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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Said claim is drawn to a "computer program product". Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a diameter suitable for” “a useful length” and “a useful machining length” whereby the limitations ‘suitable’ and ‘useful’ are both deemed indefinite terms as to the scope of the claim limitations. In addition, the term ‘one same tool’ is unclear and not previously defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 additionally recites “the useful machining length (41) being greater than the height of the implant (1) and the distance between the washer or protrusion (43) and the free end (44) of the useful length (41) being equal to the sum of the first distance and the height of the implant” whereby it is unclear from the claim construction which physical elements relate to ‘the distance between the washer or protrusion and the free end of the useful length’. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARDIEU et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011-0275032) in view of ORTH et al. (Pub. No: US 2013-0309628).
As per Claim 6 TARDIEU discloses A method for manufacturing a splint/surgical guide (4) for the implantation of at least one dental implant (1), comprising the following steps (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11scanographic of mouth for insertion surgery [0013][0017-0018] [0041] [0149] - guide [0091-0091]):
obtaining, by means of a scanning system and a computed tomography system, at least one three-dimensional image of a patient's oral cavity, to generate a digital oral model (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11 - 3D computerized scans obtained for of mouth for insertion surgery to generate model templates [0011-0013] [0093] [0103]),
determining the features of the dental implant (1) to be implanted, including the type, height and diameter of the dental implant (1), as well as the location of the head of the at least said dental implant in the digital oral model (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11 type [0052, 0054, 0070]; height [0027, 0030] [0035-0037]; diameter [0013] [0027, 0034]; location of dental implant relates to cavity placement/head for the generation of template – mount fixture points [0036-0039] [0067] [0131]),
generating, based on the type and location of the at least one dental implant (1), a virtual surgical plan, which includes, at least (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11 generate implant plant created from computer [0013] [0017-0022]):
creating a digital design of a surgical guide or splint (4) comprising at least one hole with a guide and stop ring (3) (Figs. 1- 3, 5, 8-11 design of guide [0012] stop ring for limits of depth [0069, 0074, 0079, 0082]; holes, rings [0095-0096] [0100, 0111, 0131]) located the latter at a first distance from the location of the head (11) of the implant (1) in the digital oral model (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11 at least a first placement distance [0063] [0106] [0115] [0147]),
an inactive length (42) with a washer or protrusion (43) to come in contact with the guide and stop ring (3) (Figs. 1-3, 5, 8-11 guide contact [0013] as well with washers 23 and ring 21 [0084] [0102-0103] [0132, 0135, 0144]), and a useful machining length (41) ending at a free end (44), with the useful machining length (41) being greater than the height of the implant (1) (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11 beyond measured for space to insert [0068] [0106, 0112] [0122]) and the distance between the washer or protrusion (43) and the free end (44) of the useful length (41) being equal to the sum of the first distance and the height of the implant (Figs. 1, 3, 8-11 at least a need for width plus height for fit [0068] [0084] [0102-0103, 0106] [0132, 0135, 0144])
such that increasing or decreasing said first distance, therefore varying the height of the splint (4) depending on the location of the head (11) of the implant (1) (Figs. 1-3, 5, 8-11 variable height capabilities for matching size determination based upon model generation [0063, 0068] [0106] [0122] [0135] [0147]),
the implant insertion channel in a jaw of the digital oral model, and manufacturing the splint or surgical guide (4) based on the digital design thereof (Figs. 1-3, 5, 8-11 [Abstract] via computer generate implant plant [0012-0013] [0017-0022] [0091-0092])
TARDIEU does not disclose but ORTH discloses choosing at least one milling tool (40) to be inserted into the hole of the splint (4), with a diameter suitable for the diameter of the implant (1) (Figs. 1-2, 6 milling tool 82, holes 6-8, milling guide 1, diameter [0012] insertion disclosure [0091] [0097]); one same tool (40) can be used to machine different implant channels (Figs. 1-2, 6 milling tool 82 for multi-channel system [Abstract] [0025] [0036] [0051] [0097]) with the same diameter and different heights, milling sequence by using the at least said milling tool (40) (Figs. 1-2, 6-7 different heights available via calculation [0069, 0071] diameter set [0091] [0097]); determining the milling sequence for machining the implant (Figs. 1-2, 6-7 mill to match procedures [0013] [0017-0019] [0021] [0037])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include choosing at least one milling tool (40) to be inserted into the hole of the splint (4), with a diameter suitable for the diameter of the implant (1) one same tool (40) can be used to machine different implant channels with the same diameter and different heights; milling sequence by using the at least said milling tool (40); determining the milling sequence for machining the implant as taught by ORTH into the system of TARDIEU because of the benefit taught by ORTH to enhance TARDIEU’s methods for virtual dental implant generation to incorporate the hardware milling-tool-parameter considerations for better outcomes in implant placement precision for the planning and execution of surgical guides and other implant placement virtual generation models.
As per Claim 8 TARDIEU discloses The method, according to claim 6, wherein the surgical guide or splint comprises (See said analysis for Claim 6)
at least two holes with a ring in each of them (Figs. 1-3, 5, 8-11 holes with accompanying rings 21 [0073-0074] [101, 103]), the rings being at two different first distances for the positioning of at least two implants with the same diameter (Figs. 1-3, 5, 8-11 first distances relating to each ring used for implanting – diameter set to match [0112, 0114] [0117-0121] [0134, 0136]).
As per Claim 9 TARDIEU discloses The method, according to claim 8, wherein
TARDIEU does not disclose but ORTH discloses the milling tool for machining the at least two channels is the same (Figs. 1-2, 6 milling tool 82 for multi-channel system [Abstract] [0025] [0036] [0051] [0097]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 6 applies equally to Claim 9)
As per Claim 10 TARDIEU discloses A computer program product which includes code instructions that, once executed in a computer system or computer ([0011] [0022-0024]x), carry out a method for generating a virtual surgical plan (Figs. 1-3, 8-11 [Abstract] virtual surgical implant plan [0013] [0017-0022]) TARDIEU in view of ORTH discloses according to claim 6 (See said analysis for Claim 6).
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b)
Claim 7is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method, according to claim 6, wherein a further step for generating the virtual surgical plan, after determining the milling sequence, is determining a dental implant carrier with a specific diameter for its insertion along with the implant into the hole of the splint for its subsequent fastening in the implant insertion channel, said carrier being joined to the implant through a joining end having said end a diameter equal or less than that of the head of the implant, said carrier having a greater length than the first distance between the ring of the splint and the head of the implant" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record TARDIEU et al. (Pub. No.: US 2011-0275032) for Claim 7 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. TARDIEU only discloses a method for manufacturing a splint/surgical guide for the implantation of at least one dental implant that includes obtaining by means of a scanning system and a computed tomography system, at least one three-dimensional image of a patient's oral cavity to generate a digital oral model. The prior art further discloses determining the features of the dental implant to be implanted, including the type, height and diameter of the dental implant as well as the location of the head of the at least said dental implant in the digital oral model. In addition, the prior art discloses generating, based on the type and location of the at least one dental implant, a virtual surgical plan, which includes, at least creating a digital design of a surgical guide or splint comprising at least one hole with a guide and stop ring located the latter at a first distance from the location of the head of the implant in the digital oral model. As well the prior art states an inactive length with a washer or protrusion to come in contact with the guide and stop ring, and a useful machining length ending at a free end with the useful machining length being greater than the height of the implant and the distance between the washer or protrusion and the free end of the useful length being equal to the sum of the first distance. Finally, the prior art teachers the height of the implant, such that increasing or decreasing said first distance, therefore varying the height of the splint depending on the location of the head of the implant as well as determining the milling sequence for machining the implant insertion channel in a jaw of the digital oral model, and manufacturing the splint or surgical guide based on the digital design.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481