taught by Crockett with the method of Mirelez in view of Alhrashi in order to provide a method for accurate placement of implant and prosthesis components.
Claims 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirelez in view of Alhrashi in further view of O’Neill (US 2018/0206951 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mirelez in view of Alhrashi discloses the method of claim 3 as described above, but does not disclose the step of obtaining the adaptive element includes attaching 3 to 10 matching indicators on the prosthetic prototype while keeping the matching indicators spaced apart from each other. In the same art of dental prosthesis, O’Neill teaches the use of 3 to 10 indicators (see Figure 1, where indicators 10 and 12 are shown) for scannable reference that can be used with a prosthesis ([0059] teaches that the scan bodies can be used during dental restoration and with a prosthesis). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the method for using indicators for scannable use of O’Neill with the method for aligning a prosthetic prototype of Mirelex in view of Alhrashi in order to apply a versatile and reliable indicator for evaluation of dental positioning.
Regarding Claim 5, Mirelez in view of Alhrashi discloses the method of claim 3 as described above, but does not disclose that the step of obtaining the adaptive element includes attaching six to ten matching indicators on the prosthetic prototype according to following conditions some of the matching indicators are disposed in an anterior region of the prosthetic prototype and some of the matching indicators are disposed in two posterior regions of the prosthetic prototype; among those of the matching indicators that are disposed in the anterior region, at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a labial side of the anterior region and at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a palatal side of the anterior region; and among those of the matching indicators that are disposed in the posterior regions, with respect to each of the posterior regions, at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a buccal side of the posterior region and at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a lingual side of the posterior region.
O’Neill teaches the use of six to ten matching indicators (Figure 1) on a prosthetic prototype ([0059]), where some of the matching indicators are disposed in an anterior region of the prosthetic prototype and some of the matching indicators are disposed in two posterior regions of the prosthetic prototype (Figure 1). O’Neill does not specifically teach placement with at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a labial side of the anterior region and at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a palatal side of the anterior region; and among those of the matching indicators that are disposed in the posterior regions, with respect to each of the posterior regions, at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a buccal side of the posterior region and at least one of the matching indicators is disposed on a lingual side of the posterior region, however, as the placement of the indicators can be on soft tissue, the tooth itself (as seen in Figure 1), used with a prosthetic screw in an implant abutment (Figures 5A and 5B, 60), or with a verification jig implant (Figure 6), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the method for applying the indicators for scannable use of O’Neill with the method for placement of a prosthetic prototype of Mirelex in view of Alhrashi in order to apply a versatile and reliable indicator for evaluation of dental positioning, as well as to position the indicators as best determined by the oral surgeon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE L NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5368. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/CHRISTINE L NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772