Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/707,038

APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ACQUIRING A DENTAL IMPRESSION BY MEANS OF INTRAORAL DIGITAL SCANNING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 02, 2024
Examiner
LU, TOM Y
Art Unit
2667
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Iosfix Dental S R L
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
826 granted / 941 resolved
+25.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
964
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§103
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§102
37.2%
-2.8% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment filed 05/02/2024 has been entered. Claims 3 and 5-9 have been amended. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marshall et al (“Marshall” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0146790 A1). As per claim 1, Marshall discloses an apparatus for acquiring a dental impression by means of intraoral digital scanning, where said apparatus is configured to produce a set of data representing a three- dimensional image of at least one portion of the dental arch (abstract and figures 1-4, 15 and 21-22, paragraph [0059]), said apparatus comprising:- a control unit (figure 21: computing device 950); - an intraoral scanner (paragraph [0059]: “intraoral scanner”) connected to the control unit; and - a reference device (figure 8) to be fixed to the dental arch; wherein said reference device comprises: - a support element (paragraph [0104]: clutch 462 and reference structure 464) which includes at least one curved portion adapted to be placed inside or outside the dental arch or on the arch itself; - three-dimensional reference elements (figure 8, paragraph [0105]-[0106]: fiducial markers 466 and 468) fixed to the support element and projecting in the same direction from a support surface of the support element lying on a common plane (figure 8); and wherein said control unit is configured to receive the set of data acquired by the scanner representing a three-dimensional image of at least one portion of the dental arch and of the reference device applied thereto (figure 16, numerals 860-862; figure 17, numeral 902; figure 27, numeral 1702), and to process the acquired data set as a function of a set of predetermined geometric reference data for the reference device provided as input data for the control unit (figure 17, numerals 906-916; figure 27, numerals 1706-1712). As per claim 2, Marshall discloses wherein the support element comprises a first outer portion to be positioned outside the dental arch, i.e. in the vestibular area, and a second inner portion, to be positioned inside the dental arch, i.e. in the buccal cavity, said first and second portions having a substantially arched shape and being joined together forming a single element with a closed profile which can surround the entire dental arch (figure 8). As per claim 6, Marshall discloses wherein said support element comprises a curved bar with a cross-section having an area of between 5mm and 40mm (as shown in figure 8, the cross-section can reasonably assumed to be an area of between 5mm to 40mm). As per claim 10, see explanation in claim 1 and figures 16-17. As per claim 11, Marshall discloses wherein the set of data acquired with the intraoral scanner comprises a plurality of points associated with coordinates with respect to the origin of a reference system integral with the reference device and wherein the position of each point of the set of acquired data is corrected as a function of a parameter calculated based on the difference between the position of at least one identification point of each reference element in the set of geometric reference data and the position of said identification point in the set of acquired data (figure 17). 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. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall in view of Porter et al (“Porter” hereinafter, U.S.P.N. 6,558,162 B1). As per claim 3, Marshall teaches a dental implement assembly as shown in figure 8 with support elements of 462, 464 and reference elements 466, 468. However, Marshall does not explicitly teach the reference elements, which are fiducial markers, are information markers with design pattern information, ie. “axial symmetrical shape with a reference axis and are arranged on the support element in such a way that the respective reference axes are all parallel to one another”. Porter teaches a healing abutment for attachment to a dental implant with information markers. The healing element comprises information markers for determining the orientation of said hexagonal boss, the diameter of said healing element, the height of said healing element, and the size of said implant as shown in figures 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b and 6b. The shapes are axial symmetrical with a reference axis, and the healing elements may be arranged by design so the reference axes are parallel to one another. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary in the art to modify Marshall in light of Porter’s teaching to incorporate his healing elements in a dental implant assembly because the information markers on the healing elements would help to “identify, … , the height of the healing abutment and/or the orientation of the hex” and other information (column 4, lines 45-47). As per claim 4, see figures 1b, 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b and 6b in Porter. As per claim 5, see figures 1-6 in Porter. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-8 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM. 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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. /TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597133
TRAINING END-TO-END WEAKLY SUPERVISED NETWORKS AT THE SPECIMEN (SUPRA-IMAGE) LEVEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591967
DISPLACEMENT ESTIMATION OF INTERVENTIONAL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591296
REDUCING POWER CONSUMPTION OF EXTENDED REALITY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573037
LEARNING APPARATUS, LEARNING METHOD, TRAINED MODEL, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564867
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETECTING CONTAINERS WHICH HAVE FALLEN OVER AND/OR ARE DAMAGED IN A CONTAINER MASS FLOW
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+3.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 941 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month