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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds more than 150 words. 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).
Response to Amendment
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of the applicants amendments filed on 07/26/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Lierde et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130171580) in view of Gibbs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160151117), Fisker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130209965), and Nuzum et al. (W.O. Pub. No. 2023192407).
Regarding claim 1, Van Lierde discloses a method of providing an image depicting a representation of a dental file extending into a root of a tooth, the method comprising (para 67, “The computer 150 may be used in a computer based method for 3D digital endodontics, 3D imaging equipment being used to digitize an image of an infected tooth or teeth to thereby form image data"; also, para 70, “The user interface co-operates with the digital templates of the plurality of root canal instruments to allow 2D superimposed views of instruments and canal shapes or canal cross-sections for treatment planning and instrument selection.”; also, para 60, “such features may be guidance tubes that help direct the endodontic tools (such as endodontic files 8) to the orifices 1 of the root canals, thereby allowing for a less invasive intervention.”; also, para 61, “The location of the stop surface is determined by means of a calculation comparing the length of the root canal (as determined from the acquired 3D representation of the root canal) and the length of the foreseen endodontic instrument, such that when inserted, the endodontic instrument 8 penetrates the root canal at the exact desired depth, typically until the apical end of the root canal.”): receiving tooth morphology data showing morphology of the tooth (para 67, “The computer 150 may be used in a computer based method for 3D digital endodontics, 3D imaging equipment being used to digitize an image of an infected tooth or teeth to thereby form image data. The 3D imaging equipment is for generation of volumetric data such as a CT scanner, an MRI scanner, or an ultrasound scanner.”); displaying the image on a display (para 68, “The user interface is preferably adapted to extract a 3D representation of a root canal system from the image data and visualized on a visual display unit.”). Van Lierde does not disclose receiving intraoral scanner data corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of the dental file and the tooth while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, a first part of the dental file extending from an upper surface of the tooth, a second part of the dental file extending into a canal of the tooth; determining from the three-dimensional representation, a first length of the first part of the dental file; subtracting the first length from a total length of the dental file to determine a second length of the second part of the dental file; generating, from the tooth morphology data and from the first length and the second length, an image of the dental file superimposed on the tooth, the image showing the first part of the dental file extending from the upper surface of the tooth, the image showing the second part of the dental file being positioned in the root of the tooth.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gibbs discloses generating, from the tooth morphology data and from the first length and the second length, an image of the dental file superimposed on the tooth, the image showing the first part of the dental file extending from the upper surface of the tooth, the image showing the second part of the dental file being positioned in the root of the tooth (para 52, “The display 100 provides a continuously updated rendering of three-dimensional objects in the surgical area of interest with an overlay of a graphical guidance indicator 102 and a three-dimensional depiction of the surgical tool (e.g., drill) 104.”; also, para 54, “By correctly depicting the drill bit length and diameter, the system permits accurate depiction of the drill depth into the jaw bone.”; also, para 55, “the system 200 depicts the representation of the drill 104, the trajectory and, optionally, the planned implant hole, on the display relative to the prior CT scan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer based method for three-dimensional digital endodontics that digitizes an infected tooth to form tooth morphology data, provides two-dimensional superimposed views of instruments and canal shapes, and visualizes the root canal system on a visual display unit, with the features of Gibbs's invention of rendering a three-dimensional depiction of an elongated dental instrument as an overlay on a previously acquired image of the patient's anatomy, the depiction being sized from the instrument's length so that the depicted depth into the anatomy corresponds to the instrument's actual depth. The combination would have been obvious because Van Lierde already superimposes instrument views on canal shapes for treatment planning but leaves the depicted instrument as a generic template whose extent in the image is not tied to how far the instrument has actually entered the tooth, and Gibbs supplies the missing half of that same practice in the same dental imaging field, teaching that correctly depicting the instrument's length is what permits an accurate depiction of the instrument's depth into the anatomy. A person of ordinary skill combining them would obtain a superimposed instrument depiction whose above-surface and below-surface extents correspond to the instrument's real position, which is the predictable result of rendering a known dimension to scale on a known anatomical image.
Fisker discloses receiving intraoral scanner data corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of the dental file and the tooth while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, a first part of the dental file extending from an upper surface of the tooth, a second part of the dental file extending into a canal of the tooth (para 75, “obtaining a 3D image comprising a first 3D scan of at least part of the patient's set of teeth comprising the damaged tooth, where a scan pin comprising an outer part and an inner part is arranged in the tooth during the 3D scanning, such that the outer part of the scan pin is located at least partly outside the tooth, and the inner part of the scan pin is located at least partly in the tooth, where the inner part of the scan pin corresponds to the post of the post and core, and where the first 3D scan comprises the tooth and at least a part of the scan pin;”; also, para 82, “According to the aspect regarding the use of a scan pin, a scan pin is, during scanning, arranged in a root canal or cavity of the tooth, where the post and core is adapted to be cemented afterwards.”; also, para 84, “The 3D scan can be of the teeth directly in the mouth of the patient using an intra oral 3D scanner.”; also, para 200, “The 3D scans may be intra oral scans, which may be obtained by means of an intra oral scanner.”); determining from the three-dimensional representation (para 87, “That the inner part of the scan pin of the digital 3D shape is represented relative to the tooth in the first 3D scan may be understood as that the position, orientation, depth, placement, arrangement etc. of the inner part of the scan pin of the digital 3D shape is represented, determined, identified, derived, defined etc. relative to the tooth in the first 3D scan. “; also, para 83, “It is an advantage to use a scan pin in the damaged tooth, while scanning for obtaining the exact position, orientation and placement of the bore and for measuring or gauging the bore's depth in the tooth, such that the post's position and depths in the tooth can be determined for virtually designing the post and core.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, in which an elongated dental instrument is depicted to scale on previously acquired image data of the tooth so that its depicted depth corresponds to its actual depth, with the features of Fisker's invention of arranging an elongated object in the root canal of a tooth during a three-dimensional scan performed intraorally, so that the resulting scan comprises the tooth together with the object, the object having an outer part located outside the tooth and an inner part located in the root canal, and of obtaining a dimension of the object's placement in the tooth from that scan. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention of Van Lierde and Gibbs requires knowing how far the instrument has actually entered the tooth in order to depict its depth correctly, but neither reference discloses how that patient-specific fact is captured, and Fisker teaches, in the same dental imaging field, that scanning the tooth intraorally while a rod-shaped object stands in the root canal is a recognized way to capture exactly that fact. A person of ordinary skill working on the combined invention would have looked to Fisker because Fisker addresses the same problem the combined invention leaves open, namely how to determine from a scan the extent to which an object inserted into a root canal has entered it, and substituting the endodontic file of Van Lierde for Fisker's scan pin as the object standing in the canal is no more than the use of a known scanning technique on a different elongated object already present in the same procedure, with the predictable result that the scan captures the tooth and the file together in the position the file actually occupies.
Nuzum discloses a first length of the first part of the dental file (“Software calculates the distance d, in the image, between the end of the handle 20 and the near end of the stopper 22. As one non-limiting example, the software may calculate the fractional number of times the thickness of the stopper 22 fits into the space between the handle 20 and stopper 22, and then multiply this number by the known thickness of the stopper 22.”; also, “An endodontic file 11 is inserted into a tooth 50, and the stopper 22 positioned at the surface of the tooth 50.”); subtracting the first length from a total length of the dental file to determine a second length of the second part of the dental file (“One can readily conclude from Figure 1 that the working length is the length of the shaft 12, minus the sum of the distance d between the handle 20 and the stopper 22, and the width or thickness (in the longitudinal direction) of the stopper 22. Since the length of the shaft and width of the stopper 22 are known, and the distance measuring circuit 24 measures the distance d between the handle 20 and the stopper 22, calculation of the working length is straightforward”; also, “The working length is determined by subtracting this distance, and the width of the stopper, from the length of the file (i.e., the distance from the handle to the tip of the file).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs and Fisker, in which a tooth is scanned intraorally while an endodontic file stands in its root canal with an outer part outside the tooth and an inner part in the canal, and the file is then depicted to scale on previously acquired tooth morphology data, with the features of Nuzum's invention of determining the length of the portion of an endodontic file that lies outside the tooth while the file is inserted in the tooth, and computing the length of the portion that lies within the canal by subtracting that outside length from the known total length of the file. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention of Van Lierde, Gibbs, and Fisker acquires a representation in which the outside portion of the file is visible and the in-canal portion is not, and therefore needs a way to convert what it can observe into the buried length that the depiction requires, and Nuzum supplies precisely that arithmetic for precisely this instrument, teaching that the in-canal length of an endodontic file follows directly from its known total length less the measured outside portion. A person of ordinary skill would have taken the outside length from the three-dimensional representation already available in the combined invention rather than from Nuzum's separate camera measurement, because the combined invention already captures the outside portion of the file in that representation and reading the quantity from a source already in hand avoids adding a second measuring instrument, which is the predictable substitution of one known source of a known quantity for another.
Regarding claim 2, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker and Nuzum discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Gibbs further discloses the tooth morphology data corresponds to an X-ray image obtained before the dental file is positioned in the tooth (para 2, “In dentistry, the preferred imaging modality is cone beam computed tomography, referred to herein as the "CT."”; also, para 3, “Using the image of the anatomical region, the surgeon creates a pre-operative plan in the area of operation identifying the desired location, depth and orientation of an implant on the CT image”; also, para 53, “create or input the surgical plan, including a planned implant location on the prior CT scan 202 of the surgical area.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of digitizing an infected tooth with volumetric imaging equipment to form the tooth morphology data on which the root canal system is visualized, with the features of Gibbs's invention of acquiring an X-ray based cone beam computed tomography image of the patient's anatomy before the instrument is introduced and using that pre-operative image as the stored image on which the instrument representation is later overlaid. The combination would have been obvious because Van Lierde does not specify when its volumetric data is acquired relative to the treatment, while Gibbs establishes that in dentistry the preferred modality is cone beam computed tomography and that the surgeon works from a prior scan captured during pre-operative planning, so a person of ordinary skill would have used the pre-treatment X-ray based image the practitioner already captures during diagnosis as the morphology source, with the predictable result that the file depiction is registered to an image of the tooth as it stood before the file was introduced.
Regarding claim 5, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker and Nuzum discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Gibbs further comprising determining from the three- dimensional representation an angle of the dental file relative to the upper surface of the tooth (para 15, “The detection system determines the location and orientation of an operating axis of the instrument relative to the prestored three-dimensional image.”), wherein the image shows the dental file is at the determined angle relative to the upper surface of the tooth (para 18, “a three-dimensional visual representation of a portion of the instrument on the prestored three-dimensional image based on the location and orientation of the operating axis relative to a longitudinal axis of the planned trajectory.”; also, para 64, “The pitch and yaw visible in this view depict the correct angulation of the drill with respect to the planned drill path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer based method for three-dimensional digital endodontics that superimposes instrument views on canal shapes and visualizes the result on a display, with the features of Gibbs's invention of determining the orientation of an elongated dental instrument's operating axis relative to a stored three-dimensional image and rendering the instrument representation at that determined orientation in the displayed image. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention already renders the file on the tooth from geometric quantities taken from the representation, and orientation is the remaining geometric quantity governing whether the rendered file lies along the path the practitioner is actually taking, and Gibbs teaches in the same dental imaging field that determining and depicting that angulation is what shows the practitioner the instrument's correct angulation with respect to the intended path, with the predictable result of an additional geometric parameter computed and displayed by a pipeline already driven by the representation.
Regarding claim 6, Van Lierde discloses an apparatus for providing an image depicting a representation of a dental file positioned in a root of a tooth, the apparatus comprising (paragraph 1, “The invention relates to a 3D digital endodontics system and method, characterized in that 3D imaging equipment are used to digitize the infected tooth or teeth and wherein a 3D representation of the root canal system is extracted from the image data and visualized on a computer screen.”; also, para 67, “The computer 150 may be used in a computer based method for 3D digital endodontics, 3D imaging equipment being used to digitize an image of an infected tooth or teeth to thereby form image data.”; also, para 70, “The user interface co-operates with the digital templates of the plurality of root canal instruments to allow 2D superimposed views of instruments and canal shapes or canal cross-sections for treatment planning and instrument selection.”; also, para 60, “such features may be guidance tubes that help direct the endodontic tools (such as endodontic files 8) to the orifices 1 of the root canals, thereby allowing for a less invasive intervention.”; also, para 61, “The location of the stop surface is determined by means of a calculation comparing the length of the root canal (as determined from the acquired 3D representation of the root canal) and the length of the foreseen endodontic instrument, such that when inserted, the endodontic instrument 8 penetrates the root canal at the exact desired depth, typically until the apical end of the root canal.”): at least one processor configured to read out and execute instructions stored in at least one memory to thereby cause the apparatus to function as (para 66, “In addition, computer 150 includes a control program 2517 that resides within computer memory storage 2516. Control program 2517 contains instructions that when executed on CPU 151 allow the computer 150 to carry out the operations described with respect to any of the methods of the present invention.”): a receiving unit configured to (para 68, “The user interface is preferably adapted to extract a 3D representation of a root canal system from the image data and visualized on a visual display unit.”): receive tooth morphology data showing morphology of the tooth (para 67, “The computer 150 may be used in a computer based method for 3D digital endodontics, 3D imaging equipment being used to digitize an image of an infected tooth or teeth to thereby form image data. The 3D imaging equipment is for generation of volumetric data such as a CT scanner, an MRI scanner, or an ultrasound scanner.”); and receive a three-dimensional representation of a dental file and the tooth while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, a first part of the dental file extending from an upper surface of the tooth, a second part of the dental file extending into a canal of the tooth; a file position determining unit configured to determine from the three-dimensional representation a first length of the first part the dental file; and an image generation unit configured to: subtract the first length from a total length of the dental file to determine a second length of the second part of the dental file; and generate, from the tooth morphology data and from the first length and the second length, an image of the dental file superimposed on the tooth, the image showing the first part of the dental file extending from the upper surface of the tooth, the image showing the second part of the dental file being positioned in the root of the tooth.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gibbs discloses generate, from the tooth morphology data and from the first length and the second length, an image of the dental file superimposed on the tooth, the image showing the first part of the dental file extending from the upper surface of the tooth, the image showing the second part of the dental file being positioned in the root of the tooth (para 52, “The display 100 provides a continuously updated rendering of three-dimensional objects in the surgical area of interest with an overlay of a graphical guidance indicator 102 and a three-dimensional depiction of the surgical tool (e.g., drill) 104.”; also, para 54, “By correctly depicting the drill bit length and diameter, the system permits accurate depiction of the drill depth into the jaw bone.”; also, para 55, “the system 200 depicts the representation of the drill 104, the trajectory and, optionally, the planned implant hole, on the display relative to the prior CT scan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer for three-dimensional digital endodontics that receives digitized tooth image data, provides two-dimensional superimposed views of instruments and canal shapes, and drives a visual display unit, with the features of Gibbs's invention of rendering a three-dimensional depiction of an elongated dental instrument as an overlay on a previously acquired image of the patient's anatomy, the depiction being sized from the instrument's length so that the depicted depth into the anatomy corresponds to the instrument's actual depth. The combination would have been obvious because Van Lierde's superimposed instrument view is a generic planning template whose extent in the image does not follow the instrument's actual entry into the tooth, and Gibbs teaches in the same dental imaging field that correctly depicting the instrument's length is what permits an accurate depiction of the instrument's depth into the anatomy, with the predictable result of an instrument depiction whose above-surface and below-surface extents correspond to the instrument's real position.
Fisker discloses receive a three-dimensional representation of a dental file and the tooth while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, a first part of the dental file extending from an upper surface of the tooth, a second part of the dental file extending into a canal of the tooth (para 89, “obtaining a 3D image comprising a first 3D scan of at least part of the patient's set of teeth comprising the damaged tooth, where a scan pin comprising an outer part and an inner part is arranged in the tooth during the 3D scanning, such that the outer part of the scan pin is located at least partly outside the tooth, and the inner part of the scan pin is located at least partly in the tooth, where the inner part of the scan pin corresponds to the post of the post and core, and where the first 3D scan comprises the tooth and at least a part of the scan pin;”; also, para 82, “According to the aspect regarding the use of a scan pin, a scan pin is, during scanning, arranged in a root canal or cavity of the tooth, where the post and core is adapted to be cemented afterwards.”; also, para 200, “The 3D scans may be intra oral scans, which may be obtained by means of an intra oral scanner.”); a file position determining unit configured to determine from the three-dimensional representation (para 87, “That the inner part of the scan pin of the digital 3D shape is represented relative to the tooth in the first 3D scan may be understood as that the position, orientation, depth, placement, arrangement etc. of the inner part of the scan pin of the digital 3D shape is represented, determined, identified, derived, defined etc. relative to the tooth in the first 3D scan. “; also, para 83, “It is an advantage to use a scan pin in the damaged tooth, while scanning for obtaining the exact position, orientation and placement of the bore and for measuring or gauging the bore's depth in the tooth, such that the post's position and depths in the tooth can be determined for virtually designing the post and core.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, in which an elongated dental instrument is depicted to scale on previously acquired image data of the tooth so that its depicted depth corresponds to its actual depth, with the features of Fisker's invention of arranging an elongated object in the root canal of a tooth during a three-dimensional scan, so that the resulting scan comprises the tooth together with the object, the object having an outer part located outside the tooth and an inner part located in the root canal, and of obtaining a dimension of the object's placement in the tooth from that scan. The combination would have been obvious because the combined apparatus of Van Lierde and Gibbs must be supplied with the patient-specific fact of how far the instrument has actually entered the tooth in order to depict its depth correctly, and neither reference discloses where that input comes from, while Fisker teaches in the same dental imaging field that a three-dimensional scan taken with a rod-shaped object standing in the root canal captures exactly that. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Fisker because it addresses the same open problem, and using the endodontic file already present in Van Lierde's procedure as the object standing in the canal is no more than applying a known scanning technique to a different elongated object in the same setting, with the predictable result that the apparatus receives a representation of the tooth and the file in the position the file actually occupies.
Nuzum discloses a first length of the first part the dental file (“Software calculates the distance d, in the image, between the end of the handle 20 and the near end of the stopper 22. As one non-limiting example, the software may calculate the fractional number of times the thickness of the stopper 22 fits into the space between the handle 20 and stopper 22, and then multiply this number by the known thickness of the stopper 22.”; also, “An endodontic file 11 is inserted into a tooth 50, and the stopper 22 positioned at the surface of the tooth 50.”); and an image generation unit configured to: subtract the first length from a total length of the dental file to determine a second length of the second part of the dental file (“One can readily conclude from Figure 1 that the working length is the length of the shaft 12, minus the sum of the distance d between the handle 20 and the stopper 22, and the width or thickness (in the longitudinal direction) of the stopper 22. Since the length of the shaft and width of the stopper 22 are known, and the distance measuring circuit 24 measures the distance d between the handle 20 and the stopper 22, calculation of the working length is straightforward.”’; also, “The working length is determined by subtracting this distance, and the width of the stopper, from the length of the file (i.e., the distance from the handle to the tip of the file).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs and Fisker, in which the apparatus receives a three-dimensional representation of a tooth with an endodontic file standing in its root canal and depicts the file to scale on previously acquired tooth morphology data, with the features of Nuzum's invention of determining the length of the portion of an endodontic file that lies outside the tooth while the file is inserted in the tooth, and computing the length of the portion within the canal by subtracting that outside length from the known total length of the file. The combination would have been obvious because the representation the combined apparatus receives shows the outside portion of the file but not the buried portion the depiction requires, so the apparatus needs a rule for converting the one into the other, and Nuzum supplies that rule for this very instrument, teaching that the in-canal length of an endodontic file is its known total length less the measured outside portion. A person of ordinary skill would have taken the outside length from the representation the apparatus already receives rather than from Nuzum's separate camera, because that quantity is already present in the data in hand and drawing it from there avoids a second measuring instrument, which is the predictable substitution of one known source of a known quantity for another.
Regarding claim 7, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum discloses the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein Gibbs further discloses the tooth morphology data is an X-ray image data obtained before the dental file is positioned in the tooth (para 2, “In dentistry, the preferred imaging modality is cone beam computed tomography, referred to herein as the "CT."”; also, para 3, “Using the image of the anatomical region, the surgeon creates a pre-operative plan in the area of operation identifying the desired location, depth and orientation of an implant on the CT image.”; also, para 53, “create or input the surgical plan, including a planned implant location on the prior CT scan 202 of the surgical area.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer that receives tooth image data digitized by volumetric imaging equipment and visualizes the root canal system from it, with the features of Gibbs's invention of acquiring an X-ray based cone beam computed tomography image of the patient's anatomy before the instrument is introduced and using that pre-operative image as the stored image on which the instrument representation is later overlaid. The combination would have been obvious because Van Lierde does not specify when its volumetric data is acquired relative to the treatment, while Gibbs establishes that in dentistry the preferred modality is cone beam computed tomography and that the practitioner works from a prior scan captured during pre-operative planning, so a person of ordinary skill would have used the pre-treatment X-ray based image already captured during diagnosis as the morphology input, with the predictable result that the apparatus registers the file depiction to an image of the tooth as it stood before the file was introduced.
Regarding claim 10, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein Gibbs further discloses; the file position determining unit is further configured to determine from the three-dimensional representation an angle of the dental file relative to the upper surface of the tooth (para 15, “The detection system determines the location and orientation of an operating axis of the instrument relative to the prestored three-dimensional image.”); and the image generation unit is further configured to provide the representation of the dental file in the image such that the image shows the dental file at the determined angle relative to the upper surface of the tooth (para 18, “a three-dimensional visual representation of a portion of the instrument on the prestored three-dimensional image based on the location and orientation of the operating axis relative to a longitudinal axis of the planned trajectory.”; also, para 64, “The pitch and yaw visible in this view depict the correct angulation of the drill with respect to the planned drill path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer for three-dimensional digital endodontics that superimposes instrument views on canal shapes and drives a visual display unit, with the features of Gibbs's invention of determining the orientation of an elongated dental instrument's operating axis relative to a stored three-dimensional image and rendering the instrument representation at that determined orientation in the displayed image. The combination would have been obvious because the combined apparatus already renders the file on the tooth from geometric quantities taken from the representation, and orientation is the remaining geometric quantity governing whether the rendered file lies along the path the practitioner is actually taking, and Gibbs teaches in the same dental imaging field that determining and depicting that angulation is what shows the practitioner the instrument's correct angulation with respect to the intended path, with the predictable result of an additional geometric parameter computed and displayed by units already driven by the representation.
Regarding claim 11, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Frisker, and Nuzum discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, wherein Gibbs further comprising a display device configured to display the X-ray image with the representation of the dental file (para 52, “The display 100 provides a continuously updated rendering of three-dimensional objects in the surgical area of interest with an overlay of a graphical guidance indicator 102 and a three-dimensional depiction of the surgical tool (e.g., drill) 104.”; also, para 55, “the system 200 depicts the representation of the drill 104, the trajectory and, optionally, the planned implant hole, on the display relative to the prior CT scan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer for three-dimensional digital endodontics that generates the tooth image with the instrument representation, with the features of Gibbs's invention of a display device that presents the previously acquired X-ray based scan together with the instrument representation depicted upon it. The combination would have been obvious because the combined apparatus of claim 7 produces the X-ray based tooth image with the file representation upon it but does not itself recite the output device that puts that combined image in front of the practitioner, and Gibbs supplies a display used for that purpose in the same dental imaging field, with the predictable result that the practitioner sees the combined X-ray image and file representation the image generation unit has produced.
Regarding claim 12, Van Lierde discloses a method for generating a composite image of a dental file extending into a tooth, the method comprising (para 67, “The computer 150 may be used in a computer based method for 3D digital endodontics, 3D imaging equipment being used to digitize an image of an infected tooth or teeth to thereby form image data.”; also, para 70, “The user interface co-operates with the digital templates of the plurality of root canal instruments to allow 2D superimposed views of instruments and canal shapes or canal cross-sections for treatment planning and instrument selection.”; also, para 60, “such features may be guidance tubes that help direct the endodontic tools (such as endodontic files 8) to the orifices 1 of the root canals, thereby allowing for a less invasive intervention.”; also, para 61, “The location of the stop surface is determined by means of a calculation comparing the length of the root canal (as determined from the acquired 3D representation of the root canal) and the length of the foreseen endodontic instrument, such that when inserted, the endodontic instrument 8 penetrates the root canal at the exact desired depth, typically until the apical end of the root canal.”): receiving image data corresponding to an X-ray image of the tooth, the X-ray image being acquired without the dental file being positioned in the tooth; receiving intraoral scanner data corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the dental file while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, a first part of the dental file extending from an upper surface of the tooth, a second part of the dental file extending into a canal of the tooth; determining, from the intraoral scanner data, a first length of the first part of the dental file; subtracting the first length from a total length of the dental file to determine a second length of the second part of the dental file; generating, from the first length and the second length, a visual representation of the dental file that is scaled to a same scale as the X-ray image; and superimposing the visual representation of the dental file on the X-ray image of the tooth to generate the composite image, the composite image showing the first part of the dental file extending from the upper surface of the tooth, the composite image showing the second part of the dental file positioned in the canal of the tooth.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gibbs discloses receiving image data corresponding to an X-ray image of the tooth, the X-ray image being acquired without the dental file being positioned in the tooth (para 2, “In dentistry, the preferred imaging modality is cone beam computed tomography, referred to herein as the "CT."”; also, para 3, “Using the image of the anatomical region, the surgeon creates a pre-operative plan in the area of operation identifying the desired location, depth and orientation of an implant on the CT image.”; also, para 53, “create or input the surgical plan, including a planned implant location on the prior CT scan 202 of the surgical area.”); generating, from the first length and the second length, a visual representation of the dental file that is scaled to a same scale as the X-ray image (para 54, By correctly depicting the drill bit length and diameter, the system permits accurate depiction of the drill depth into the jaw bone.”; also, para 69, “The system also preferably depicts the drill, drill bit, jaw, nerves and other components to scale, updated in real time and rendered in the an orthographic projection.”); and superimposing the visual representation of the dental file on the X-ray image of the tooth to generate the composite image, the composite image showing the first part of the dental file extending from the upper surface of the tooth, the composite image showing the second part of the dental file positioned in the canal of the tooth (para 52, “The display 100 provides a continuously updated rendering of three-dimensional objects in the surgical area of interest with an overlay of a graphical guidance indicator 102 and a three-dimensional depiction of the surgical tool (e.g., drill) 104.”; also, para 55, “the system 200 depicts the representation of the drill 104, the trajectory and, optionally, the planned implant hole, on the display relative to the prior CT scan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Van Lierde's invention of a computer based method for three-dimensional digital endodontics that digitizes a tooth to form image data and provides two-dimensional superimposed views of instruments and canal shapes, with the features of Gibbs's invention of acquiring an X-ray based image of the patient's anatomy during pre-operative planning before the instrument is introduced, depicting the instrument to scale from its length and diameter, and overlaying that scaled depiction on the previously acquired scan to produce the displayed composite. The combination would have been obvious because Van Lierde superimposes instrument views on canal shapes but does not tie the superimposed instrument to a pre-treatment radiographic image of the same tooth at a common scale, and Gibbs teaches in the same dental imaging field that the prior scan captured before treatment is the canvas for the instrument depiction and that depicting the instrument to scale is what makes the depicted depth accurate, with the predictable result of a single composite in which the scaled instrument representation and the pre-treatment radiographic image of the tooth are registered to one another.
Fisker discloses receiving intraoral scanner data corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the dental file while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, a first part of the dental file extending from an upper surface of the tooth, a second part of the dental file extending into a canal of the tooth (para 75, “obtaining a 3D image comprising a first 3D scan of at least part of the patient's set of teeth comprising the damaged tooth, where a scan pin comprising an outer part and an inner part is arranged in the tooth during the 3D scanning, such that the outer part of the scan pin is located at least partly outside the tooth, and the inner part of the scan pin is located at least partly in the tooth, where the inner part of the scan pin corresponds to the post of the post and core, and where the first 3D scan comprises the tooth and at least a part of the scan pin;”; also, para 82, “According to the aspect regarding the use of a scan pin, a scan pin is, during scanning, arranged in a root canal or cavity of the tooth, where the post and core is adapted to be cemented afterwards.”; also, para 84, “The 3D scan can be of the teeth directly in the mouth of the patient using an intra oral 3D scanner.”; also, para 200, “The 3D scans may be intra oral scans, which may be obtained by means of an intra oral scanner.”); determining, from the intraoral scanner data (para 83, “It is an advantage to use a scan pin in the damaged tooth, while scanning for obtaining the exact position, orientation and placement of the bore and for measuring or gauging the bore's depth in the tooth, such that the post's position and depths in the tooth can be determined for virtually designing the post and core.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, in which a scaled representation of an elongated dental instrument is composited onto a pre-treatment radiographic image of the tooth, with the features of Fisker's invention of arranging an elongated object in the root canal of a tooth during a three-dimensional scan performed intraorally, so that the resulting scan comprises the tooth together with the object, the object having an outer part located outside the tooth and an inner part located in the root canal, and of obtaining a dimension of the object's placement in the tooth from that scan. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention composites the instrument at a depth it must obtain from somewhere, and the pre-treatment radiograph on which it composites was by definition taken before the file was introduced and therefore cannot supply that depth, while Fisker teaches in the same dental imaging field that an intraoral three-dimensional scan taken with a rod-shaped object standing in the root canal captures the object's placement in the tooth. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Fisker for the one input the pre-treatment radiograph cannot give, and using the endodontic file already present in the procedure as the object standing in the canal is no more than applying a known scanning technique to a different elongated object in the same setting, with the predictable result that the intraoral
Nuzum discloses a first length of the first part of the dental file (‘Software calculates the distance d, in the image, between the end of the handle 20 and the near end of the stopper 22. As one non-limiting example, the software may calculate the fractional number of times the thickness of the stopper 22 fits into the space between the handle 20 and stopper 22, and then multiply this number by the known thickness of the stopper 22.”; also, “An endodontic file 11 is inserted into a tooth 50, and the stopper 22 positioned at the surface of the tooth 50.”); subtracting the first length from a total length of the dental file to determine a second length of the second part of the dental file (“One can readily conclude from Figure 1 that the working length is the length of the shaft 12, minus the sum of the distance d between the handle 20 and the stopper 22, and the width or thickness (in the longitudinal direction) of the stopper 22. Since the length of the shaft and width of the stopper 22 are known, and the distance measuring circuit 24 measures the distance d between the handle 20 and the stopper 22, calculation of the working length is straightforward”; also, “The working length is determined by subtracting this distance, and the width of the stopper, from the length of the file (i.e., the distance from the handle to the tip of the file).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs and Fisker, in which a tooth is scanned intraorally while an endodontic file stands in its root canal and a scaled representation of the file is composited onto a pre-treatment radiograph of that tooth, with the features of Nuzum's invention of determining the length of the portion of an endodontic file that lies outside the tooth while the file is inserted in the tooth, and computing the length of the portion within the canal by subtracting that outside length from the known total length of the file. The combination would have been obvious because the composite the combined invention produces must show a definite extent of the file above the tooth surface and a definite extent within the canal, and the intraoral scan shows only the outside portion, so the buried extent has to be derived, and Nuzum supplies that derivation for this very instrument, teaching that the in-canal length of an endodontic file is its known total length less the measured outside portion. A person of ordinary skill would have read the outside length from the intraoral scanner data already acquired rather than from Nuzum's separate camera image, because that quantity is already captured in the data in hand and taking it from there avoids introducing a second measuring instrument into the operatory, which is the predictable substitution of one known source of a known quantity for another.
Claim(s) 3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Lierde et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130171580) as modified by Gibbs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160151117), Fisker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130209965), and Nuzum et al. (W.O. Pub. No. 2023192407), further in view of Elbaz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180028063).
Regarding claim 3, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum discloses the method according to claim 1, three-dimensional representation is generated by an intraoral digital impression scanner.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Elbaz discloses the three-dimensional representation is generated by an intraoral digital impression scanner (para 11, “capturing three-dimensional (3D) surface model data of at least a portion of a subject's tooth using an intraoral scanner”; also, para 14, “Any of the methods and apparatuses described herein may be used to model, image and/or render a 3D image of a single tooth or region of a tooth, multiple teeth, teeth and gums, or other intraoral structures, particularly from within a subject's mouth.”; also, para 15, “In general, the methods and apparatuses for performing them described herein include 3D color intraoral scanning/scanners. For example, the methods may include capturing color intraoral 3D data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum, in which a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the file standing in its canal is acquired and the file's protruding and buried lengths are derived from it, with the features of Elbaz's invention of an intraoral scanner that captures three-dimensional surface model data of a subject's tooth from within the subject's mouth and renders a three-dimensional image of a single tooth or region of a tooth. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention requires patient-specific three-dimensional surface geometry of the individual tooth in which the file stands, and Elbaz supplies a scanner directed to capturing exactly that geometry for a single tooth from within the mouth, with the predictable result that the tooth surface against which the protruding portion of the file is measured is the patient's own tooth surface as captured chairside, and no separate physical impression step is required.
Regarding claim 8, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum discloses the apparatus according to claim 7, three-dimensional representation is generated by an intraoral digital impression scanner.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Elbaz discloses the three-dimensional representation is generated by an intraoral digital impression scanner (para 11, “capturing three-dimensional (3D) surface model data of at least a portion of a subject's tooth using an intraoral scanner”; also, para 14, “Any of the methods and apparatuses described herein may be used to model, image and/or render a 3D image of a single tooth or region of a tooth, multiple teeth, teeth and gums, or other intraoral structures, particularly from within a subject's mouth.”; also, para 15, “In general, the methods and apparatuses for performing them described herein include 3D color intraoral scanning/scanners. For example, the methods may include capturing color intraoral 3D data.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum, in which the receiving unit is supplied with a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the file standing in its canal from which the file position determining unit derives the protruding length, with the features of Elbaz's invention of an intraoral scanner that captures three-dimensional surface model data of a subject's tooth from within the subject's mouth and renders a three-dimensional image of a single tooth or region of a tooth. The combination would have been obvious because the receiving unit of the combined apparatus requires patient-specific three-dimensional surface geometry of the individual tooth in which the file stands, and Elbaz supplies a scanner directed to capturing exactly that geometry for a single tooth from within the mouth, with the predictable result that the apparatus is fed the patient's own tooth surface as captured chairside, without a separate physical impression step.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Lierde et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130171580) as modified by Gibbs et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160151117), Fisker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130209965), and Nuzum et al. (W.O. Pub. No. 2023192407), further in view of Deemer (U.S. Doc. No. 4340364).
Regarding claim 4, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker and Nuzum discloses the method according to claim 1, dental file includes a marker on a surface of the dental file, the marker being used in determining the first length.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Deemer discloses wherein the dental file includes a marker on a surface of the dental file, the marker being used in determining the first length (col 2, “Beginning approximately 16 mm from the end of shank 12 that joins the screw tip 16, is a series of etched bands 18, 20, 22 which preferably have a length along the shank 12 of 3 mm and are spaced from each other by polished or unetched bands 24 and 26 that have a similar length of 3 mm. When the test file 10 is in use and inserted into the root canal, the dental surgeon may accurately determine the tooth length by observing the quantity and amount of the band extending from the crown of the tooth, as will be subsequently explained.”; also, col 3, “If the first calibration band 18 begins at the conventional 16 mm from the end of the shank 12, i.e., the junction of the shank 12 and the tip 16, and if each of the calibration bands has a length of 3 mm, it can readily be observed that the portion of the calibration band 26 extending above the coronal cavity 42 is extremely close to 2.5 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum, in which the length of the portion of the dental file lying outside the tooth is determined from a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the file, with the features of Deemer's invention of a series of calibration bands etched into the shank of an endodontic file at known distances from the tip, the amount of a band standing above the crown of the tooth being observed to arrive at a length. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention must read the extent of the file above the tooth surface against something on the file itself, and a bare tapered shank offers no such reference, while Deemer teaches in the same endodontic field that bands permanently etched into the shank at known spacing let the practitioner determine a length by observing how much of a band stands above the crown. A person of ordinary skill would have marked the file of the combined invention in that way because a marking formed on the instrument travels with it and cannot be displaced during the procedure, with the predictable result that the first length is read against a known scale carried on the file rather than estimated on a featureless shaft.
Regarding claim 9, Van Lierde as modified by Gibbs, Fisker and Nuzum discloses apparatus according to claim 7, dental file includes a marker on a surface of the dental file that is used in determining the first length.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Deemer discloses wherein the dental file includes a marker on a surface of the dental file that is used in determining the first length (col 2, “Beginning approximately 16 mm from the end of shank 12 that joins the screw tip 16, is a series of etched bands 18, 20, 22 which preferably have a length along the shank 12 of 3 mm and are spaced from each other by polished or unetched bands 24 and 26 that have a similar length of 3 mm. When the test file 10 is in use and inserted into the root canal, the dental surgeon may accurately determine the tooth length by observing the quantity and amount of the band extending from the crown of the tooth, as will be subsequently explained.”; also, col 3, “If the first calibration band 18 begins at the conventional 16 mm from the end of the shank 12, i.e., the junction of the shank 12 and the tip 16, and if each of the calibration bands has a length of 3 mm, it can readily be observed that the portion of the calibration band 26 extending above the coronal cavity 42 is extremely close to 2.5 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, Fisker, and Nuzum, in which the length of the portion of the dental file lying outside the tooth is determined from a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the file, with the features of Deemer's invention of a series of calibration bands etched into the shank of an endodontic file at known distances from the tip, the amount of a band standing above the crown of the tooth being observed to arrive at a length. The combination would have been obvious because the combined invention must read the extent of the file above the tooth surface against something on the file itself, and a bare tapered shank offers no such reference, while Deemer teaches in the same endodontic field that bands permanently etched into the shank at known spacing let the practitioner determine a length by observing how much of a band stands above the crown. A person of ordinary skill would have marked the file of the combined invention in that way because a marking formed on the instrument travels with it and cannot be displaced during the procedure, with the predictable result that the first length is read against a known scale carried on the file rather than estimated on a featureless shaft.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's argument at page 7 of the Remarks, with respect to the objection to claim 1 for lacking a definite article before the word "tooth" in the last line of the claim, is persuasive. The phrase objected to has been removed by amendment and the last limitation of claim 1 now reads "displaying the image on a display." That objection has therefore been withdrawn.
On page 9 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6, the Applicant argues that Van Lierde "generates a three-dimensional representation of a tooth's root canal anatomy alone, depicting instruments only as superimposed generic digital templates for planning," and that "Van Lierde is silent regarding scanning a file positioned in a tooth, such as claimed." This argument is persuasive with respect to the acquisition of the three-dimensional representation. As shown in the citations, Van Lierde discloses "The 3D imaging equipment is for generation of volumetric data such as a CT scanner, an MRI scanner, or an ultrasound scanner" (Van Lierde, paragraph [0067]), and the terms "intraoral," "intra-oral," and "digital impression" appear nowhere in Van Lierde. Van Lierde is therefore no longer relied upon for that limitation. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 over Van Lierde in view of Gibbs, the rejection of claims 3 and 8 further in view of Elbaz, and the rejection of claims 4 and 9 further in view of Curry, all set forth in the Office action of May 6, 2026, have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by Applicant's amendment, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made as set forth above.
On page 9 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6, the Applicant argues that Gibbs and Elbaz are each "silent regarding a three-dimensional representation of a dental file and a tooth while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, such as claimed." These arguments have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
On page 9 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 9, the Applicant argues that Curry "is silent regarding a three-dimensional representation of a dental file and a tooth while the dental file is positioned in the tooth, such as claimed." This argument has been considered but is moot because it does not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection. Curry is no longer applied.
On page 10 of the Applicant's Remarks, the Applicant argues that dependent claims 2-5 and 7-11 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 6, and that they are separately allowable because they add patentable elements, while deferring further remarks on them. This argument has been considered but is moot because it does not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection. Each dependent claim is separately mapped above with its own element headers and its own prior-art citations, and no dependent claim is rejected by dependency alone.
On page 7 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to new claim 12, the Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose, teach, or suggest "receiving intraoral scanner data corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of the tooth and the dental file while the dental file is positioned in the tooth." This argument has been considered but is moot because it does not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights