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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,361,383 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the independent claims of this application are substantially recited in the independent claims of U.S. Patent 12,361,383.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 7-13 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-13 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A method for bi-directional integration between an intraoral scanner and a dental lab, the method comprising:
a dental product management platform receiving an instruction to create a new dental product prescription from an operator via a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform provided on the intraoral scanner;
the dental product management platform creating the new dental product prescription;
the dental product management platform receiving prescription information from the operator via the graphical user interface;
the dental product management platform receiving scanned image data from the intraoral scanner, the scanned image data being obtained from a scan of a patient performed by the intraoral scanner;
the dental product management platform creating a new dental product order based on the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data;
the dental product management platform validating the scanned image data in real time to determine whether the scan is of acceptable quality to fabricate a dental product that meets the requirements of the dental product prescription; and
upon determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality, the dental product management platform provides a notification to the operator via the graphical user interface to use the particular intraoral scanner to take a second scan of the patient using the particular intraoral scanner.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity” because receiving an instruction to create a new dental product prescription from an operator; creating the new dental product prescription; receiving prescription information from the operator; receiving scanned image data, the scanned image data being obtained from a scan of a patient; creating a new dental product order based on the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data; validating the scanned image data to determine whether the scan is of acceptable quality to fabricate a dental product that meets the requirements of the dental product prescription; and upon determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality, provides a notification to the operator to take a second scan of the patient amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), at the currently claimed high level of generality.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1 and 7, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting scanners, a management platform, graphical user interface, and a management system to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the scanners, management platform, graphical user interface, and management system are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data, creating data, receiving information, analyzing/validating data, and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claims also recite the additional element of receiving scanned image data from the intraoral scanner. Such steps would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art and are well-understood, routine and conventional activities specified at a high level of generality. It is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and therefore adds insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-6 and 8-13 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1 and 7 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1 and 7. Therefore, claim(s) 2-6 and 8-13 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-6 and 8-13 describe further limitations regarding an artificial intelligence engine reviewing the scanned image data and scoring the scanned image, determining that the scanned image data is of acceptable quality, and determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality, allocating the new dental product order to the dental lab, and sending the new dental product order that includes the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data to the dental lab, updating the dental product prescription created by the operator into a format required by the dental lab, scanning a patient and obtaining scanned image data, and accessing the GUI. The artificial intelligence engine is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing generic computer functions of analyzing data and performing calculations) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 7, without adding significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to the platform receiving an instruction, receiving information and image data, and providing a notification, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-6 and 13 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 1 recites the limitation "the particular intraoral scanner" in lines 20 & 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 13 recite the limitation "the dental product prescription created by the operator" in lines 2-3 of claim 6 and lines 3-4 of claim 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note the independent claims appear to recite that the platform creates the prescription. Clarification is required.
Claims 2-5 incorporate the deficiencies of claim 1, through dependency, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “the dental project management system” to “the dental product management system“ at lines 2-3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “…upon determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable: provide…” to “…upon determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality: provide….“ Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the GUI”. However, this acronym has not been explained. Examiner suggests amending independent claim 7 to recite “…a graphical user interface (GUI)…” at line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “a graphical user interface” at line 8. It is unclear if this is the same “a graphical user interface” recited at line 4, or different. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “a particular intraoral scanner” at line 9. It is unclear if this is the same “a particular intraoral scanner” recited at line 5, or different. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “a patient” and “scanned image data.” It is unclear if this is the same “a patient” and “scanned image data” recited in independent claim 7, or different. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “the requirements” to “requirements.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (US 2021/0321872 A1) in view of Fridman et al. (US 2022/0233284 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 1, Saphier discloses A method for bi-directional integration between an intraoral scanner and a dental lab, the method comprising (see Fig. 1 and para. 208 & 209 of Saphier):
a dental product management platform receiving an instruction to create a new dental product prescription from an operator via a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform (Fig. 1, para. 231, 240, and 491 of Saphier; A user may enter a smart scanning mode by making a selection to perform a smart scan from a user interface of intraoral scan application 115. Once user information has been added once, a doctor may just start scanning, and the intraoral scan application may automatically identify the patient based on his teeth shape. A 3D model generated based on the current visit may then be automatically associated with the patient and stored in the patient's file, and/or a prescription may be started for the patient, and patient information may automatically be added to the prescription. At block 1036, the 3D model may be displayed (e.g., output to a display of a GUI of intraoral scan application 115 of FIG. 1).);
the dental product management platform creating the new dental product prescription (para. 281 and 282 of Saphier; intraoral scan application 115 may automatically generate prescriptions for treating patients. Intraoral scan application 115 may automatically generate prescriptions for orthodontic treatment and/or restorative treatment.);
the dental product management platform receiving prescription information from the operator via the graphical user interface (para. 200 and 239 of Saphier; note the user input selecting prescription details; For a first time patient, user name and details are manually or automatically added to a patient record. For manual entry, the doctor or a technician may input patient details into intraoral scan application 115.);
the dental product management platform receiving scanned image data from the intraoral scanner, the scanned image data being obtained from a scan of a patient performed by the intraoral scanner (Fig. 20 and para. 591 of Saphier; At block 2002 of method 2000, processing logic receives a plurality of intraoral scans of a patient that were generated by an intraoral scanner.);
the dental product management platform creating a new dental product order based on the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data (para. 591-593 of Saphier; Generating the prosthodontic prescription may include adding a 3D model of a preparation tooth and/or surrounding teeth to the prescription, inputting an indication of a tooth number to be treated to the prescription, determining and inputting a type of dental prosthesis to be manufactured (e.g., an inlay, an only, a bridge, a crown, a denture, and so on), determining and inputting a type of material to be used for the dental prosthesis, determining and inputting a dental lab to manufacture the dental prosthesis, and so on. Once the restorative prescription is generated, it may automatically be sent to a dental lab indicated in the prescription.);
the dental product management platform validating the scanned image data in real time to determine whether the scan is of acceptable quality to fabricate a dental product that meets the requirements of the dental product prescription (para. 567 and 295 of Saphier; intraoral scan application 115 analyzes a generated 3D surface or 3D model and determines one or more quality ratings for the 3D model or surface. Different quality ratings may be assigned to different portions of the 3D model, such as to portions of a margin line, areas of a preparation tooth, areas surrounding a preparation tooth, and so on. Intraoral scan application 115 may provide feedback on areas that fail to meet certain quality criteria and that might benefit from rescanning to generate a better quality 3D model of a dental site.; the quality of one or more automatic determinations, the quality of a generated 3D model of a dental arch and/or the quality of a manufactured dental prosthesis can be affected by the presence or lack of a palatal area, voids, an amount of color information, one or more unclear or conflicting areas, and so on. Method 1600 may detect these and other issues that can negatively impact treatment, and can recommend rescanning of areas where these issues are identified.); and
upon determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality, the dental product management platform provides a notification to the operator via the graphical user interface to use the particular intraoral scanner to take a second scan of the patient using the particular intraoral scanner (para. 295 and 567 of Saphier; intraoral scan application 115 analyzes a generated 3D surface or 3D model and determines one or more quality ratings for the 3D model or surface. Different quality ratings may be assigned to different portions of the 3D model, such as to portions of a margin line, areas of a preparation tooth, areas surrounding a preparation tooth, and so on. Intraoral scan application 115 may provide feedback on areas that fail to meet certain quality criteria and that might benefit from rescanning to generate a better quality 3D model of a dental site. For example, intraoral scan application 115 may determine an amount of scanned gums or gingiva around teeth, and in particular around a preparation tooth. The amount of scanned gums may be compared to a scanned gums threshold, and if the detected amount of scanned gums surrounding a tooth is less than the threshold, then intraoral scan application 115 may flag that tooth for receiving further scans of gums. In an example, it may be beneficial to scan at least 3 mm of gingival tissue surrounding every tooth. Accordingly, if an outer border of any scanned region of gum tissue around a tooth is less than 3 mm from the tooth, then that region of the gum tissue and/or the tooth may be flagged to the doctor for further scanning.).
Saphier does not expressly disclose a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform provided on the intraoral scanner.
Fridman discloses a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform provided on the intraoral scanner (see Fig. 8 and para. 207, 208, 242, & 243 of Fridman; Scanner 850A may include a touchscreen 852A, and intraoral scan application 820A may send data to be displayed on the touchscreen 852A during an intraoral scanning session. The data to be displayed on touchscreen 852A may include virtual buttons, a virtual keypad, a full or partial view of the 3D surface, a viewfinder image, a portion of a viewfinder image, and/or other data. The data to be displayed on touchscreen 852A may be still data (e.g., buttons, menus, icons, etc.) and/or moving data (e.g., video). A user may interface with the touchscreen (e.g., by pressing a virtual button), and the scanner 850A may send control signals to intraoral scan application 820A based on such user interaction with the touchscreen. FIG. 11B illustrates an intraoral scanner 1100 having a touchscreen 1102 displaying an interface for navigating between scanning segments during intraoral scanning.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Saphier to include a graphical user interface, as taught by Fridman. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of performing intraoral scans (para. 150 of Fridman).
(B) Referring to claim 2, Saphier discloses wherein the dental product management platform validating the scanned image data includes an artificial intelligence engine reviewing the scanned image data and scoring the scanned image data based on the review (para. 373, 344, 348, and 571-573 of Saphier).
(C) Referring to claim 3, Saphier discloses wherein the artificial intelligence engine determines that the scanned image data is of acceptable quality when the score of the scanned image data is at or above a required threshold level (para. 373, 344, 348, and 571-573 of Saphier).
(D) Referring to claim 4, Saphier discloses wherein the artificial intelligence engine determines that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality when the score of the scanned image data is below a required threshold level (para. 373, 344, 348, and 571-573 of Saphier).
(E) Referring to claim 5, Saphier discloses further comprising upon determining that the scanned image data is of acceptable quality, the dental product management platform: allocating the new dental product order to the dental lab, and sending the new dental product order that includes the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data to the dental lab (para. 91, 291, 293, and 591-593 of Saphier).
(F) Referring to claim 7, Saphier discloses A dental product management system configured to provide bi-directional integration between one or more intraoral scanners and one or more dental labs, the dental project management system comprising (see Fig. 1 and para. 208 & 209 of Saphier):
a dental product management platform that includes a graphical user interface accessible by a particular intraoral scanner of the one or more intraoral scanners, wherein the dental product management platform is configured to (see Fig. 1 and para. 246, 208, 209, and 211 of Saphier; Computing device 105 may be coupled to one or more intraoral scanner 150 (also referred to as a scanner) and/or a data store 125 via a wired or wireless connection. In one embodiment, multiple scanners 150 in dental office 108 wirelessly connect to computing device 105. Intraoral scan application 115 provides in a graphic user interface (GUI) feedback to show that the system understands where it is. This can include providing an indication (e.g., a visual indication) as to whether the intraoral scan application 115 has detected that the scanner 150 is inside of or outside of a patient's mouth.):
receive an instruction to create a new dental product prescription from an operator via a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform (Fig. 1, para. 231, 240, and 491 of Saphier; A user may enter a smart scanning mode by making a selection to perform a smart scan from a user interface of intraoral scan application 115. Once user information has been added once, a doctor may just start scanning, and the intraoral scan application may automatically identify the patient based on his teeth shape. A 3D model generated based on the current visit may then be automatically associated with the patient and stored in the patient's file, and/or a prescription may be started for the patient, and patient information may automatically be added to the prescription. At block 1036, the 3D model may be displayed (e.g., output to a display of a GUI of intraoral scan application 115 of FIG. 1).);
create the new dental product prescription (para. 281 and 282 of Saphier; intraoral scan application 115 may automatically generate prescriptions for treating patients. Intraoral scan application 115 may automatically generate prescriptions for orthodontic treatment and/or restorative treatment.);
receive prescription information from the operator via the graphical user interface (para. 200 and 239 of Saphier; note the user input selecting prescription details; For a first time patient, user name and details are manually or automatically added to a patient record. For manual entry, the doctor or a technician may input patient details into intraoral scan application 115.);
receive scanned image data from the particular intraoral scanner, the scanned image data being obtained from a scan of a patient performed by the particular intraoral scanner (Fig. 20 and para. 591 of Saphier; At block 2002 of method 2000, processing logic receives a plurality of intraoral scans of a patient that were generated by an intraoral scanner.);
create a new dental product order based on the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data (para. 591-593 of Saphier; Generating the prosthodontic prescription may include adding a 3D model of a preparation tooth and/or surrounding teeth to the prescription, inputting an indication of a tooth number to be treated to the prescription, determining and inputting a type of dental prosthesis to be manufactured (e.g., an inlay, an only, a bridge, a crown, a denture, and so on), determining and inputting a type of material to be used for the dental prosthesis, determining and inputting a dental lab to manufacture the dental prosthesis, and so on. Once the restorative prescription is generated, it may automatically be sent to a dental lab indicated in the prescription.);
validate the scanned image data in real time to determine whether the scan is of acceptable quality to fabricate a dental product that meets the requirements of the dental product prescription (para. 567 and 295 of Saphier; intraoral scan application 115 analyzes a generated 3D surface or 3D model and determines one or more quality ratings for the 3D model or surface. Different quality ratings may be assigned to different portions of the 3D model, such as to portions of a margin line, areas of a preparation tooth, areas surrounding a preparation tooth, and so on. Intraoral scan application 115 may provide feedback on areas that fail to meet certain quality criteria and that might benefit from rescanning to generate a better quality 3D model of a dental site.; the quality of one or more automatic determinations, the quality of a generated 3D model of a dental arch and/or the quality of a manufactured dental prosthesis can be affected by the presence or lack of a palatal area, voids, an amount of color information, one or more unclear or conflicting areas, and so on. Method 1600 may detect these and other issues that can negatively impact treatment, and can recommend rescanning of areas where these issues are identified.); and
upon determining that the scanned image data is not of acceptable: provide a notification to the operator via the graphical user interface to use the particular intraoral scanner to take a second scan of the patient using the particular intraoral scanner (para. 295 and 567 of Saphier; intraoral scan application 115 analyzes a generated 3D surface or 3D model and determines one or more quality ratings for the 3D model or surface. Different quality ratings may be assigned to different portions of the 3D model, such as to portions of a margin line, areas of a preparation tooth, areas surrounding a preparation tooth, and so on. Intraoral scan application 115 may provide feedback on areas that fail to meet certain quality criteria and that might benefit from rescanning to generate a better quality 3D model of a dental site. For example, intraoral scan application 115 may determine an amount of scanned gums or gingiva around teeth, and in particular around a preparation tooth. The amount of scanned gums may be compared to a scanned gums threshold, and if the detected amount of scanned gums surrounding a tooth is less than the threshold, then intraoral scan application 115 may flag that tooth for receiving further scans of gums. In an example, it may be beneficial to scan at least 3 mm of gingival tissue surrounding every tooth. Accordingly, if an outer border of any scanned region of gum tissue around a tooth is less than 3 mm from the tooth, then that region of the gum tissue and/or the tooth may be flagged to the doctor for further scanning.).
Saphier does not expressly disclose a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform provided on a particular intraoral scanner of the one or more intraoral scanners.
Fridman discloses a graphical user interface of the dental product management platform provided on a particular intraoral scanner of the one or more intraoral scanners (see Fig. 8 and para. 207, 208, 242, & 243 of Fridman; Scanner 850A may include a touchscreen 852A, and intraoral scan application 820A may send data to be displayed on the touchscreen 852A during an intraoral scanning session. The data to be displayed on touchscreen 852A may include virtual buttons, a virtual keypad, a full or partial view of the 3D surface, a viewfinder image, a portion of a viewfinder image, and/or other data. The data to be displayed on touchscreen 852A may be still data (e.g., buttons, menus, icons, etc.) and/or moving data (e.g., video). A user may interface with the touchscreen (e.g., by pressing a virtual button), and the scanner 850A may send control signals to intraoral scan application 820A based on such user interaction with the touchscreen. FIG. 11B illustrates an intraoral scanner 1100 having a touchscreen 1102 displaying an interface for navigating between scanning segments during intraoral scanning.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scanner of Saphier to include a graphical user interface, as taught by Fridman. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the efficiency of performing intraoral scans (para. 150 of Fridman).
(G) Referring to claim 8, Saphier discloses wherein the dental product management platform further uses an artificial intelligence engine configured to review the scanned image data and scoring the scanned image data based on the review to validate the scanned image data (para. 373, 344, 348, and 571-573 of Saphier).
(H) Referring to claim 9, Saphier discloses wherein the artificial intelligence engine is configured to determine that the scanned image data is of acceptable quality when the score of the scanned image data is at or above a required threshold level (para. 373, 344, 348, and 571-573 of Saphier).
(I) Referring to claim 10, Saphier discloses wherein the artificial intelligence engine is configured to determine that the scanned image data is not of acceptable quality when the score of the scanned image data is below a required threshold level (para. 373, 344, 348, and 571-573 of Saphier).
(J) Referring to claim 11, Saphier discloses further comprising the intraoral scanner that includes a wand configured to scan a patient and obtain scanned image data, and a computer configured to access the GUI of the dental product management system (see Fig. 1, item 150 and para. 212, 213, 246, & 250 of Saphier).
(K) Referring to claim 12, Saphier discloses wherein the dental product management platform is configured to: upon determining that the scanned image data is of acceptable quality: allocate the new dental product order to the dental lab, and send the new dental product order that includes the new dental product prescription and the scanned image data to the dental lab (para. 91, 291, 293, and 591-593 of Saphier).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saphier et al. (US 2021/0321872 A1) in view of Fridman et al. (US 2022/0233284 A1), and further in view of Rickard et al. (US 2014/0249839 A1).
(A) Referring to claim 6, Saphier and Fridman do not disclose wherein the dental product management platform creating the new dental product order includes the dental product management platform updating the dental product prescription created by the operator into a format required by the dental lab.
Rickard discloses wherein the dental product management platform creating the new dental product order includes the dental product management platform updating the dental product prescription created by the operator into a format required by the dental lab (Fig. 5 and para. 19-22 of Rickard).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Rickard within Saphier and Fridman. The motivation for doing so would have been so that a dental laboratory product may be ordered easily (para. 22 of Rickard).
(B) Referring to claim 13, Saphier and Fridman do not disclose wherein the dental product management platform is configured to create the new dental product order includes the dental product management platform being configured to update the dental product prescription created by the operator into a format required by the dental lab.
Rickard discloses wherein the dental product management platform is configured to create the new dental product order includes the dental product management platform being configured to update the dental product prescription created by the operator into a format required by the dental lab (Fig. 5 and para. 19-22 of Rickard).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned features of Rickard within Saphier and Fridman. The motivation for doing so would have been so that a dental laboratory product may be ordered easily (para. 22 of Rickard).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited but not applied prior art teaches augmented reality enhancements for dental practitioners (US 2018/0168781 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights