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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because all diagrams and features in Figures 1, 2, 4-6, 10, and 12 are required to be distinctly labeled to indicate contents or function with legends (37 C.F.R. 1.83(a), 1.84(o)) since they are necessary for understanding of the drawing. Correction is required.
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of inclusion of legal phraseologies such as “comprising” and “said”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dentalkart (How to use IntraOral Camera I Orkki IntraOral Camera With WiFi).
Regarding Claim 1, Dentalkart discloses a method for acquiring at least one image of at least one dental arch of a user (e.g. Fig. 2) by means of a mobile telephone (e.g. via WiFi to an Android or IOS mobile telephone) and an acquisition tool comprising an acquisition head provided with a camera (e.g. Fig. 5), method in which the acquisition head acquires said image and transmits it to the mobile phone, or acquires a signal and transfers it to the mobile phone so that said mobile phone generates the image from said signal, autonomously or with the help of a computer with which said mobile phone is in communication (e.g. Fig. 2), said at least one image being a photo (e.g. Fig. 4) or an image extracted from a film.
Regarding claim 2. (Currently amended) the method according to the preceding claim 1in which the mobile telephone and the acquisition tool are exclusively manipulated by the user (e.g. Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, in which the acquisition is carried out extraorally, the camera of the acquisition tool not penetrating the user's mouth (e.g. Fig. 7, for fingerprint).
Regarding claim 4. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, in which the acquisition is carried out intraorally, the camera of the acquisition tool penetrating the mouth of the user (e.g. Fig. 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 5. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile telephone and the acquisition tool are movable independently of each other (e.g. via wireless connection).
Regarding 6. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, in which, during the acquisition, the user observes the screen of the mobile phone to view the scene observed by the camera of the acquisition head (e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 6, in which during the acquisition, the mobile telephone is stationary (e.g. on the table) relative to the ground and the user manipulates the acquisition tool.
Regarding claim 8. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the user acquires at least one image viewed from the front, at least one image from the right of the user, at least one image from the user's left, at least one open mouth image (e.g. Fig. 3), and at least one closed mouth image.
Regarding claim 11. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, in which the acquisition tool is in communication with the mobile telephone by radio waves (e.g. via WiFi communication).
Regarding claim 12. (Currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein said at least one image is used for determine the speed of evolution of a change in the positioning of the teeth, and/or optimize the date of making an appointment with a dental care professional, and/or assess the evolution of the positioning of teeth towards a reference model corresponding to a determined positioning of the teeth, and/or visualize and/or measure and/or detect a microcrack, and/or wear (e.g. detect damage a tooth in the image), and/or visualize and/or measure and/or detect a change in volume during tooth growth or following an intervention by a dental care professional.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9, 10,and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dentalkart in view of Morris et al (Accuracy of Dental Monitoring 3D Digital Dental Models Using photograph and Video Mode).
Although Dentalkart discloses the camera of the acquisition tool, it is noted that Dentalkart differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose the use of dental arch for generating a 3D model as specified in claims 9, 10, and 13. Morris et al however, in Figure 1, teaches the concept of such well-known photographing of the dental arch for generating a digital three-dimensional model.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having both the references of Dnetalkart and Morris et al before him/her, to exploit the well known 3D model generation technique as taught by Morris et al in the intra oral camera of Dentalkart in order to accurately generate 3D models of dental arches for patients.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20250086421 discloses WIRELESS SCANNING SYSTEM AND WIRELESS SCANNING METHOD
20240268935 discloses INTRAORAL SCANNING
20240225798 discloses INTRAORAL SHAPE ACQUISITION DEVICE AND INTRAORAL SHAPE ACQUISITION METHOD
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7334. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11 - 7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485