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 .
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 pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “for receiving a scan post and for fastening to a scan post” in line 3. It is unclear whether this limitation is referring to the same scan post recited in the preamble or another. For examining purposes, the limitation was understood as “for receiving the scan post and for fastening to the scan post” such that they are referring to the same scan post that was previously introduced.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the wing has a surface and on its surface a plurality of positioning elements”. It is unclear whether the wing surface is the same as the “unique contour” recited in claim 17 or not. For examining purposes, it was understood that the surface if the wing and the unique contour are the same. Clarification is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein two wings adjoin the holding portion”. It is unclear whether the two wings include the claimed “wing” or are in addition to it. For examining purposes, it was understood that the two wings include the wing recited in claim 17 and that claim 17 requires “at least one wing”. Clarification is required.
Claim 32 also recites the limitation “for receiving and fastening to a scan post”. It was also assumed that it is referring to the same scan post recited earlier in the claim such that it is “for receiving and fastening to the scan post”.
Claims 18, 20-23, 25-32 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-22, 31, 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (JP2019217138A), translation provided.
Regarding claim 17, Kimura teaches a scan element (9) for a digital scan and for releasable fastening to a scan post fastened in an implant, an abutment, or an installation region of a jaw ([0019] and Fig. 4), comprising
a holding portion (9a) for receiving a scan post and for fastening to a scan post, the holding portion having a height in a height direction in the direction of the longitudinal extent of the scan post (see Figures),
a wing (9b) adjoining the holding portion (9a) and extending at an angle of 10 to 170 with respect to the height alignment of the holding portion (see annotated Fig. below; such that the angle between 9a and 9b must be between that range and appears to be a right angle between some of the wings and holding portions),
wherein the wing (9b) at least sectionally has such a unique contour (formed by surfaces 10) that two adjacent scanned portions in a digital scan are uniquely distinguishable and assignable (see at least Figures and [0032-0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), wherein the wing has a wing height extending in the height direction, which is at most as great as the height of the holding portion (see Figure 4; such that the wing 9b has a height only slightly lower than the holding portion height 9a).
Regarding claims 19-21, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), wherein the wing has a surface and on its surface a plurality of positioning elements (10), wherein two adjacent positioning elements are different from one another (see at least Fig. 5c; such that they are each a different size) and distinguishable in a scan and the positioning elements are spaced apart from one another (see at least Fig. 5c) and wherein at least two of the positioning elements have a different height and/or a different cross-section (see at least Fig. 5c; such that they are each a different sizes and heights).
Regarding claim 22, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), wherein the wing has a wing body which contour changes in the direction of a free end of the wing (see at least Figure 5).
Regarding claim 31, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), wherein the scan element has a surface such that detection of the scan element in a digital scan occurs with a negligible error rate in practical use ([0032]).
Regarding claim 33, Kimura teaches a scan accessory system for digitally scanning a dental situation in a patient's mouth (see Figures, and ([0019]), comprising
a scan post (6) for fastening to an implant, an abutment, or an installation region of a jaw, and a scan element (9) for releasable fastening to the scan post (see Figure 4),
wherein the scan post has a post body extending in the longitudinal direction, which has a holding region with a contact surface for contacting the scan element (see Figure 4),
the scan element has a holding portion (9a) for receiving and fastening to a scan post (see Fig. 4), the holding portion having a height in a height direction in the direction of longitudinal extent of the scan post (see Fig. 4),
the scan element has a wing (9b) adjoining the holding portion (9a) and extending at an angle of 10 to 170 with respect to the height direction of the holding portion (see annotated Fig. below; such that the angle between 9a and 9b must be between that range and appears to be a right angle between some of the wings and holding portions),
wherein the wing (9b) at least sectionally has such a unique contour (formed by surfaces 10) that two adjacent scanned portions in a digital scan are uniquely distinguishable and assignable (see at least Figures and [0032-0034]),
the holding region is configured such that the scan element can be fastened to the scan post in the height direction at any position and its height can be continuously adjusted in the longitudinal extent of the scan post ([0028]; such that the two are engaged by frictional engagement and therefore are releasable and adjustable relative to each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Kimura teaches the scan accessory system according to claim 33 (see rejection above), wherein the wing has a wing height extending in the height direction, which is at most as great as a height of the holding portion (see Figure 4; such that the wing 9b has a height only slightly lower than the holding portion height 9a).
Regarding claim 35, Kimura teaches the scan accessory system according to claim 33 (see rejection above), wherein the scan element can be arranged on the scan post positioned in a patient's mouth in such a way that the scan element is spaced apart from the patient's gingiva (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 36-38, Kimura teaches the scan accessory system according to claim 33 (see rejection above), wherein the scan element can be fastened to the scan post such that it can pivot around the scan post ([0028]; the two are engaged frictionally and therefore the connection is releasable and allows their relative rotation) and the scan element can pivot at an angle of at least 90° or the scan element can pivot at an angle of at least 180° (the limitation is functional and therefore due to the frictional engagement discloses, the post is fully capable of pivoting at any angle).
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.
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP2019217138A), translation provided, in view of Gittleman (US 6,213,773 B1).
Regarding claims 24-26, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), but does not teach wherein two wings adjoin the holding portion, and wherein the two wings are arranged opposite one another, and the two wings are enclosing an angle between 120° and 180°.
Gittleman teaches a dental impression post holder comprising a holding portion (21) and wings extending from opposite ends of the holder forming a cross bar (20) and forming a straight angle (i.e., 180° angle) with the holding portion (see Figure 3). Gittleman teaches that the crossbar offers more surface area and dimensional stability (Col. 3 lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the scan element to have two wings adjoining the holding portion, as taught by Gittleman, because it would enhance the stability of element.
Regarding claim 27, Kimura in view of Gittleman teaches the scan element according to claim 24 (see rejection above). Kimura teaches two wings may have different lengths (see Fig. 4 and at least [0013], [0035-0036]; such that an anterior wing may be longer than other wings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the wings have different lengths depending on where they are positioned on the jaw and what structures they correspond to.
Regarding claim 28, Kimura in view of Gittleman teaches the scan element according to claim 24 (see rejection above). Kimura teaches two wings have the same or substantially the same width (see Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 23, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP2019217138A), translation provided, in view of Tuckman (US 2023/0011481 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 22 (see rejection above), but does not teach the wing has a wing body tapering in height or width.
Tuckman teaches an apparatus for facilitating intraoral scanning comprising a wing portion (11) comprising a bore (22) for receiving a body (26) and the wing portion tapers with respect to its width (see Fig. 3) and its height (see Figs. 1-2). Tuckman teaches the tapering/facets are selected for minimizing shadowing or obstruction during scanning ([0014-0016], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the wing to be tapered, as taught by Tuckman, because it would reduce the possibility of shadowing or obstruction and therefore capturing of more surface area during scanning.
Regarding claims 29-30, Kimura teaches scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), but does not teach the scan element consists of a non-toxic material detectable by a digital scanner, and the scan element consists of plastic or metal.
Tuckman teaches an apparatus for facilitating intraoral scanning comprising scan abutments and the scan abutments being made of a metal, specifically, Titanium Grade 5 ([0066]), which is a known non-toxic material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the scan element to be formed of titanium, as taught by Tuckman, because it is a known non-toxic material that would be safe and suitable for use in the within the body.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP2019217138A), translation provided, in view of Fernandez (WO1996037160 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Kimura teaches the scan element according to claim 17 (see rejection above), but does not teach the holding portion has a lateral opening such that the scan post can be received through the opening, or the holding portion being formed as a claw or a clamp.
Fernandez teaches a system for taking dental impressions comprising a holder (1) configured for receiving positioning element (2). Fernandez teaches the holder may have a complete cylindrical configuration (see Figures 20, 21) or a C-shape configuration (see Figure 22) and that the C-shape configuration is advantageous for use in cases where the elements are very close to each other (see Figures and at least page 8 lines 24-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the holding portion to include a lateral opening thereby defining a C-shaped holder, as taught by Fernandez, because modification of the cylindrical configuration to be a C-shaped configuration represents a known equivalent that performs the same function and achieves the same intended result. Additionally, such modification would be advantageous for accommodating a specific condition of use, such as for example, when it is to be used in areas where a space is limited.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP2019217138A), translation provided, in view of Dos Santos (WO2022/219395 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Kimura teaches the scan accessory system according to claim 33 (see rejection above), wherein several scan posts are placed in a patient's mouth (see Fig. 4) and at least one of the scan posts carries a scan element (see Fig. 4), but it does not teach the scan element being connected to one of the other scan posts.
Dos Santos teaches a scan accessory system comprising a scan element (7) having openings for receiving more than one scan body (2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the scan element being capable of receiving more than one scan body, as taught by Dos Santos, because it would provide an arrangement that would be able to accommodate multiple implant restorations, in addition to reducing component count and relative movement between components.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (JP2019217138A), translation provided, in view of Names (US 5,055,047).
Regarding claim 40, Kimura teaches method of using a scan accessory system according to claim 33 (see rejection above), with a scan element and a scan post, characterized by the following steps:
- fastening the scan post in an implant or an installation region in an oral cavity (see Fig. 4);
- attaching the scan element to the scan post from the side or from above ([0028]; the scan body is inserted into the opening);
- aligning the scan element such that a gap between the scan post and an adjacent scan post or tooth is at least partially bridged (see Fig. 4);
- carrying out a digital scan by means of a digital scanner (7);
- releasing the scan element and removing it from the oral cavity (see at least [0028-0034]; the scan element must be removed from the mouth when the scanning is completed);
- removing the scan post from the implant or the installation region (the scan post must be removed after the scanning is completed).
Kimura does not explicitly teach contacting the scan element with its free end to the adjacent scan post or tooth and fastening or bonding the free end of the scan element to the adjacent scan post.
Names teaches a dental impression system comprising an element having a holding portion (17) and a wing portion (14). Names teaches two adjacent elements may be bonded to each other as to form a rigid frame (see at least Figures 1A, 2-3 and Col. 4 lines 17-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify two adjacent elements to be fastened to one another, as taught by Names, because it would provide rigidity and stability of the element along a dental arch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/HEIDI M EIDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights