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 were received on 5/5/26. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 2, 4-8, 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) for the same reasons as set forth in Sec. 8 of the last OA, dated 2/5/26.
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, the acquisition being carried out extraorally, the camera of the acquisition tool not penetrating the user's mouth (e.g. Fig. 7, for fingerprint).
Regarding claim 2. 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 4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) for the same reasons as set forth in Sec. 11 of the last OA, dated 2/5/26..
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts on p. 7 of the Remarks that the references fail to disclose the acquisition being carried out extraorally. However, it is noted that the acquisition tool is a portable camera that can be inserted in a mouth (e.g. Figs. 3-6) or not (e.g. Fig. 7). Although a drawing of the camera is not explicitly shown to be right outside the mouth, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that when a portable camera is not situated inside the mouth, it is equally capable of acquiring images from outside of the mouth, as shown in Fig. 7.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights