DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
In response to applicant’s amendment filed 9/19/2025, claims 1-4, 7-9, 13-14, 17, 19-22, 29, and 41-43, are pending in this application.
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, 4, 11-12, 14, 17, 19-22, 29, and 41-43, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2021/0377374) in view of Yancey et al. (US 10,849,723) and Patel et al. (US 10,130,244).
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses an intraoral scanner that uses a graphical user interface to aid user’s in capturing dental scans for submission to a caregiver. See paragraphs 0065 and 0110. Peterson does not explicitly teach wherein the GUI aids the user in helping the patient use the scanner with visual aids, however such placement schemes are well-established, as is disclosed by the dental imaging system of Yancey in col. 19: 58-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Peterson system, in order to assist the user.
Peterson does not disclose an adaptor for a cell-phone with a viewing channel wherein the camera aligns with the viewing channel axis. However, this is also established in the medical art, as is disclosed by the medical imaging system of Patel in col. 2: 32-37 and fig. 2. It would have been obvious to consider these concepts with the Peterson system in order to provide a convenient imaging system.
Regarding claim 2, Peterson discloses in paragraph 0120 wherein a dental professional can perform diagnosis.
Regarding claim 4, Peterson discloses wherein the camera can take a plurality of images of one or more intraoral regions of the patient. See paragraph 0064.
Regarding claims 11-14, Peterson discloses wherein the cameras can be from a mobile device with a view channel for viewing intraoral regions of a dental patent. See paragraph 0004. Presumably the viewing channel would be some form of polygon (i.e. it would have multiple sides and so forth).
Regarding claims 17 and 19-21, Peterson discloses guidance for camera placement in paragraph 0116, but does not disclose visual or textual guidance. However, Yancey discloses in col. 19: 58-67 wherein such guidance for tool placement is established. The use of such a scheme would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicants filing to consider this with the Peterson system in order to provide effective guidance.
Regarding claim 22 and 41-43, Peterson discloses wherein the dentist can present the pictures with annotations and visual communication with the patient through an interface in paragraph 0112.
Regarding claim 29, Peterson discloses wherein the user may be aided by a tutorial in paragraph 0116.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2021/0377374) in view of Yancey et al. (US 10,849,723) and Patel et al. (US 10,130,244) and also Sabina et al. (US 11,392,210).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson discloses capturing images and video in paragraph 0004. There is no explicit mention of the images being frames from a video. However, this scheme is established regarding oral cameras, as is disclosed by the scanning system of Sabina in col. 2: 50-55. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Peterson system, in order to provide proper images for analysis.
Claim 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 2021/0377374) in view of Yancey et al. (US 10,849,723) and Patel et al. (US 10,130,244) and also German (US 2021/0220086).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson discloses diagnostics in paragraph 0112, but there is no explicit mention of a treatment plan with milestones. However, this is established regarding medical systems, as is disclosed by German in paragraph 0027. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Peterson system, in order to assist the user in treatment.
Regarding claims 8-9, German also discloses uploading dental data before milestones, and wherein the information can be reviewed on a timeline, and images can be compared and reviewed. See paragraphs 0028-0032. These concepts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider with the Peterson system, in order to assist the user with treatment.
Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks dated 9/19/2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In light of applicant’s TD, the rejection under double patenting set forth in the previous action is withdrawn.
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 TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached on 571-570-7625. 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.
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights