DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintersehr (2010/0145189) in view of Saphier et al (2021/0321872) (herein “Saphier”). In regards to claim 1, Hintersehr teaches a device for acquiring an intraoral shape, the device comprising: a scanner for capturing intraoral geometry by imaging the inside of the intraoral shape (See; p[0001]); an air blower that injects compressed air (See; p[0013]); and an information processing device (See; p[0023]), wherein the air blower injects the compressed air against the object to be imaged when the scanner takes the images (See; p[0016]); wherein the scanner continuously acquires the sensing data indicating the intraoral shape while the air blower is injecting the compressed air against the object to be imaged (See; p[0016]); wherein the information processing device comprises a sensing data acquisition unit that receives sensing data indicating the intraoral shape from the scanner, a model generation unit that generates a three-dimensional model based on the sensing data (See; Abstract, p[0004]-p[0005] for CAD models and p[0012]-p[0014]), and an abutment tooth identification unit that identifies the gingiva and the abutment tooth included in the model based on characteristics of changes in the sensing data with the passage of time; and wherein the abutment tooth identification unit outputs at least one of a three-dimensional model of the abutment tooth, margin line, and a three-dimensional model of the gingiva (See; Abstract and p[0014]-p[0016] where it is implied that multiple teeth are imaged including an abutment tooth and gingiva. Where this would inherently happen over a passage of time since the scanning would not be instantaneous since the scanning happens while air is being delivered to expose regions for scanning. Thus changes would be inherently be detected over the length of time of applying the air and scanning). Hintersehr fails to explicitly teach wherein the abutment tooth identification unit outputs a three dimensional model of the abutment tooth, margin line that indicates a boundary between the abutment tooth and the gingiva and a three dimensional model of the gingiva. However, Saphier teaches wherein the abutment tooth identification unit outputs a three dimensional model of the abutment tooth, margin line that indicates a boundary between the abutment tooth and the gingiva and a three dimensional model of the gingiva (See; p[0272], p[0275], p[0295] where an intraoral scan generates a 3D model of abutment teeth, margin line and the surrounding gingiva). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hintersehr’s 3D model to include all important features in the intraoral scan such as in Saphier so as to create the most accurate 3D model. In regards to claim 2, Hintersehr teaches wherein the scanner and the air blower are built into a wand (See; Fig. 1). In regards to claim 6, Saphier teaches wherein the abutment identification unit has a machine learning unit that separates the gingiva from the abutment tooth (See; p[0269]-p[0276] where machine learning models are used to perform classification of dental sites and areas of interest including abutment teeth and gingiva).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hintersehr (2010/0145189) in view of Saphier et al (2021/0321872) (herein “Saphier”) and further In view of Yu (5,286,201). In regards to claim 3, Hintersehr fails to explicitly teach wherein the air blower is detachable from the wand in which the scanner is built in. Yu teaches an air dryer device that is detachable from a 3 way dental device (See; Fig. 2 and Column 1, lines 6-10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hintersehr’s air blower to be detachable so as to be able to better clean and maintain the device.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. 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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627